Is taxpayer-funded lobbying a bigger problem than many Texans suspect? It certainly seems so based on one Dallas city councilmember’s recent verbal slip-up.
On August 27, 2025, the Dallas city council held a regular hearing to discuss public business, including an agenda item (#51) to: “Authorize a two-year personal services contract, with one two-year renewal option with Lorena I. Campos dba Campos Consulting Group, LLC for state legislative and information services for the period August 27, 2025 through August 26, 2027 – Not to exceed $372,000.00.” During this item’s deliberation, councilmember Paula Blackmon offered up a defense of this contract lobbyist’s six-figure pay-day, saying (beginning 3:37:33 mark):
“She’s got a group of people—being from West Texas—that she can touch because I asked her to help me, ya know, with those senators, having property out there…she is a value to our team, no doubt.” [emphasis mine]
Whether or not this public admission was intentional remains unclear, but what this statement indicates is that a Dallas city councilmember “us[ed] the city’s taxpayer-funded lobbyists to defend her private land interests in West Texas.” If accurate, then this incident represents a major breach of public trust and a gross misuse of public money. It’s also very likely an ethics code violation.
According to Sec. 12A-1 of Dallas’ Code of Ethics:
“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the city that the proper operation of democratic government requires that:
(1) city officials and employees be independent, impartial, and responsible only to the people of the city;
(2) governmental decisions and policy be made using the proper procedures of the governmental structure;
(3) except as provided in the Dallas City Charter, no city official or employee shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, or engage in any business, transaction, or professional activity; or incur any obligation of any nature that is in conflict with the proper discharge of the city official’s or employee’s duties in the public interest;
(4) public office not be used for personal gain; and
(5) the city council at all times be maintained as a nonpartisan body.”
Based on an initial reading, items (1), (2), (3), and (4) have arguably been trespassed to some degree, with the most egregious violation occurring with respect to (4). It’s yet to be seen what action, if any, the city takes in this case.
Ethical concerns aside, there is another wrinkle to this story.
During 89th Regular Session, the House Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs held a public hearing to consider the merits of House Bill 223, a bill to require municipalities to implement a “competitive bidding process” for their lobby contracts. Under current law, cities are exempt from the requirement to use a competitive bidding process “for personal, professional, or planning services, which may include lobbying contracts…as a result, these contracts, which are often worth significant sums of public money, can be awarded without proper oversight, without open competition, and without ensuring taxpayers get the best value for their hard-earned dollars and thus run a risk that the contracts will be awarded based on who you know, not what you know, allowing municipalities to circumvent the very safeguards designed to prevent conflicts of interest, favoritism, and wasteful spending.” HB 223 sought to eliminate this exemption and nudge municipal policy in a better direction.
At the House hearing, only one person spoke against the bill: Councilmember Blackmon. She spoke, in part, to defend the city’s ability to offer contracts without having to undergo a competitive bidding process (beginning 24:30 mark):
“Not all lobbyists are identical. The low-cost bidder, or cost provider, may not have the skills, the relationships with relevant elected officials, or institutional knowledge that providers might have and need. Therefore, competitive bidding based on the lowest price or the best value may not be appropriate and would decrease the effectiveness and the quality of our city’s lobbyists.” [emphasis mine]
While there is no direct connection between her oral testimony and her public admission, there is a certain odd overlap that exists between the two that raises some interesting questions, the most obvious being: To what extent, if any, was Blackmon’s testimony against HB 223 animated by her private use of a taxpayer-funded lobbyist? And was she concerned that the bill might interfere with some future use?
At this point, those answers are unknowable, but the entire episode is a reminder of how bad the taxpayer-funded lobbying practice is. Indeed, as this instance demonstrates, it poses a danger to taxpayers and the public trust alike. And there is no real public benefit to allowing governments to lobby government for more government.
In light of the various costs and controversies that we know about, it would behoove the 90th Texas Legislature to ban taxpayer-funded lobbying, lest the problem grow even more out of control.
