
Top Texas donor slams Speaker Burrows, House members after legislative setbacks
Leaders for Texans for Lawsuit Reform, the biggest donor in Texas politics, say they have a simple strategy when trying to persuade state lawmakers: 'We never make enemies,' President Lee Parsley said in late April. 'We only make friends.'
But now that the Texas legislative session has concluded without lawmakers passing any of the group's three high priority bills, TLR is taking a decidedly different tact.
In a blistering letter to members, Parsley called out by name the lawmakers he said stifled TLR's agenda and all but promised to take them on in primary campaigns next March. He laid much of the blame on House Speaker Dustin Burrows' shoulders.
[Houston megadonor Dick Weekley and his group Texans for Lawsuit Reform are losing in the Legislature after 30 years of wins]
The group's political action committee 'must redouble our efforts to elect strong, ethical, legislators who value a civil justice system that has integrity,' Parsley wrote in his letter to the group's members last week.
Its signature priority, Senate Bill 30 – an effort to rein in medical costs in personal injury lawsuits – died after the House and Senate passed vastly different versions of the bill and could not reconcile the differences.
'I think it's fair to say we may look at backing some primary challengers,' Parsley said. 'We'll take a good look at what happened toward the end of session and decide how to engage politically, but the people who did not support TLR's bill fully are certainly people who will be a focus for us.'
The legislative strikeout on these civil justice bills marks a low point for TLR, which won massive rewrites of the Texas civil justice code in the 1990s and early 2000s, spending millions to elect like-minded lawmakers and lobby them to pass the legislation. At its height, the group – led by Houston's most prolific political donor, the homebuilder Richard Weekley – was largely seen as synonymous with the Texas Republican Party, positioning itself as the political voice of the state's business community.
The group's political action committee remains the top political spender in the state, spending $21.2 million on legislative races in 2024. The tone of its letter suggests the group could be on a warpath in the March primary elections. Instead of protecting incumbents, TLR could begin targeting members who bucked the group's wishes.
'It did feel a little strange because TLR has basically gotten everything they wanted for a long time now, and the one time it seems like they didn't, it feels like they're throwing a tantrum about it,' said Andrew Cates, a Democratic legislative lawyer and former lobbyist in Austin. 'Everybody else would have been licking their wounds and hanging back and trying to make nice.'
TLR's letter alleged Burrows placed skeptical lawmakers on the key committees charged with shepherding SB30. It also called out state Rep. Marc LaHood, R-San Antonio, the main holdout on the House committee that forced significant revisions to the legislation; and state Rep. Mitch Little, R-Lewisville, who helped win passage of an amendment that TLR said made the bill 'ineffective.' It named more than a dozen other Republican members as well, several of whom defeated TLR-backed candidates in last year's GOP primaries.
Cates said the group's criticism of Burrows was notable, since lobbying groups rarely take those kinds of disputes public. Burrows has been endorsed by President Donald Trump for another term, and speakers have broad power to block legislation in future sessions.
'The political capital is going to be really wasted if you come at him and miss,' Cates said.
When asked if TLR would support a primary candidate against the speaker, Parsley paused and said, 'Not ready to comment on that.'
Other lawmakers responded to the accusations with barbs of their own. 'Simply put, TLR lies,' LaHood wrote in a response on X.
Little said in an interview, 'Obviously, they were upset with the outcome and looking for people to blame or attack, but I'll just say on my part, I forgive them and I'm not offended by any of it. I understand that their policy agenda failed.'
Burrows' office did not respond to requests for comment. But Little said TLR's claim that Burrows led the effort to tank the legislation is 'not true in any way.'
This year, TLR pushed three bills: SB30, which advanced the farthest but was significantly watered down as the session wore on; SB39, which dealt with civil liability for trucking companies; and SB779, which would crack down on 'public nuisance' lawsuits that cities and counties sometimes file against companies on behalf of the public.
SB30 started off ambitious. The original draft, passed quickly by the Senate, would have required appellate courts to reduce or review large jury verdicts, capped medical costs by tying them to what Medicare pays out for services and combined several different lines of action for plaintiffs into one newly defined category of 'mental anguish.'
One by one, each of those measures were cut. Still, even the watered-down version of SB30 did not have enough votes to get out of the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence, said state Rep. Joe Moody, one of five Democrats on the 11-member committee. The bill looked like it would languish in the committee without a vote.
In its letter, TLR blamed Burrows for the committee rosters, saying his selections made it more difficult to pass the legislation. But Moody said it was Burrows who revived the bill, wanting to ensure that at least some portion of TLR's agenda made it to the House floor.
On May 20, Burrows urged the committee members to renew discussions on SB30 and come up with a version that they could agree on, Moody recalled. What resulted was a 12-hour negotiation that Little was also asked to join, though he was not a member of the committee.
The outcome of that meeting was a stripped-down bill that mainly would do one thing: require judges to automatically admit certain benchmarks to establish reasonable medical charges. The bill passed through the committee, with Moody and LaHood in support.
TLR's letter also blasted LaHood's performance on the committee, saying it was concerned from the start that he 'was not philosophically aligned with the business community, and we were right.' It accused LaHood of fleeing the committee meeting to avoid having to vote on TLR's other two bills, meaning 'both bills would die in committee.'
'I did not 'flee' the JCJN committee room after SB30 was voted out,' LaHood wrote in response, saying his opposition to those bills was clear. 'As the Chairman knew, I left to lay out a bill in another committee. Afterward, I returned, and we continued to vote out more bills… I do not run from a fight or a tough vote.'
LaHood said he was 'appalled by the breadth of what TLR was attempting to codify into law,' and he said 'TLR's ham-fisted attempt to shirk responsibility for their poorly drafted, poorly conceived bills' impugned his character along with Burrows, Little and the entire House chamber.
State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Allen, who chaired the committee, put out a statement clarifying the committee meeting. He said he knew LaHood's position, which meant the bills did not have the votes to pass, and decided to shelf the bills.
'That was my decision and my decision alone,' Leach said.
Committee records back up that account. They show that LaHood temporarily left the meeting and that, in his absence, two other bills failed because they did not get a majority vote, but after LaHood returned, Leach called them up for a vote again – and both passed.
The other lawmaker to draw TLR's ire was Little. After the revised version of SB30 advanced to the House floor, TLR suffered one final defeat. Moody and Little were concerned about making evidence automatically admissible, since that requirement is rare in Texas law.
On the floor, they introduced an amendment that would allow judges to exercise some discretion about whether to admit the evidence. For example, they would be able to consider whether the evidence was relevant to their specific case. TLR described it as a 'gutting amendment.'
The group accused Little of reversing course after negotiating the bill that passed the committee. The bill 'would be killed by' Little, Parsley wrote.
Moody and Little both said that was not true; they had made it clear the issue was not totally resolved during those negotiations, both lawmakers said. Little said he supported the change out of 'loyalty to the law and the application of the rules of evidence.'
The House passed the amendment on a razor thin margin, 72-70, gutting the bill in TLR's eyes. Little said the vote showed that the House probably did not have the votes to pass the bill without the amendment.
'There was still one chance to save the bill,' Parsley wrote, referring to the conference committee charged with reconciling differences in the House and Senate versions. But Burrows put Little on the committee as the swing vote, ensuring the amendment would remain, he said.
The House lawmakers refused to cut the amendment, and the bill died. Two days after lawmakers adjourned, TLR sent out its strongly worded letter.
If TLR decides to go after the 17 GOP lawmakers who supported the amendment, it could open a new rift among House Republicans. That cohort is coming off a grueling 2024 primary season fought over issues like Gov. Greg Abbott's school voucher plan and Attorney General Ken Paxton's impeachment.
TLR invested $14 million in the primary cycle last year, but it was on the losing side of many of those campaigns, spending roughly $6 million to back incumbents in races they lost.
Among the large freshman bloc that swept into office in those campaigns, 10 cast votes against TLR by backing Moody's amendment. Those candidates had already defeated TLR's money in one primary and may have been less beholden to them than those in the past. LaHood and Little were among them.
TLR gave $320,000 to Little's opponent, Kronda Thimesch, and $99,500 to former state Rep. Steve Allison, who lost to LaHood. The political action committee, however, gave money to LaHood for his general election campaign.
The group's single biggest beneficiary during the primary campaign was Jeff Bauknight, doling out nearly $1 million to back his campaign for a house seat in Victoria. He lost to state Rep. AJ Louderback, R-Victoria – who voted for Moody's amendment.
State Reps. Andy Hopper, Shelley Luther, Brent Money, Mike Olcott, Katrina Pierson and Wes Virdell all were namechecked in TLR's letter of what it called a 'bad session.' Each beat TLR-backed candidates in their primary campaigns last year. Others listed by TLR included veteran members who TLR has supported in the past.
TLR's losses last primary season may portend trouble in trying to target members who opposed them this year. But the group still has a massive war chest of $26.8 million, according to campaign finance records.
It usually reports raising about $6 million after a legislative session wraps up. It will have to disclose how much more money it has raised this year in July.
'We understand the realities of Texas politics. I think that what we're doing is the right thing.' Parsley said. 'If the litigation environment remains the same for a long period of time, they will all realize that we were right about this all along, and they will wish they'd paid more attention to us.'
Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer.
Get tickets.
TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who will win the White House in 2028? JD Vance favorite, but Dems have better odds
Donald Trump is a little more than halfway through his first year in office, and already people are jockeying for position for the 2028 presidential election. It was about a year ago when Trump overtook Democratic nominee Kamala Harris as the favorite to win the election and he cruised from that point on. The tides have turned once again, and now democrats are favored to win back the White House in 2028. But last July, Harris was the overwhelming favorite to defeat Trump, so things can change in a hurry. According to a Democrat is -110 to win the 2028 Presidential Election. Republicans come in at +100. So while the lead is ever so slight, it is noteworthy that for the first time in about a year, Democrats are favored to win the next presidential election. If you think an independent can win, that's where the real money is. Independents are +2000 to win. 2028 presidential betting odds When it comes to individuals, nobody has really been able to pull away from the pack. Vice President JD Vance remains the top choice on the betting market. He comes in at +250. Trump himself comes in at No. 2 in betting odds at +900. Right now he can't run again, but Vegas believes that could change. On the Democratic side, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the top two favorites, both coming in at +900. Bettinglectionodds also has their odds. That site has Vance as the favorite to be the next president with a 23.9 percent chance of winning. He's followed by Newsom (8.2 percent), Ocasio-Cortez (6.6 percent), Pete Buttigieg (4.9 percent), Josh Shapiro (3.7 percent), Ron DeSantis (2.5 percent) and Ivanka Trump (2.4 percent) as the favorites. This article originally appeared on Asbury Park Press: 2028 presidential betting odds: Vance, Trump, Newsom, AOC favorites


USA Today
25 minutes ago
- USA Today
President Trump orders firing of Labor statistics chief after weak jobs report
Trump ordered the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the U.S. commissioner of Labor Statistics, accusing her without evidence of manipulating jobs figures. WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump said he's ordered the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the U.S. commissioner of Labor Statistics, accusing her without evidence of manipulating figures for "political purposes" after the Labor Department reported the U.S. added a disappointing 73,000 jobs in July. Trump on Aug. 1 announced the move in a post on his social media app Truth Social, writing that he was "just informed that our Country's 'Jobs Numbers' are being produced by a Biden Appointee, Dr. Erika McEntarfer." "We need accurate Jobs Numbers. I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY. She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified," Trump said. "Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes." More: July jobs report reveals employers added 73,000 jobs; unemployment rises The Senate in January 2024 confirmed McEntarfer, an appointment of former President Joe Biden. A labor economist, McEntarfer has worked 20 years in the federal government, including previous stints at the U.S. Census Bureau and Treasury Department. In addition to the July jobs report ‒ below the 105,000 new jobs that were estimated ‒ the Labor Department's job gains for May and June were revised down by 258,000, portraying a much weaker labor market than believed in late spring and early summer. More: In historic move, Trump escalates trade battles with sweeping new tariffs around the world "McEntarfer said there were only 73,000 Jobs added (a shock!) but, more importantly, that a major mistake was made by them, 258,000 Jobs downward, in the prior two months," Trump said. "Similar things happened in the first part of the year, always to the negative." Trump also accused McEntarfer of "faking the jobs numbers before the (2024) election" to help Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. Trump pointed to jobs reports in March, August and September of 2024 that were later revised lower. Contributing: Paul Davidson of USA TODAY Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.


Buzz Feed
25 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Kamala's Candid Confession Leaves Colbert Stunned
Former Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday surprised The Late Show host Stephen Colbert with her 'very candid' reason for not wanting to be a public servant right now. Harris, who announced this week that she wouldn't run for California governor, recalled her long career in public office and said, 'I just, for now, I don't want to go back in the system. I think it's broken.' The 2024 Democratic presidential candidate acknowledged the 'many good people' in the public sector and said she 'always believed that as fragile as our democracy is, our systems would be strong enough to defend our most fundamental principles.' But amid President Donald Trump's second term, she said, 'I think right now that they're not as strong as they need to be, and I just don't want to, for now, I don't want to go back in the system. I want to travel the country. I want to listen to people, I want to talk with people, and I don't want it to be transactional, where I'm asking for their vote.' Colbert said: 'To hear you say that it's broken, to hear you say that our systems aren't strong enough, is harrowing.' Harris asked him: 'But it's also evident, isn't it?' She then clarified that it 'doesn't mean we give up.' She added, 'Oh, absolutely not. I am always going to be part of the fight. That is not going to change.' Harris was on the show to promote her new book, 107 Days, which she described as a 'behind-the-scenes' tell-all about her 2024 bid for president, the shortest ever run for the White House after former President Joe Biden abandoned his reelection campaign. At another point in the interview, Colbert noted Harris' warnings about what Trump would do if he won. 'I know you're not here to say, 'I told you so,' but would you like to?' the host asked Harris. She acknowledged her correct predictions but said she didn't foresee 'the capitulation' to the current president, suggesting she had been 'naive.' Elsewhere in the chat, Harris admitted it was months after leaving office that she watched the news because 'I'm just not into self-mutilation' and teased how her husband, former second gentleman Doug Emhoff, 'dropped the ball' on her big 60th birthday last October, which was just weeks before the election. Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images