The Texan Podcast - Unlikely Alliances Found in Texas Politics: Smoke Filled Room Ep. 7

Episode Date: September 3, 2024

In episode 7 of The Texan's "Smoke Filled Room" podcast, Senior Editor McKenzie DiLullo and Senior Reporter Brad Johnson discuss the ever-changing alliances between lawmakers. Over the many years they've been in Texas politics, they have seen bonds formed, broken, and rebuilt again. It's all in a day's work to survive the Texas Legislature!

You know, now time has changed and the people on both sides have changed, but the battle lines haven't really that much. Right. If you're going to vote for my issues and if you are dealing with incumbency, which is very, very powerful in Texas and in politics generally, then they're going to write you a check. I think there's a lot that can be said for that now. But then the complete and total loyalty to Trump by his voters that didn't pan out into them turning out when he's not on the ballot. So it was kind of this one-two punch. Complacency. There was certainly complacency. Yep. Yep. But among Republican voters. Yeah. Yeah, no doubt. Well, howdy, folks, and welcome back to another episode of Smoke Filled Room. I have sources that tell me that this is our seventh episode. Bradley, that's as many days as there are in the week.

Do you have any other incredible observations to add to my high-quality analysis? Hmm. Well, we almost reached 107 this week, so there's another seven. Oh. Is that how hot it is right now? Oh, my gosh, yeah. It's bad. It's far worse than it's been this entire summer. But I don't know.

How is it in France? Oh, it's like it was cold today it was 62 this morning when we woke up and okay if if if texas summers are what we're comparing it to and that's the norm for me this time of year 62 is significantly colder than that. And we didn't really bring any jeans or anything that's even like a light. I don't know. I need to kind of figure out how to dress for this kind of weather when I'm living out of carry-on, but it was great. And I have no complaints compared to 107. After living in Texas for as as many summers as you have now i think it's like five or six has it gotten any easier to deal with the heat after coming from the lush green oasis of ohio lush green no that's fake news um i'd say it you just get comfortable with being sweaty all the time. Or more comfortable.

Okay. So it's more just straight resignation to your lot in life. Yes. That is correct. I made this choice and I have to stick with it. Yeah. What month in Texas weather or like season is most doable for you? January when it's 75 outside is amazing okay January I think is Texas's coldest month I think it gets that's when we get like a

little bit I think that's February your weather I think that's February should we Google this? Hold on. Oh my gosh, I added the correct possessive apostrophe to my Google search. That tells you how deep down this editing rabbit hole I am. Okay. The hottest month of the year is in West. I don't know what West, what month is? You're doing a great job of filling this silence. You're supposed to help, Brad.

If I'm researching and I'm reading things to find out an answer for you, that's your job to fill this space. I didn't ask you to do this. You contradicted me, which then leads me to have to find the answer sounds like a you problem they're all me problems aren't they okay we'll find this out later because all i can find are the hottest months well what do we have in store for our seventh episode ah i got it actually just kidding i'm coming back to the

regularly scheduled program because i have an answer and i'm right and so it really deserves to be talked about right now january is the coldest month uh with an average low of 36 degrees and a high of 59 chilly okay congratulations you were right for once i'm not thank you i will take it and ignore your slight toward me because we all know that i'm right more often than not roll the tapes um brad what is our topic actually i'm gonna uh boomerang it back to you what's our topic today well because you were feeling like not doing a lot of work, you wanted to basically just copy off of my newsletter from a week ago or two weeks ago. Oh, so what you mean by that is that your newsletter really just piggybacked off of an idea I had for Smoke-Filled Room about, I don't know, six months ago? Whoa, whoa, whoa.

That's what you mean? That was my idea. That was not your idea. No. That one was your idea. No. That one was my idea. No. You are full of it. Yes.

No. I'm absolutely not. I am 100% positive that was my idea. I can go back in my notes and find my note and show it to you. Okay. Whatever you say. So since it was your idea, why don't you explain what this grand idea is? My listeners are like, tell us what the heck we're going to be hearing about today and whether or not I need to leave to get rid of your bickering out of my ears.

Okay, guys, today we're going to talk about shifting relationships within the tech sludge world. I think this is something that we might revisit in the future. We might have more than one podcast on this. There's a lot of fodder, but we want to talk about specifically among elected officials, the players in Texas politics, how those relationships have shifted, changed, fault lines have been drawn in different ways, just to kind of debrief a little bit of where we're at politically now and how that is so different from where we're at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13. I think it's as far back as we go today, years ago. So we have lots to talk about. And that's going to be our topic, which is a great idea, thanks to me.

And Brad did write a great newsletter in fourth reading. If you aren't subscribed to the Texan, you aren't getting fourth reading, make sure you go subscribe to the Texan right now so you can get it delivered to your inbox every Tuesday. Am I right, Brad? Does it come out on Tuesday? It is Tuesday. Okay, great. And just go subscribe. It's worth it. Support us. Help Brad feed his dog. This is important work that you can help us do. But yes, that's kind of where it all starts. And I think that the tipping point for you, Brad, and wanting to write about this now of all times was a fundraiser that really set Twitter

ablaze. Why don't you start there and kind of walk us through what sparked this timing of this newsletter for you? Sure. So there was a fundraising invite released on the twitter sphere that kind of set the world ablaze at least in terms of texas politics it was state representative nate schatzlein's fundraiser that wasn't notable in itself uh you know state reps have fundraisers all the time. And his district is not super comfortably read. It's also not super close, but he's kind of in that middle range. So he's going to have to raise money. They all have to raise money regardless, but he's still going to have to run a campaign, I believe, during this general election. so he needs money to do that. The notable part of this, though, were the names on the host committee list.

And I'll just read them off one by one, and I'm sure we'll talk about multiple of these, some quite a bit. Starts off with Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC, Speaker Dennis Bonin, Jake Posey, Reed Clay, Shara Eichler, Steve Coble, David White, Rusty Kelly, Daniel Hodge, Andrea McWilliams, John Caliandro, Buddy Jones, Michael Johnson, Mike Toomey, Aaron Day, and Gardner Pate. or pate so i'm jumping into this mid podcast because had we aired this just as we recorded it i would have mentioned mike to me and then just glossed over and moved on to someone else can't have that especially after what happened so mckenzie and i recorded this what we thought was prudent, you know, week and a half, two weeks early to try and get it out of the way on what we thought was going to be a quite evergreen topic. And it mostly is, but some news dropped the Friday, two Fridays before this podcast is released that kind of required an addendum to the main feature so i'm jumping in here mckenzie's

not on this this segment jumping in to just give a review that way it looks like it doesn't look like we're just glossing over the name mike to me and the reason that we do not want to do that is because he is now the chief of staff for House Speaker Dade Phelan. That was announced a couple Fridays ago, and it was a big announcement. It was massive. It signals a lot of things, and I wrote my fourth reading newsletter last week on this, so you can read my full thoughts in there. But it's big for a few reasons. First of all, it signals that Dade Phelan is ready to fight.

He's not throwing in the towel on remaining speaker of the Texas House. Obviously, it's no foregone conclusion that he does. I think it's pretty clear, though, that this gives him a pretty good leg up, at least compared to his previous position. Mike Toomey is a legend in the Texas Capitol. Most people that listen to this know that already. I don't need to really spell that out in great detail, but Toomey is one of the top lobbyists in the state, has been for quite some time, but he's also served in the building. He was a member of the Texas House in the 80s, where he got the nickname Mike the Knife for his skill at carving up the budget and making his political opponents feel the pain of that um very good on that front he was also the chief of staff for governor rick perry and so

um you know he incomes the fixer for House Speaker Dade Phelan. Phelan's got some problems on his hands. You know, he has half the House in open revolt, some more explicit than others, others more behind the scenes, quieter. But, you know, half the House GOP caucus has basically said they're not going to vote for him as conditions stand right now, specifically related to the appointment of Democratic committee chairs. Phelan has not backed off that position, and so he's got a problem on his hands vote-wise. Maybe that changes. Who knows? you know, Phelan is bringing in Toomey as the fixer, and Toomey's skill and reputation in the

building is going to bring quite the heft behind Phelan's attempt to retain the gavel. There's also been criticisms that it's increasingly intertwining the lobby and House leadership. Representative Matt Schaefer, who's retiring, voiced that concern on social media after the hire was announced. Others have not said that publicly, but do agree with Schaefer on that point. Is it going to matter? I have no idea. But here's what Phelan said about the hire. Mike is a storied titan of Texas politics, and his impressive experience in the public and private sectors, combined with legendary work ethic and reputation as a seasoned strategist, make him exceptionally well-suited to lead our team.

Phelan's now former chief of staff, Enrique Marquez, who took over at the beginning of 2022, departs for a return to the private sector. It's going to be fascinating to watch Toomey in this role. He'll serve as probably one of the biggest whips for Phelan in terms of vote count. And if they get to that point, you know, the legislation, once we see how things shake out next session

i think feeling's pick here signals that he intends to remain speaker and b uh intends to fight back against um you know mainly lieutenant governor dan patrick Patrick. These two are embroiled in a massive feud, have been for quite some time. Patrick obviously got involved in his race, in Phelan's race in the primary. And Phelan's bringing in a big gun to help him along the way. First of all, he has to retain the gavel. That's the first operation for Toomey, I'm sure. But then you get to next session and the budget's always a battle, regardless of whether there's this level of enmity between the leaders of the two chambers.

Toomey's skill in that department is going to probably be a feature of Phelan's third term as house speaker if he does keep the gavel. And so it's a pretty significant hire. You know, those in the building were buzzing about what this means for Phelan, whether it means he's got the speakership locked up, how effective Toomey is going to be whipping votes. All of this is a big question mark, and it's certainly possible that Phelan's opponents, that half the caucus that at least for the moment doesn't want to see him remain speaker,

they might be able to block him. It's certainly possible. A lot depends on how much members stick to the intention to vote for the caucus chair and how much they stick to their current commitments on certain stipulations for a Speaker candidate. So a lot up in the air. This hire certainly doesn't make anything, um, a foregone conclusion, but it, um, it certainly gives Phelan another advantage, another tool in his belt, uh, to try and get himself that third term.

So yeah, that's why I'm jumping in here. Um, go right back to the, cut right back into the main podcast, but I didn't want to gloss over the fact, um, that Mike Toomey was on the Schatz line fundraiser list and that's it. That's all we're going to talk about. Cause certainly some things have happened that, that are massively significant in that department. So, you know, overall, I think it can be summed up as one sentence, you know, Speaker Dade Phelan finds himself in a political fistfight, and now he's got a knife with him. Now back to the regularly scheduled programming. A lot of lobby names there, and that generally is what sparked the frenzy surrounding this invite being released.

The fundraiser is set for September 16th at the Austin Club. So quite a few big names there, and there's a lot of discussion about it. Yeah. So real quick before we start, I do want to say kind of get backgroundraisers usually both in district and down in Austin tapping into money as much as possible. Of course, there can be criticisms of, okay, if you're grassroots, why do you want lobby donating to you? Doesn't that mean you're bought and paid for? If a lobbyist is donating to you, it means they're not donating to your opponent. And that's a big win, right? Also, lobbyists, many lobbyists are really just, they really just care

about their issue. They care about your vote. We've talked about this in previous episodes of Smoke-Filled Room, but that's important to note too, is that sometimes all they care about is whether or not you voted for the bill that they care about, whether or not you voted, whether or not your vote aligned with their client that they represent. They usually represent more than one client or have a bill that they're watching. And so when it comes time for campaign season, either you have a hired campaign manager or excuse me, a hired fundraiser, or you have your campaign manager, consultant, whoever it is, approach folks. Oftentimes people just volunteer to help host a fundraiser for you. Basically

hosting a fundraiser entails writing a check, maybe helping with event cost and showing up. That's typically what that looks like. And it really is symbolic of your support. So if a lobbyist is saying, hey, Representative Schatzlein, you voted for my bill last session. I want to host a fundraiser for you. Let's make this strong. Let's find other folks who might make this kind of a diverse group of supporters so that we can show some strength here. And that's really what this comes down to, is showing strength. These names are very symbolic. It just comes down to showing folks, this might be a surprising name to see on a list, and they're supporting me. Like, bring it on. And that's typically how it all goes down. And these people show up,

other folks show up, lobbies drop by, they literally drop off a check, they stay for 15, 30 minutes, and they leave. That's just kind of how this works. Anything to add on that front, just as far as the logistics of a fundraiser like this, and why it's even notable that names are on a list. It really just comes down to down to the symbolism well i don't think it applies to anything anyone on this particular list but you know you can sometimes have a figurehead on there that is just for um you know shock appeal you know whether it's a big elected official um you know john had a fundraiser the other week for with uh g Greg Abbott as the main, the feature of this event. But he also had Ted Cruz on it.

Ted Cruz might have gone. I have no idea. But, you know, it's possible that Ted Cruz didn't even show up. His name was just added there to show support and, you know, rally the masses. And wouldn't you say typically those types of fundraisers are typically in districts to get folks to come, right? I think Abbott would be more of an Austin-centric or a name that you might find at an Austin club fundraiser headlining an event.

But in district, I think, is a lot of times where those big elected officials come into play to get folks there. Well, because think about it. That's who draws the average activist, whether they're more of a money guy or knocking doors activist. Depends on who you're trying to attract to this particular fundraiser. But, you know, for in district people,, what draws them is a big name like Governor Abbott. They don't get to see the governor all the time. For these lobbyists, you know, they, if they don't have a direct line to the governor, which, you know, a couple of these guys do, at least on this, on this list, they see the governor pretty frequently or talk to him

fairly frequently, or at least his team. So it's not as much of a draw to have the governor, in my opinion, headlining a fundraiser in Austin for Nate Schatzlein as it is having him headline a fundraiser for John Lujan and district. It can also, in that case, it also signals the importance the governor places on this race. You're not going to see Governor Abbott do a fundraiser for Nate Schatzlein because that district really isn't up for grabs. Schatzlein can't take it for granted and he still has to run a race, but he's not like Lujan where he might lose. So, you know, the governor is not going to go do that. But, yeah, so this one is definitely lobby heavy, which because of the last definitely year in Texas politics, year and a half, but also the prevailing context before that related to Schatzlein's faction in the Republican Party,

you know, that they've been traditionally on the outs with lobby, and they've traditionally kept lobby on the outs with them, you know, like the taxpayer-funded lobbying issue is a big one, especially for this faction of the party. You know, our boss, Connie, when she was in the Senate, she banned taxpayer-funded lobbyists from her office. And that's not all lobbyists, but a lot of these guys have public, local government clients, and that dovetails with this political issue. So the fact that Schatzlein drew so many lobbyists here is pretty notable. Yeah, let's talk about that 30,000-foot perspective.

I mean, you alluded to it, but quickly give us like a 60-second rundown of Schatzlein and his place in the Republican Party right now and that prevailing context you were talking about. Yeah, so Schatzlein, he was one of three members to vote against. He's currently a freshman, was one of three members to vote against Phelan for Speaker last time around. Of course, it was Tony Tenderholt who was running against Phelan. Then you had Brian Slayton, who obviously is no longer in the legislature anymore because of that scandal after he was expelled, first one in 100 years to be. And Schatzlein was the other one.

And in his speech on the floor, he said, I'm going to vote for Tinderholt, and he went to great lengths stating, I don't have anything personal against the speaker. This is just a principal vote, and that's where I'm coming down. But during the session and all the conflicts that happened therein, he found himself, joined this group of four members who were the hell raisers in the chamber, among Republicans at least. Tenderholtz there, Schatzlein, the chamber, among Republicans at least. Tinder holds there. Schatzlein, Brian Harrison, and Steve Toth.

And they were the first ones to call for Phelan's ouster as speaker. And I think that all really rolled out after impeachment, the impeachment vote of Paxton, or at least in that time frame between the General Investigating Committee recommending impeachment and the actual vote itself. And then, you know, they maintained a very vocal opposing position to Phelan and House leadership. You know, they very much bashed anyone associated with House leadership and the House in general that did not curry much favor

with most of their colleagues. And then they started campaigning against a lot of members after the school choice vote. And when Governor Abbott decided to get involved in these races, they didn't just stick with Abbott. They also backed some members who did not have Abbott's endorsement but were opposed to the impeachment. One that comes to mind is Mitch Little, who defeated Karanda Timesh.

They were on the road constantly doing this bus tour, campaigning for these opponents, these challengers to House incumbents. So now after all of this, obviously, actually, I missed a pretty big data point. dade phelan was one they campaigned against and they were real sure they were going to get they were going to oust him and at least you know electorally didn't happen and they came close and they came very close very close um obviously went to a runoff and phelan won by it was like 366 votes. So now they've got their next opportunity to prevent him from being speaker again. And that's really what everyone cares about more than anything else, whichever side you fall on this. And it's what I wrote in the newsletter.

The takeaway I have from this is not that, you know, these mass, these overarching political wins are changing. It's more of, well, look at the growing influence of the faction of the party that Schatzlein represents. And it's growing because they won so many seats. You know, they have, what was it, 25 or so people that signed the contract with Texas? That's those four members and then a bunch of incoming members. So that at least gives them a much larger footprint than they had before in terms of a voting block. Whether they all stick together, that's a different question. I don't know. We'll see. But you can bet a lot of them will stick together. And Schatzlein, Harrison, Tenderholt, and Toth, they're all kind of leading that faction. And so this shows, you know, lobby is flexible and they want their stuff to pass

more than anything else. You know, they may have their personal opinions about the direction of the party and how much certain officials deserve to remain in their positions or, you know, this broader political fight. I'm sure they have their opinions, but ultimately they need their clients, what their client, their client's wish list to get done. And, you know, there's a lot of speculation about, let's say, Phelan does win. Is everything dead? I mean, that's certainly possible given the feud between Phelan and Patrick, the lieutenant governor.

And they don't want that because they need stuff to pass. That's their job is to get these things through. So that was my biggest takeaway from this, but it kind of turned into this broader theme of shifting alliances within the political universe. And that happens a lot, that happens all the time, but it's always interesting to stop and look back and see just how much things have changed absolutely which is why it's so fun to do this today um that was a really good 60 second synopsis by the way i just want to commend you on um your 60 second synopsis yeah you did a really good job um no

really that that was really good context i think when i saw this invite come through i think the the thing i was supposed of passive aggressive geez no i think that was just aggressive fred i think you can give me that i think you need to improve your eq i have so many thoughts anyway continue okay great so um I think when I first saw this invite come out Bradley my big takeaways are the names that stood out most to me were the TLR and the bond enough at all let me explain TLR obviously was um gosh where do we even start with TLR and the political dynamics in the last year? But throughout impeachment, the attempted impeachment of the

current Attorney General Ken Paxton last summer, there was very much conflict between the Attorney General, those who support him and texans for lawsuit reform and there are a myriad of reasons as to why but we don't have time to go into all of them today that's another one i didn't even mention in this in this newsletter that uh that tlr if they're not the biggest donor to paxton over his career they're among the biggest yeah and now they're oh yeah totally totally i Paxton over his career, they're among the biggest. Yeah. And now they're – Oh, yeah.

Totally. Now they're totally – I can't believe I didn't even think of – But that's why I think, Brad, this is going to be an easy enough recurring topic for us or like theme because there is so much that we could go into with this. And we'll keep – like I think we just need to start a running list of the changing dynamics. And folks, if you have ideas for us about, okay, the dynamics between these two groups, these factions, these people have changed, let us know. Maybe we'll go into it. But TLR, huge one because Schatz's line very much is aligned with the pro-Paxton crowd.

So them listed as the number one host for this event. Very fascinating. Very, very fascinating. I think it behooves both parties to be amicable and friendly, right? I mean, there's a lot that can be benefited from both parties there. I also think that the other name that was big for me and surprising was Bonnen and his lobby partner, because I think we're looking at somebody who very much is aligned with the MQS group of the party that directly was had a hand in, well, you could argue Bonnen was the one who had a hand in his downfall, right? But that was the conflict was between MQS and Bonin. It takes two to tango. And there was a lot going on there.

And that was several years ago. That was like our first year in existence. It was 2019 when Bonin had a closed door meeting with Dustin Burroughs, the GOP caucus chairman at the time, as well as Michael Quinn Sullivan, otherwise known as MQS at the time, the leader of Empower Texans, which is now Texas Scorecard, and essentially had a meeting where he said, hey, I'll give your group media credentials if you explicitly target 10 Republicans that I also want removed from the chamber and limit it to that like don't go after any other guys just stick with those 10 mqs recorded the conversation released it bonin throughout the entire uh scandal denied denied denied that it happened came out he was

lying it was a horrible situation um or not horrible actually i think it was incredibly entertaining as a reporter at the time it was an unbelievable beat to be following oh my gosh it was so unbelievably interesting every single day it was really really fascinating um but that happened right and so you have somebody who's very much aligned with texas scorecard and who empower texans is morphed into now. A lot of the same folks, a lot of the same aims, but Scorecard is kind of where they've distilled their influence. And Schatzlein's very much aligned with them. You have Bonin on the list of his fundraiser. That is fascinating. And you can't tell me otherwise.

Like that is an unbelievably fascinating development. And I would give so much money to be a fly on the wall for these conversations of saying, hey, I'm gonna sponsor your fundraiser. Put me on the host list. And what that kind of conversation would be like for these folks. Those were the two big names

that were particularly interesting for me. Any others that stood out for you or any other commentary to add to that? Yeah. You know, Shara Eichler, you kind of mentioned that's Bonin's lobby partner. She used to be a staffer for him. Then you got Daniel Hodge, who is, I don't know if he still is, but he at least has in recent years been, like, the most prolific lobbyist in the state of Texas. He used to be Abbott's, I believe, chief of staff.

And he's been in the lobby for years now and has a lot of clients. Then you've got Buddy Jones at Hilco, one of the biggest lobby firms in the city. Another snooge name. Right. Yep. And these lobbyists, they're flexible, but they also do fit a general flavor of the Republican Party, maybe not the Republican Party, but of the political dynamic right now. And I don't think you could have ever,

you would have ever projected a few years ago a Hilco lobbyist being a name atop the list for an Empower Texans-related or associated member. At least that wouldn't be very common. And here it is, writing bright red letters. So ultimately what they want is their stuff to pass. So they're going to do what they have to do to get the votes on whatever it is they want to pass. And obviously Shatzline's going to be back, and he's going to have a vote in this. The other one that stuck out to me was Gardner Pate, who was Abbott's chief of staff until very recently, until earlier this summer, frankly. And he took over for Louise Sines, who had also gone into the lobby. So, you know, it's a pipeline,

governor, chief of staff, or chief of staff for a lot of different positions going into the lobby. It's just kind of a natural progression. And Pate is now in the lobby himself, is also on this sponsor list. So a lot of big names, and there are more in the newsletter that I wrote. So, you know, check that out. But, you know, I think the other thing, the other takeaway I had for this was, and I tweeted this, the reaction to this provided quite the Rorschach test. Oh, yeah. For these members or for just people in the Twitter sphere.

Political sphere. Yeah, they comment on this stuff constantly. Some of them are anonymous Twitter accounts that are clearly staffers in the building. But, you know, you had one guy saying, what the heck is Bonin doing on this list? Not a good look for Nate Schatzlein coming from the right wing of the party. Then you got one of those staffers, I'm sure, those anonymous accounts saying, how are you bragging about one of the Harrison

Chatsline Tenderhold Toth Caucus guys making money from the people you've been attacking all decade i.e. Texans for Lawsuit Reform or some of these lobbyists you have another one saying wow TLR and Bonin helping the good guys things are changing rapidly and another

saying ooh everyone's so scared you're all dweebs. So it's the four horsemen of the text-ledged comment section, and it's pretty entertaining to see the dynamic there. But, yeah, it brought out a lot of different thoughts from people and typical unhinged reactions. Oh, for sure. I will add this, though. I do want to make it clear. I, when you said that maybe a group like Hillco would not be, um, hosting a fundraiser for somebody like

Shatzline previously, I would actually argue against that a little bit because, uh, or push back on it a little bit because, um, incumbency is probably the biggest source of currency with lobby. And once you also, on the campaign trail, if you're a fire brand, if you're branded that way, if you appeal to a certain sect of either political party, right? I think a lot of Austin insiders are then looking at, okay, well, let's see how you get. Let's see what you're actually like once you get here and whether or not you win, then we'll figure it out then. If you're going to vote for my issues and if you are dealing with incumbency, which is very, very powerful in Texas and in politics generally, then they're going to write you a check. I think there's a lot that can be said for that. Now, if you are really,

really, really, really at odds with somebody in leadership, sure. Or you vote against an issue, sure. But I think there's a lot to be said for incumbency, returning members to the legislature, and just the political capital of those folks coming back to Austin. And the lobby knows how this game works. They know that after these guys are gone, they're still going to be lobbyists, right? This is like a changing season constantly and members are here in austin doing their thing and then they're gone and you just want their stuff passed so i'd argue i'd push back a little bit against that certainly there are instances in which a lobbyist won't uh donate to somebody because of some political consequences or maybe a phone call from somebody behind the scenes but I think there's definitely room for members like Schatz

Line or Tinder Hold or whoever it is to have very good relationships with these lobbyists. Well, sure. What I mean is they didn't have the political capital that would get them a host committee slot from Hill Co. Hill Co. didn't need it before. It was a group of four members, but now they've got a group of at least 20 probably. And so that comes with it, a lot of influence to a certain extent. Also fair. In their own right, yeah, a lot of influence. So what I meant with Hillco is now seeing Schatzlein as someone.

He's not just a vote. He carries votes with him. And so now he's worth dealing with a lot more than previously when they just had four votes, basically, that were just the thorn in leadership's side that they couldn't really do anything about it. That's not the case anymore at this point. Yeah, certainly. I also think just, and I think all that's fair, absolutely. I'd also say it's fair to say that you'd be surprised if you're sitting in a member's office

of somebody who's on the outs with leadership, how often a very prominent lobbyist will walk in, have a conversation, pass them their bill, have a really friendly interaction that's super normal. Like this is what these guys do, right? It doesn't mean that they're gonna be best friends, conversation, pass them their bill, have a really friendly interaction that's super normal. Like, this is what these guys do, right? It doesn't mean that they're going to be best friends, but they're very much have open lines of communication with just about every member because that's just how it works, right? I mean, on a host committee, it's a totally different thing. And I agree with that. But I think folks would be surprised how amicable some of these

lobby relationships can be even with members who are on very much on the outs of leadership. Okay. Well, do you have anything to add with what I said earlier about how Lobby chooses to support people or you think we're good there? Okay. Well, let's move on to the second relationship we want to talk about here. I think we really hit the chat's line thing. That was really our major dovetail into what we're going to talk about the rest of the pod, just these shifting relationships. But I think this is a great one and truly something I'd forgotten about for a while until I read your newsletter. But Sid Miller, Ken Paxton, they're currently on a rhino hunt and they're very public about it, often helping each other out. That's the name of the game with these two.

What's changed in the last 13 years? We're going back to 2011 here. Well, during the speakership fight in 2011, Joe Strauss had already been speaker for one term, and he was trying to get reelected for a second. Of course, Strauss's coalition was originally the 10 or so Republicans with the Democratic caucus. And that's kind of become shorthand for the nature of speaker fights and the potential for the minority party to have a pretty significant say. And that's something that has influenced every speaker fight since in terms of, you know, the candidate themselves, Bonin than Phelan, siphoning off enough Democratic support initially to prevent that from happening. So the math just doesn't add up. But in this 2011 fight, you had Ken Paxton, then a House member,

feuding and running against Strauss for Speaker. And I forget the name of the other guy that he was running with or that was running alongside him, Warren Chisholm. They both were running against Strauss. And Miller was a Strauss ally in the House. And he ended up voting for Strauss. Paxton ended up being only one of 15, I believe, that voted against Strauss on the floor. I think Chisholm actually ended up voting for Strauss.

And it was a bloody fight, as these things things tend to be behind the scenes, of course. You know, once you hit the floor, generally everyone knows how it's going to turn out. But there was a letter I came across last year sent from Sid Miller to an activist, a Republican activist, about the Speaker fight and allegations Ken Paxton had made against, just criticisms basically that Ken Paxton had made against Joe Strauss, whether he was a sufficient enough Republican speaker, yada, yada, yada. And Miller wrote a letter back to the activist Donna Garner in which he said, Ken Paxton promises that he will be more conservative than Joe Strauss, but the record is clear. At a time when we needed him to stand up for conservative values, Ken Paxton was willing to put geography ahead of conservative values. I am simply not willing to reward that kind of betrayal. And the whole letter goes into great detail.

Yeah. It goes into pretty significant detail about why Miller is backing, is opposing his now ally, Paxton, in state politics. And Miller and Paxton are very much involved in the same political circles. They both have, in a lot of ways, a direct line to former President Trump, current Republican nominee for president um that's really kind of where i think a lot of this um dovetails back to as well in texas is that um mirroring of federal and state politics and what's happening at the federal level what's happening in the state level but

i mean that's that's who we're talking about here and i think it's also really key to remember too that a lot of these guys holding statewide elected positions were parts of the, or members of the legislature at one point, not all of them, but a lot of them. And that makes it very, very interesting. We go all the way back to when Rick Perry was a member of the Texas house, right? I mean, that these are all real life things that happened and relationships there are really, really fascinating for that reason too. And also we have folks who then, like you said, are either staffers and head into the lobby or are lawmakers and head into the lobby. So it gets really, really fascinating there. But I think the Strauss era of politics, specifically Texas house politics was really fascinating for these

reasons. We saw even Brian Hughes back in the day, you know, mount a challenge against Speaker Strauss. And this is a speaker who sat in his, at the gavel for five sessions, 10 years, right, that he was in power and, you know, dictating a lot of what was going on in the Texas House. And that revolutionary, really, truly revolutionary way that he got elected in those ways was a big key point. And even now when folks are, you know, Republicans are saying, hey, I'm part of the majority party here. I'm going to try and run for speaker, but I don't want another Strauss to happen. I mean, that's how big of a deal this was, right? This is still harkened back to you in that way. And it's wild to think of Sid Miller and Ken Paxton opposed in the current political climate that we're in well and you know that kind of brings up this quote that I put in the newsletter um I'll just read it here and I'll go into why it's it's pretty crazy to match up with current day alliances.

Quote, your attempt to compare the leadership of the former speaker with that of the current speaker and in which you attempt to compare the scorecards of the committee chairmen serving under both, unfortunately your email distorts the real record because legislative scorecards are not an accurate reflection of conservative success in the Texas House. Sounds at home. Yes. Yes. In today's political climate.

Yes. And not from Sid Miller, but from it sounds like a quote that would be made by the very house members that Sid Miller is trying to take out but yeah it was Miller himself who wrote that in that letter to that activist and you know now time has changed and the people on both sides have changed, but the battle lines haven't really that much. And it's just crazy to see that and then match it up with today where there's such emphasis from Miller's faction of the party on legislative scorecards, particularly for House members. Yeah, absolutely. I think it's also easy to, I mean, I feel like Sid Miller's had nine lives in Texas politics ever since he's been injured. And I think it's easy to forget sometimes because he is a very beloved elected official in grassroots Republican circles,

however you cut it. I mean, this is somebody who's weathered many a primary challenge, many a tough news cycle, many a scandal, and emerged with just as much of a Facebook following, just as much primary support as he's had previously. I mean, this is somebody who very much has been able to weather those political storms and I think has found himself in very interesting political positions as a result of that kind of shifting with the times being able to morph into different um figureheads essentially of different movements at any given time this is somebody who really is able to um to do that and do it well but um yeah he's yeah he's very politically skilled. I'll also say, no, go ahead.

He's fended off, like, you know, James White ran against him in 22 in what a lot of people at the beginning thought would be a good matchup, or at least this might be a slightly competitive race on the statewide level, and it wasn't at all. Miller just ran away with it trey blocker before him totally i mean this is this is these are primary challengers who came in um certainly with a good deal of support uh in one way or another but in terms of primary support it did not uh pan out at all against sid miller And I'll also say this too, which doesn't, this doesn't translate into primary votes, but almost every time I'm with my grandmother,

she lives in Arizona. She's from Portland, Oregon, and she lives in Arizona now. Almost every single time I'm with her, she's scrolling through Facebook. She shows me just different things she's liking on Facebook. She'll show me a dozen different posts. One of them is always Sid Miller's. His Facebook presence is absolutely unreal. And I'm like, Grammy, do you understand who this is? This is the agriculture commissioner in Texas. She's like, oh, I don't know. I just love following his stuff on Facebook. Like that's the kind of following he has is like very dedicated folks because he knows how to, I don't know who does it for him, if it's him, if it's his team, but the things that man posts on Facebook strike a chord with the exact audience he's looking to continue to have loyalty from. Well, I just thought of this, that, you know, I'm sure it's certainly not the only thing that caused Miller's, you know, rhino hunt, self-declared against House members.

But a lot of those House members, I believe including the Speaker, backed White against him in the 22 primary. And that was very much a House versus Miller kind of matchup. And obviously we just talked about who ended up winning but you know i'm sure he didn't forget that oh yeah and the house is now become kind of known to go against some statewide election officials i mean that was the theme of the entire last summer right that was a wild wild summer um and it was paxton who we're literally talking about being at odds with Sid Miller 13 years ago. It's wild how quickly things can change, although this one's not as quick of a change. This is a

13-year gap we're talking about, right? But it's safe to say Miller and Paxton became much more friendly much sooner than this last year, and I think you're exactly right. It's very striking. Let's keep with the Paxtons here. I think they, like for obvious reasons, really have a lot of fodder for these kinds of conversations. They've been in Texas politics for a long time. There's a lot of shifting political scenes around them. And obviously we have Ken Paxton, the attorney general, who's served in multiple different positions in the state of Texas and elected capacity. And now his wife is a senator. And that creates a really interesting dynamic as well. Let's go back to 2018 when we had two very

familiar names on the ballot in a very prominent Texas Senate district. Walk us through the Huffines versus Paxton of it all, Brad. So in the 2018 Senate race for, I believe that's Senate District 6, right? That's what Angela Paxton holds. I think so. Eight. Close enough. Oh, close. Senate District 8. Even single-digit number. Yes, yes. It could have been further off. That's true. It was Angela Paxton versus Philip Huffines, and it was a very bloody, heated primary race.

And over $10 million was spent. I believe it was pretty close. But ultimately, Angela Paxton ended up winning, and just all of these ads were blasted to the voters in the district, and it was just one haymaker after another from both sides. Very few body shots. They're just going for the kill. And the two sides, Paxton won it by nine-ish, ten-ish points. So percentage-wise, it wasn't that close, but it came down to about 5,000 votes, 5,500 votes or so.

So that's fairly close. But, you know, there was no love lost on either of these sides for this race. I think you kind of saw that play out during impeachment this past year where Don Huffines, Philip Huffines' brother, who was in the Senate at the time and, of course course was one of those along with Connie who lost in the beta wave in 18 um you know he didn't weigh in one way or the other even though he is of that faction of the party at least that at that point had really in large part not all in large part had rallied around Paxton during the impeachment but he didn't come out guns a-blazing against it. And, you know, there's a lot of talk. And that was notable.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. And, you know, people talk, and it's been clear for a while that those two sides don't really like each other. At least there's still some hurt feelings or friction stemming from that Senate race. And Huffines, during the impeachment, he eventually came out at the end of the trial before a verdict had been made, and he tweeted, where is the evidence? And called for Paxton's acquittal. Of course, he was acquitted on each of the 16 articles of impeachment that was before the Court of Impeachment.

And compare that to what he had said earlier that summer when he discussed it with Mark Davis, Dallas radio host, and he basically said, I'm open to hearing the evidence, and we'll see what they produce. Not taking a side one way or the other. You know, other themes in that 2018 Senate race include Dallas County versus Collin County. Paxton's obviously in Collin County. I believe it was a theme. I remember reading this.

I wasn't here then, but reading up on this, that that was a theme in the race, that the Huffines were not from Collin County. They even addressed it saying, we've sold cars to Collin County voters for decades. We know Collin County. We live basically right here. So that was a theme itself. And overall, you know, you just had a lot of enmity between the two sides. Another very interesting side note on this is that Philip Huffine's consultant in 18 was Axiom Strategies. That's the Missouri, I think St. Louis, Missouri-based national consulting firm run by Jeff Rowe, and they have right now a pretty big footprint in the state of Texas. Top of the list is Ted Cruz.

But right below him is Ken Paxton. And so this consulting firm that was paid to take out Angela Paxton and wasn't successful in doing so at the time is now helping advise Ken Paxton in his, both in his 22 race and in ever since. So, um, a lot of interesting dynamics there. And I remember when both candidates were officially in the race. Um, I mean, this was the year that I was on Connie's campaign. So this was right before everything got crazy with the general and the primary. I mean, the big race, everyone was watching that primary was this

Senate race. And I think what was unique about it, one, you had two family members of elected officials running for these offices. That immediately makes it fascinating. But you also had a lot of people who were personally supportive of the policies of both of these candidates saying there's not that much of a political difference here. Oftentimes in a primary, you have what's typically coined or qualified as a more establishment candidate, whatever that looks like politically, and a more grassroots candidate. That's typically the differentiating political factor between two candidates in a primary. There's usually enough of a political difference or at least one big issue where folks differ. And I

think the unique part about this was you had two incredibly well-funded candidates coming into this who did not have that much of a political difference. I think now, looking back, you could say, okay, you really could see differences certainly in the campaign. Both campaigns were able to draw contrast between themselves and their opponent. And I think even more so insiders would kind of be like, okay, this is kind of how I think this person will be in office. And this is how this person will be. And I have concerns about this. I have concerns about that. But regardless regardless these were two people largely very generally speaking coming from the same sect of the republican party going against each other

and that was incredibly notable to watch these factions and it was i remember just watching endorsements come out and it was like okay where's this person gonna go what's who's this group gonna support a lot of them stayed out a lot of them jumped in. It was really, really fascinating. And I think it was truly a primary in which people were in the Republican Party politics so grateful for it to be over because it was that divisive and difficult to navigate for a lot of folks involved in Republican Party politics. And then look back and here we are. And these two candidates sure may not have or not two candidates, two families may not have warm and fuzzy feelings for each other, but certainly find themselves aligned politically in this day and age with the political climate that we're in. So very fascinating dynamic at play.

Very well said. Great, Brad. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Oh, this one's fun. This one is so fun to talk about. And it's fun too, Brad, because I feel like a lot of these were either before my time or right before your time. Some of these I was part of, some of these you were part of, but this one's fun because this is where you and I started working together. This is our first session we really followed. Fascinating. Let's talk about what's been coined colloquially as the Kumbaya session. Right. Why is it called that, first of all?

This is the 86th legislative session, too, for those. There's multiple different names. Kumbaya session is one of them. Super Bowl? Super Bowl session. Now, that wasn't made until the end of the session when they passed the property tax and school finance reform pieces of legislation. And I will say that was coined the Super Bowl session, yet two sessions later, the legislature was back here debating another marquee property tax bill. So, you know, how much of a Super Bowl session was that really? But that is how it was branded at the time.

Politics, Bradley, politics. I know, right? So, kumbaya session, everyone's getting along, and the reason, at least in terms of Republicans, the reason everyone's trying to get along is that the Republicans had just gotten their butts handed to them in the 2018 midterms. Lost two Senate seats, we've already talked about those, lost 12 House seats, and their majority got a lot more tenuous and there was one more election to go before redistricting when they could redraw districts across the state and make them more favorable to to um to their party now some people malign that as gerrymandering it's politics it's there's really no way to get politics out of drawing districts. And it's always going to be there. You know, you look at some

absolutely asinine districts in Illinois or New York that Democrats have made. And the same complaints are made there by Republicans that are made here by Democrats. You know, one, where I'm from in Northwest Ohio, there's a Democratic seat that is drawn, looks like a barbell with weights on it. It's just, it's that strange. So here, I think there's a bit more, now it's a congressional seat, of course, but it happens everywhere. But this caused Republicans a lot of heartburn trying to make it past the redistricting period without losing either chamber of the legislature so they could draw the districts and make the next 10 years better for them.

Now that happened. They drew districts to their favor, and there's a lot of argument that they could have made more seats in the House competitive and therefore been able to grow their majority, but they would have had tougher races in those seats. So they opted for just making safer seats on either side. And, you know, now we're at this 86 Republicans in the House, 64 Democrats in the House. And, you know, it's largely going to stay around there. You're not going to have a wild swing up for Republicans up towards, you know, the supermajority. And you're not going to have Democrats threatening to take a majority in the House.

So that's the context that they're coming from in this legislative session. And so they decided to focus on bread and butter issues. That was another name they coined for this, the bread and butter session. Property taxes will finance. And they did. That's what they focused on. You know, it's pretty funny in my mind that the only session so far that hasn't had, since I've been here, that hasn't had specials was this one. And that was, you know, they got their two main things they wanted done they got the heck out and that was that was how it went um you know what did you think going into this session that it would look like do you think that's how it would play out or

was there a chance for you know other issues to rise to the top? Well, there's always a chance for other issues to rise to the top. Okay, how much of a chance? I think what folks were debating going into this session particularly. That's a good question. Well, obviously not much of one. Let's be real. That's not what happened this session. But I think what the big debate was here was, okay,

was this 2018 wave where a significant number of seats flipped from red to blue? Is this due to an influx of independents slipping to Democrat, new voters in Texas who are Democrats? What's going on? Like, has the demographics in Texas shifted that much for this to be the result? Is it a blue wave or is it a Beto wave? That was the big question. And I think that's where a lot of the fear that these Republicans, and let's be frank, these Republicans are governing and legislating with fear in the back of their minds saying, we're very, very concerned about losing the Texas House. We're dealing with a Senate in which we have to deal with some new supermajority conversations. That's what was happening this legislative session. And I think it's very typical. We see this in

politics all the time for a reactionary approach. That's very much what happened here. It's easy for us now, though, to look back and be like, it was a Beto wave. Texas is red. It's going to be red for a long time. The demographics are very clear. We know a lot about the political persuasions of new movers to Texas. We know that a lot of Republicans are moving here. We know all this information now, right? But there were so many concerns. There was so much fear. There was media coverage that really, I think, fed into a lot of this and really sparked, I think, conversations among our bosses, the Burtons, to found the Texan in the first place saying, hey, Texas is going to turn blue, where lawmakers responded with fear. And that's how they governed the session. When they had a majority in both houses, they had all the statewide, they have all the same things they

have today, but the approach was so much different. And again, it's easy for us to look at hindsight and say, well, we know all these things now. Texas is red through and through. But I think there was so much fear going into that session because again, two Senate seats, that's a big portion of the Senate, 12 House seats, it's a big portion of the House that we're talking about here. So that was the big conversation. And certainly the criticism then from conservatives and grassroots activists were looking at their majority party saying, let's govern with courage. Let's hit some big issues. That will be what attracts voters. And I think that's absolutely not the approach that was taken by statewide leaders. They were like, we're going to stick, like you said, Brad, with those bread and butter issues that they hoped would either persuade some folks that they were concerned had switched to the Democratic Party to come back and be part of the Republican sect of the state or just maybe not scare away new voters. I think that's really what they were concerned about was scaring away those new voters.

The other factor on this. And I think, too, we had... You there? Who blinks first? You froze, your video froze, so I couldn't tell if... I was going to say, the other factor was that, again, this is hindsight. This wasn't unknown going into this, that the it wasn't just the Beto wave. It was a reaction to Trump, who was in office.

But Trump was also not on the ballot to attract his voters, the new voters that he brought out in 16, out to vote. So it was this double whammy, this vehement reaction against a sitting president, which you see a lot in midterms. But then the complete and total loyalty to Trump by his voters that didn't pan out into them turning out when he's not on the ballot. So it was kind of this one-two punch. Complacency. There was certainly complacency. Yep, yep. Among Republican voters.

Yeah, yeah, no doubt. And we saw the talk about turning Texas blue in 2020 and 22, and it hasn't happened yet. You know, you even had the row overturned in 22 that a lot of Democrats thought, oh, this is our chance. We're going to have a, you know, a recoil reaction to this. And it didn't happen, despite, you know, them, Democrats having, especially as things are now with state laws, an advantage on the abortion issue in terms of just the broad electorate. We see Colin Allred right now running heavily on the abortion issue. We'll see if it pays off for him, but it hasn't yet. And, you know, Texas is not blue.

There's not a single statewide office that is held by a Democrat. Maybe that changes, but based on recent history, it probably won't. Who knows? Yeah. Yeah. I think the other factor that's an obvious elephant in the room is the new speaker. This was Bonin's first and only session at the dais. And I think going into this session, which is part of what we'll talk about in another part of the podcast, we can get to it in this episode.

But there was so much hope among conservative grassroots types, Freedom Caucus types at that time were all kind of aligned in that way, saying, hey, let's really, we have hope that Bonnen will be a new speaker. He was ushered in with basically unanimous support. I think it was entirely unanimous, if I'm not mistaken. He was ushered in. I know that there were multiple meetings where Bonnen brought in members that had previously been very adversarial towards Strauss, critical of Strauss, and said, hey, I'm going to be different. And there was a lot of hope going into this session for a new era in the Texas House from a conservative grassroots standpoint. After the session, there was a lot of discontent among grassroots activists and those members of the Texas House. And let's just say that it very quickly bled into some scandals and a lot of discontent and Bonin served one speaker or one session as speaker. And not to mention the McNutt body cam

video and the MQS tapes and members calling for his resignation who just nine months before had signed a letter saying, we're behind you, Bonin. It was a wild session, right? So add in all of those political factors, specifically just in the House, which is really fascinating. And then this is also absolutely worth talking about Dan Patrick, the leader of the Senate, right? Nowadays, he is a grassroots darling. And I think especially in contrast, how he's contrasted himself with the Texas House saying, hey, we are the conservative chamber. We get our stuff done within the first X amount of days of the session. We pass conservative bills.

We get Republican priorities across the line. That's the brand of the Texas Senate. And if you look back at this session, the 86th session that we're talking about here with bread and butter, kumbaya, Super Bowl session, he was being heavily criticized as well by the grassroots saying, hey, Dan Patrick, where are you at? Why aren't we passing these big bills? Why are we just focusing on school finance? Why are we just focusing on property tax? Let's govern courageously. That was the call of the grassroots that certainly was not met that session. So that's another different relationship dynamic at play is the Dan Patrick and the grassroots and how that has changed more over the years.

But that's certainly that session was, I'd say, probably in his tenure as lieutenant governor when he was most distant with that sect of the Republican Party. Yeah, that was my first session in Texas. And my first impression of state politics was, oh, the conservative right really doesn't like the lieutenant governor. Think about that now. Like, just wildly different, you know? You know, we saw, going to another one, we saw Abbott really hated by that wing of the party, especially during COVID. And now he's very much – he's not beloved, I wouldn't say, but he's certainly considered an ally, primarily on the border issue. And it's almost as if the COVID stuff didn't happen. People's voters' attention span is pretty short, or memory is pretty short. And it's just wild to think that the lieutenant governor was persona non grata for his very constituency or a large section of his of his constituency these days and it's almost as big of a of a shift as the miller and and paxton of it all from 2011 it just apparently time heals all

wounds i guess it's almost like that should be a saying i'd'd also argue. I'd also say to you that obviously it makes sense in politics that if somebody is on your side at a given moment on an issue you care about that has potential to be passed at that given moment, you're going to align, you're going to side, you're not going to hold grudges if you're smart. Right. So there's that motivation, too, of saying, hey, from the same side, we want this to pass right now. Let's take advantage of that. And that's very much, I'd say, where the lieutenant governor is with a lot of these folks, which makes a lot of sense. And I think, too, the ability to be able to contrast with what the House has dealt with, right, and what the House has opted to do is an easy distinction to draw for the lieutenant

governor right now. And he's very aware of that. And it's fascinating to watch all that play out. And especially this coming session with, as you said, so many new members coming into the House who know why they were elected, who know the issues at hand, who have seen the polling, who've received support from the governor on issues like school choice, right? Where I think the House has been heavily criticized for not being able to get something passed. So it's going to be very interesting to watch that dynamic play out. And particularly in that we may get a new speaker, right? There are certainly a lot of conversations happening right now. And I think throw spaghetti at the wall.

Who knows what will go on? Ask anybody and the answer is different about Phelan's chances. But it's going to be a very interesting session. And certainly no love lost between Phelan and Patrick in that regard too. And that is in large part how Patrick has dealt with the houses via his relationship with Phelan. Yeah, I think you can sum a lot of this up with so many political alliances or alliances of convenience. And as soon as an alliance becomes inconvenient, it's dropped like a hot potato.

Or vice versa, you know? Miller and Paxton are two of the biggest political allies at the moment. And that wasn't the case. But, you know, there's sure to be more shifts and that's just how this works as politics. Everyone wants to get what they want done, whatever that is. You know, everyone has their own objectives, but oftentimes those objectives,

even if they're different, the way to get to them, there's commonality. And there's commonality in method, if not ends. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, let's hit this last one. I think we've got time for one more here. And I think this one we could spend a lot of time on just because there are so many. We're talking about a full-on caucus of legislators here, not just a couple of folks. But let's jump into it.

I think it's worth discussing the Freedom Caucus and the change in how they approach policy, the membership changes, who's dropped out, who's joined, how they've approached different issues, how they've approached leadership. Back in the day when the Freedom Caucus was formed, I was a staffer in the house. I remember being privy to a lot of these conversations behind the scenes. I remember listening to members talk to each other about the formation of the caucus. And it is wild now to think about who is no longer part of the caucus, who's aligned with leadership, who is now part of the caucus, who dropped off, who said, hey, y'all aren't conservative enough, who said, hey, y'all are too much of bomb throwers.

You have both, right? And I think they've kind of figured out in the Phelan speakership, the realm of the Phelan speakership, where they fit in, in large part. But that could all change very quickly. So let's get into it. I'll jump in quickly. Let's just go through the initial members of the Texas Freedom Caucus. This is the 85th legislative session when they were formed, when this caucus was formed. Matt Schaefer was the chairman. We had the vice chairman at the time, Bill Zedler, Jeff Leach, Matt Shaheen, Tony Tenderholt, Kyle Biederman, Briscoe Cain, Matt Krause, Mike Lane, Mike Lang, excuse me, Matt Rinaldi, Jonathan Stickland, Valerie Swanson. What a list, especially if you consider where we're at politically now and how these folks interact with each other. There's some oil and vinegar going on here between a lot of these folks and certainly a lot of alliances that are still there,

a lot of folks who are very much aligned politically still. But I think that's just indicative of politics generally, right? You find yourself politically homeless on occasion. And this is certainly a caucus where we've seen so much shifting. But Brad, what's your reaction reading that list of names considering where we're at now and what's happened in the last six years? Well, first thing that sticks out is that only three of them, soon to be only two of them, are still in the caucus. That's Briscoe Cain, Valerie Swanson, and Schaefer, who is not seeking re-election. Everyone else on this list is either retired, leaving the legislature, or has left, is still in the House,

but has left the caucus, a couple of them not wanting to deal with it anymore, from the not wanting to just be a bomb thrower perspective, I guess. And then you have the other one tinderholt and biederman fit this as well when he left who believed the caucus wasn't sufficiently conservative so uh it you know it it's it's funny to see just how different it is and now you know you have br you have Briscoe Cain and Valerie Swanson as the only two members left going into next session, and you have a whole bunch of new members that either joined last session, maybe the one before. It's just a different crop and different leadership,

and that comes with different strategies for how they're going to run a caucus. You know, I noticed, I think you noticed this too while typing this out, that they don't even have a membership page, at least on their landing page right now. They just show the... Very interesting. Yeah, they just show the officers, right? And that's... Yeah, just the officers, which are Kane, Ves vasut isaac and swanson and then there's

others there's at least four other members gary gates richard hayes ellen troxclair and terry leo wilson i think that's the counts i may be missing somebody um but you know there's there's a handful of members that are seen as like Freedom Caucus adjacent that don't want to officially be tied to the Freedom Caucus, but politically are largely with them. We're probably going to see a push to bring in new members. You know, who they announce, if they announce anyone, is going to be very fascinating to watch. It'd something to to keep an eye on but what's the next stage of this body because they went through the bomb throwing phase at first then with bonin they had the um uh you know the described sardonically as the seat at the table then they had same thing

with feeling you know feeling when he announced that he had the votes, his list included most, if not all, of the members of the Freedom Caucus at the time. Now they're kind of in this limbo. I think they're trying to figure out which way they go. Now, most of them, they're not entirely in limbo because most of them have either signaled they're against Phelan or against the prerequisite to Phelan, which is Democratic chairs. They've all signed that statement saying they will not support someone who is not recommended by the caucus nor who supports democratic chairs so that they are picking a lane a bit but i think there's still some room for them to to figure out exactly what they're going to be i think in the aftermath of strauss just to add on to all what you're saying here in the aftermath of strauss i think um like you said, you had members leave saying the caucus was not sufficiently conservative enough and wasn't enough representation of their portion of

the party. And they were concerned about procedural things. There was a lot of concern about Strauss's leadership of the body among a lot of Republicans, but certainly specifically this portion of the party. And they think at that point with how Strauss was elected, with his approach to the chamber, it was very easy politically for them to go against the speaker, right? I mean, that was a very easy political move if you are in any like the top 20% of the Republican caucus in terms of your voting record and conservatism, the Rice University rankings, like you name it, right? That was a pretty, it was a good move for you. And I think once Bonin came into play, that conversation changed, right? That was a pretty, it was a good move for you. And I think once Bonin came into play, that conversation changed, right? Where people were saying, okay,

are we going to, do we need to even have this approach anymore? Do we need to be bomb throwers? Do we have a speaker now who is sympathetic to our cause? Like, is somebody going to wield the gavel and be more of a procedural speaker, let things through that have a lot of support? Or are we going to have somebody who has an agenda? That was the conversations behind the scenes. And when there was disagreement about that, you had the break off of those more conservative members who wanted to bomb throw and continue to do so. And you had other folks saying, I'm sufficiently appeased by our new speaker. I don't think we really need to caucus like this anymore. So I'm out too, right? You had both kind

of extremes, quote unquote, within the caucus, not extreme because it's part of our public caucus, but both sides of that argument opting to leave. And I think it's also worth noting too, that this is a caucus, there is a state freedom caucus network that a lot of state legislative freedom caucuses can opt to join and they receive support. They're usually metrics that, you know, policies that they are in support of, approaches that they are in support of different issues that they have to be in line with. And notably, the Texas Freedom Caucus has not opted to join that organization, which there's a lot of discussion about why that is. But that's notable, right, that they were kind of an independent caucus in that way, doing their own thing and not aligning or opting to be affiliated with that national organization. It's just wild. And to think about Jeff Leach now being part of the Freedom Caucus then with a lot of these members,

that's a really interesting name, right, to talk about. Well, and, you know, you mentioned the shift in priority on strategy and, you know, you can take it up even another step from... Yeah. That's the big discussion here is Zanely's strategy. Absolutely. But take it up to another level with Phelan. You had Matt Schaefer, the head of the Freedom Caucus in 21. Maybe he wasn't the head of the Freedom Caucus that year, but he was the founding chair and then he now, or he was until very recently. Last session, he was the chair.

But authoring constitutional carry on the floor, carrying that through, ushering it through the process, and through a very long debate on the floor, committee process, you also had Briscoe Cain given chairmanship not only in 21, but also in 23. So, you know, the talk about the seat of the table, and they did have that. Whether it was deemed sufficient enough, that's a different debate. And whether other things happened that caused breakdowns of relationships between them and leadership, that's also different, and that's very much playing out right now too. You have the entire group essentially, without being explicit about it, as explicit as Schatzlein and his faction opposing the Speaker of the House. So it all comes down to strategy, and it always will.

But, you know, that shifts. The conditions surrounding this shift all the time, and these members are people too. They respond to actions and reactions and all this stuff. So there's more to come in this development i mean we i feel like we could talk about the freedom caucus for so long because this is like i already said this is a huge group of people who have been part of or affiliated with or i don't know um are still part of this group so there's there are so many different personalities at play some of them are still in ledge some of them are not there's just a lot there to consider

but um and there are more names too i mean we have we have other folks that we could go into shifting relationships like i said i think we'll just continue to have this conversation on the pod it could be kind of a recurring theme episode is just shifting relationships of folks in state politics but um brother any final thoughts i'm sure it goes way back farther than you know what we just talked about so you mentioned at the top or close to the top sending us ideas about this just for our own edification you know that would be fascinating to see examples of this, extreme examples of this, of course, from, you know, years past that we didn't even touch. Oh, yeah. We are – I think it's really crazy how often people cycle in and out of Texas politics. Like in some ways, I think Brad, now that you've been around and I've been around as long as we have, it's kind of crazy to watch folks no longer work in Texas

politics. So in some ways it's like, man, we have, we've been around for a little while, but also at the exact same time, we have not. And there's so many people who've been around so much longer than we have and have so much more context than we have. And I think I'm specifically kind of thinking of like the Austin press corps corps i think that's kind of what i'm thinking is a lot of people um will spend a session or two or three and then peace out and we've both been around quite a bit longer than that at this point but regardless um there's so many folks who are supportive of the text and have been around the block so much more than we have and listen to us and we'd love to hear what we're missing what you think we're off on we just like analyzing and

talking about this stuff and having fun so lots to discuss let us know what stories what what relationships what dynamics we can talk about next and we will tackle it in a month or two or three yeah brad you are such a great co-host to just bounce off of I don't know what I would do without you you capped that off perfectly I couldn't possibly improve on it

oh wow look at you waxing eloquence now about I'm trying to improve my EQ Brad we all know you need it well folks thank you so much for listening to the podcast another episode of smoke filled room in the books and we will catch you in four weeks thanks so much y'all