Matthew McConaughey-backed film incentive bill gets Texas Senate approval
A legislative incentives proposal with a star-studded cast of supporters, aimed at pumping billions of dollars into a Texas movie-making fund, passed the state Senate on Wednesday, potentially setting the stage for the Lone Star State to become the next big filmmaking hub.
Senate Bill 22 by Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, would create the Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Fund, infusing $500 million every two years for a decade into a program that lawmakers hope will spur economic development in the state and promote the spread of "Texas values" through film and television. The upper chamber advanced the bill to the House by a 23-8 vote.
The new film incentive fund would bolster an existing program that provides cash grants for films and TV shows that primarily shoot in Texas and hire a significant portion of their crews from within the state. Proponents say the new fund would position Texas to compete with other film-friendly states like Georgia and neighboring New Mexico, potentially keeping local talent from leaving for more favorable job markets.
As per the proposal, films and TV shows that spend at least $250,000 in the state would be eligible for a grant worth up to 5% of the project's spending. Projects spending $1 million or more could get up to 10%, and productions spending more than $1.5 million could get a 25% reimbursement. Smaller grant amounts would be available for reality shows, commercials and educational videos.
Additional bonus money would be available to faith-based productions or "Texas heritage projects," as determined by program administrators. Projects that shoot in rural areas, hire veterans or tackle post-production in Texas would also be eligible for a boost.
The state's Music, Film, Television, and Multimedia Office would have wide discretion to administer the grants and determine what content receives a reimbursement. The office "shall consider general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the citizens of Texas" when evaluating projects, according to the bill, and can deny an application for content it deems inappropriate or that "portrays Texas or Texans in a negative fashion."
The prospect of expanding film incentives in the state has garnered bipartisan support and has been popular with prominent Texas natives like actors Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson, who both appeared at a committee hearing on SB 22 last month.
More: Woody Harrelson, Matthew McConaughey ask Texas Senate panel to support new film incentives
Huffman, McConaughey and other proponents of the bill have argued that film incentives provide a 469% return on investment, bolstering local economies where productions are made — especially when they hire "below-the-line" crew members from Texas, as the program would require.
"If those are Texas workers, getting paid money in Texas, staying in Texas, then they go out and they rent an apartment, or they're going to the dry cleaners themselves, and they're buying groceries. All of this adds to the Texas economy," Huffman said during debate on the bill Wednesday.
Critics of the proposal, such as Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian, have characterized film incentives as wasteful government spending, calling instead for the money to be used for property tax cuts. Others, including Republican Sens. Donna Campbell of New Braunfels and Paul Bettencourt of Houston, have argued the bill doesn't go far enough to prevent tax dollars from being used on projects with obscenity or foul language.
A floor amendment that added an additional boost for faith-based productions — like "The Chosen," a series about Jesus which is filmed near Midlothian — got majority support Wednesday, though Dallas Democratic Sen. Nathan Johnson criticized the proposal as "not a proper place for government." That amendment, and the bill, received Campbell's backing.
"I think this bill is easy to support, because everything that it brings is jobs, dollars that add to our economy, sales tax dollars to help us decrease property taxes, as well as take ownership of language and start putting some parameters on what producers and writers can do," Campbell said.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who heads the upper chamber, has been a staunch advocate of film incentives and on Wednesday applauded the Senate's approval of SB 22.
"The production incentive is an opportunity for us to export Texas faith and family values to the rest of America and the world while growing our economy and enriching Texas workers."
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Texas Senate OKs film incentives backed by McConaughey, Woody Harrelson
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
34 minutes ago
Athletes express concern over NCAA settlement's impact on non-revenue sports
Sydney Moore and Sabrina Ootsburg were surrounded by hundreds of college athletes at AthleteCon when news broke that the $2.8 billion NCAA settlement had been approved by a federal judge. In a room full of college athletes, they felt like the only two people who understood the gravity of the situation. 'I'm about to get paid,' Moore said a Division I football player told her. 'Yes, you are about to get paid, and a lot of your women athlete friends are about to get cut,' she responded. Moore acknowledged that her response might be a stretch, but the sprawling House settlement clears the way for college athletes to get a share of revenue directly from their schools and provides a lucky few a shot at long-term financial stability, it raises genuine concerns for others. Schools that opt int will be able to share up to $20.5 million with their athletes over the next year starting July 1. The majority is expected to be spent on high-revenue generating sports, with most projections estimating 75% of funds will go toward football. So what happens to the non-revenue-generating sports which, outside of football and basketball, is pretty much all of them? It's a query that's top of mind for Ootsburg as she enters her senior year at Belmont, where she competes on track and field team. 'My initial thought was, is this good or bad? What does this mean for me? How does this affect me? But more importantly, in the bigger picture, how does it affect athletes as a whole?' Ootsburg said. 'You look at the numbers where it says most of the revenue, up to 75% to 85%, will go toward football players. You understand it's coming from the TV deals, but then it's like, how does that affect you on the back end?' Ootsburg asked. 'Let's say 800k goes toward other athletes. Will they be able to afford other things like care, facilities, resources or even just snacks?' Moore has similar concerns. She says most female athletes aren't worried about how much – if any – money they'll receive. They fear how changes could impact the student-athlete experience. 'A lot of us would much rather know that our resources and our experience as a student-athlete is going to stay the same, or possibly get better, rather than be given 3,000 dollars, but now I have to cover my meals, I have to pay for my insurance, I have to buy ankle braces because we don't have any, and the athletic training room isn't stocked,' Moore said over the weekend as news of Friday night's settlement approval spread. One of the biggest problems, Ootsburg and Moore said, is that athletes aren't familiar with the changes. At AthleteCon in Charlotte, North Carolina, they said, perhaps the biggest change in college sports history was a push notification generally shrugged off by those directly impacted. 'Athletes do not know what's happening,' Ootsburg said. 'Talking to my teammates, it's so new, and they see the headlines and they're like, 'Ok, cool, but is someone going to explain this?' because they can read it, but then there's so many underlying factors that go into this. This is a complex problem that you have to understand the nuances behind, and not every athlete truly does.' Some coaches, too, are still trying to understand what's coming. Mike White, coach of the national champion Texas softball team, called it 'the great unknown right now.' 'My athletic director, Chris Del Conte, said it's like sailing out on a flat world and coming off the edge; we just don't know what's going to be out there yet, especially the way the landscape is changing,' he said at the Women's College World Series in Oklahoma City. 'Who knows what it's going to be?' Jake Rimmel got a crash course on the settlement in the fall of 2024, when he said he was cut from the Virginia Tech cross-country team alongside several other walk-ons. The topic held up the House case for weeks as the judge basically forced schools to give athletes cut in anticipation of approval a chance to play — they have to earn the spot, no guarantees — without counting against roster limits. Rimmel packed up and moved back to his parents' house in Purcellville, Virginia. For the past six months, he's held on to a glimmer of hope that maybe he could return. 'The past six months have been very tough," he said. "I've felt so alone through this, even though I wasn't. I just felt like the whole world was out there – I would see teammates of mine and other people I knew just doing all of these things and still being part of a team. I felt like I was sidelined and on pause, while they're continuing to do all these things.' News that the settlement had been approved sent Rimmel looking for details. 'I didn't see much about roster limits," he said. 'Everyone wants to talk about NIL and the revenue-sharing and I mean, that's definitely a big piece of it, but I just didn't see anything about the roster limits, and that's obviously my biggest concern.' The answer only presents more questions for Rimmel. 'We were hoping for more of a forced decision with the grandfathering, which now it's only voluntary, so I'm a little skeptical of things because I have zero clue how schools are going to react to that," Rimmel told The Associated Press. Rimmel is still deciding what's best for him, but echoed Moore and Ootsburg in saying that answers are not obvious: 'I'm just hoping the schools can make the right decisions with things and have the best interest of the people who were cut.'
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
an hour ago
Johnson: Trump did 'exactly what he needed to do' in sending National Guard to LA
House Speaker Mike Johnson said he is 'not concerned at all' over President Donald Trump's order to send 2,000 National Guard troops to respond to immigration protests in Los Angeles. 'I think the president did exactly what he needed to do,' Johnson told ABC News' "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl on Sunday. 'That is real leadership and he has the authority and the responsibility to do it,' the speaker said, defending Trump's decision. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said he is prepared to mobilize Marines if the violence continues. Pressed if sending Marines into the streets of American cities is warranted, Johnson said, 'We have to be prepared to do what is necessary.'
