The Texan Podcast - Weekly Roundup - March 29, 2024

Episode Date: March 29, 2024

Show off your Lone Star spirit with a free "Remember the Alamo" hat with an annual subscription to The Texan: https://thetexan.news/subscribe/The Texan’s Weekly Roundup brings you the latest news in Texas politics, breaking down the top stories of the week with our team of reporters who give you the facts so you can form your own opinion.Enjoy what you hear? Be sure to subscribe and leave a review! Got questions for the reporting team? Email [e-mail] — they just might be answered on a future podcast.This week, the team discusses:House Speaker Dade Phelan at the center of Texas’ Republican primary runoffsOral arguments in the Supreme Court case over the abortion pill mifepristoneFelony charges being dropped against Attorney General Ken Paxton after nine yearsTexas Congresswoman Kay Granger stepping down as chair of the Appropriations CommitteeA Texas House chairman’s thoughts on the chamber’s leadership and reforms to the rulesGov. Greg Abbott’s executive order to crack down on antisemitism on college campusesFive arrested for smuggling high-powered firearms to Mexican drug cartelsRising opioid overdoses and homicide rates in Austin and Travis CountyThe race to chair the Republican Party of Texas, with moves being made behind the scenesAustin hiring as its next city manager T.C. Broadnax, the former city manager of DallasThe upcoming total solar eclipse that will run through Texas on April 8

Paxton came out and endorsed George, and then a few minutes after that, Rinaldi endorsed George. So clearly this was coordinated. This was planned. But just those two supportive figures I think kind of puts him in pole position, at least for the moment. Pole position, I like that. Yeah, that's a horse race term, I believe.

And a racing term, like a car racing term. I think it started with horses. Probably, as horses existed before cars. Exactly, yeah. And horse racing existed before cars. Obviously, Brad, horses were before cars. Thanks for putting the final nail on that. I'm sure to mansplain, Bradley.

Oh, yes. Happy Friday, folks. Welcome back to the Weekly Roundup. I'm here with Brad, Cameron, and Matt. I need to stop you right there. I just got notice from the boss lady that I am now off today. I'm excused. It's an excused absence because it's opening day.

And right here in Slack, there is an excuse slip with my name on it. So I'm good to go, right? Cameron, as the former collegiate baseball player, didn't get one? Cameron didn't even know it was opening day today. Cameron, yeah. Yeah, just throw me on there. You know, I can give some play-by-play or something. Looks like Rob's going to have to write all the articles today.

Okay. Great. Well, I'm excited for you, brother. Oh, thanks. Yeah. Another year will probably be terrible. Wait, so who plays today? Tell me what opening day.

Everyone plays today. Everyone plays on opening day? Pretty much, I think. Yeah. That's why it's called opening day. Well, yes plays on opening day? Pretty much, I think. Yeah. That's why it's called opening day. Well, yes, but opening day could mean that it's the beginning and teams start to play, but not everyone plays. From my understanding, it plays.

Yeah, my understanding, yeah, most teams are going to be playing. For a while it used to be the Reds, Cincinnati Reds, were the first team to play each season since they were the first team to play each season. Since they were the first Major League Baseball team. But that's not the case anymore. So I suppose it's possible there's a team or two that's not playing today. The Cincinnati Reds were the first?

Cincinnati Redlegs, yeah. Really? Yep. Do you feel proud about that? That's kind of a cool thing to... I mean, I'm not a Reds fan, but it's cool. But Cincinnati, yeah. That's cool. Cincinnati's a great baseball town. That's mean, I'm not a Reds fan, but it's cool. Yeah. That's cool. Cincinnati's a great baseball town.

That's right, because you're a Dodgers fan. No. No. We have to go over this again. Oh, man. Have we ever explained why I always call you a Dodgers fan? Yes, you do every time you bring this up. I'm going to leave it alone.

I'm going to leave it alone. Cameron, are you excited at all for opening day? You didn't know about it, so I guess not. No, I haven't been watching too much sports over the last few years. You're more into reading really jargony, esoteric academic papers. Which, hey, someone has to do it. Someone has to do it. I'm really excited for your Sunday Simpsons episode.

I'm so pumped. I haven't heard it yet. Oh, yeah, yeah. I'm really excited for your Sesame Street episode. I'm so pumped. I haven't heard it yet. Oh, yeah, yeah. Well, we get into all sorts of stuff. Everything from AI to ESG to the speakers race. Did you guys bicker at all? Was there any bickering? Did Bradley get angry?

Oh, I don't think we bickered, but there was a depth of conversation that was there that I think people will enjoy. That's awesome. We go into the issues. Yeah, the dynamic between y'all isn't so much bickering. It's just chatting it up. It's true.

You two, there's a long-running feud that I think everyone is aware of. Yes, totally. But sometimes Brad just gets a little cranky, so I didn't know if the crankiness came out on the pod. Yes, it's me. That's my problem. Yes, it is. But Monday, folks, send me some stuff. Brad and Cameron's podcast.

First episode's coming out. Oh, is that when it's coming out, Monday? Yeah. Okay. There you go. It's edited. It's ready. Maslin killed it.

I'm sure we're going to be putting out a short preview beforehand. I think so. Yeah. If that's going to be any indication of what the pod is, people should tune in because I call myself a cyborg in that. Oh, great. I'm excited about that. So people should get excited.

People should get excited. That's awesome. Matt said that he is excited about opening day for the Astros. So Matt's an Astros fan, which then I said Brad's Little League team is called the Astros, which bothers you a little bit. I just wanted them to choose something original, but they went with, especially because they're kids that are Rangers fans on the team, and their hearts sank when the Astros was.

They could pick any name. It didn't have to be a... No, they could pick any name. Last year, we were the Red Vipers. Yeah. Sorry, I was going to ask this. Yeah. Matt went like that.

Matt, you excited for opening day? Partially. Matt's a little sad, and understandably so, because I forgot to tell him that he's on camera today. And so here he is. Not terribly pleased with my editor at the moment. And for those who don't remember, we are now offering the weekly roundabout video. Oh, Matt, you're a trooper.

Thanks for bearing with me. You have wonderful wood paneling walls behind you. It looks great. I do miss the hat, though. Matt started with a hat. The hat's gone. He took the hat off? He took the hat off.

The hat was great. It was great. I was just wearing it because I thought it might make Brad angry. What? Why did the hat make me angry? Brad, the most innocuous things make you angry okay but that's really random yeah we mentioned the weather the other day seemed to work so i figured you know the hat might put him over the edge too are we gonna we're not going down the weather route in my newsletter we won't

we won't rehash it on the pod but i am recopying it in my newsletter. So folks, Editor's Corner, out today. Do you want to see the hat again? What? Do you want to see the hat again? I would, yes. Oh good, it's within reach. There we go! See? Our West Texas guy. Yeah. It just fits the vibe. Me and my natural habitat.

Exactly. Oh my gosh. Okay, folks, well well now that we're six minutes in let's go ahead and get into the news brad let's start with you we're past the primary um and we got the runoffs coming up next and they're coming very soon give us a rundown of where we're at with the different races that are on the ballot it does feel very soon but it's really actually kind of far away at least i would if I were someone on these campaigns having to run for, what, two months? Yeah, it's two months. Three months. Almost three months.

Two and a half. Two and a half months after running a grueling campaign in the primary, I would be. Which is essentially the length of the primary is two and a half months. That's true. For all intents and purposes of when ads are run, money is spent, it doesn't really happen before the new year. So you've got two month-long stints there. Fair point.

Fair point. Well, there are 13 GOP runoffs for state legislative races on the May 28 ballot. Those are the biggest ones to watch, I think. The clash over the Texas House specifically is what everyone's been watching. There are a handful of incumbents facing primary challenges, and at the top of the list is Dade Phelan versus David Covey in that speaker's race we've talked a lot about. That's massively important, you know, the biggest example of this ongoing civil war within the Republican Party circle of tech in Texas. And there's going to be so much money dropped into that race.

It's just massively important for both sides. Next, there are four school choice-focused races. HD1 with Gary Van Devers, the incumbent, against Chris Spencer. HD33, Justin Holland, the incumbent, against Katrina Pearson. HD44, John Kemple, the incumbent, against Alan Schoolcraft. HD58, Dwayne Burns against challenger Helenen kirwan this is where governor abbott's coming into play most obviously school choice is the biggest issue and he um he along with the club for growth and a few other um school choice packs including the af AFC Victory Fund, have all jumped in headlong into this fight, trying to flip enough seats to get a majority in the House to support whatever the governor

decides as his preferred school choice plan. And he announced last week at TPPS Policy Summit that they have 74 votes. They need two more. And he doesn't want to just get two more. He wants... Do you agree with that math? I think that's probably pretty close. And frankly, I think depending on... That's the... Right.

Yeah. And it depends on what the proposal is, right? Because there are members that end up voting against this plan in November that would have been for it provided a couple of changes had been made. Now, the governor didn't want those changes, so obviously that was a non-starter, at least at that point. But if we get to the point where we have a proposal and it has some more guardrails, you might see members that were against flip to voting for.

But if he flips these seats or any significant number of them, he's going to have the 76 votes needed plus some margin. And that'll be some significant leeway for him. So I think he's pretty right on the math, at least at the moment. Abbott's camp, the Club for Growth, through its School Freedom Fund and the AFC Victory Fund announced this week that the trio had collectively raised eight figures in dollars to defeat the remaining House Republican incumbents in runoffs who voted against the education savings accounts back in November. Club for Growth also announced this week that they placed a $4 million ad buy, and that is against the collection of these four races, school choice-focused races. So the big money is already coming in. You're going to see big money come in on the other side too, though,

through the Charles Butt Public Education PAC chiefly, but other places as well. It definitely will not amount to as much as this pro-school choice coalition will bring in. Just the political winds of the cycle. Exactly, yeah. And the members that are swimming up current against this, they're in for a fight, and they know it. Yeah, they have incumbency and name ID, but we saw what happened in the primary, and a lot of members who voted against this went down. And so it's just going to be an uphill fight for them. But expect Charles Butt to come in big for them.

You know, some other more incumbent-focused organizations like the Associated Republicans of Texas, I'm sure, will get involved pretty heavily. especially now that we are focused down on 13 races rather than 50 that were on the ballot. So there's a lot fewer outlets for this large amount of money. And so get ready constituents of these districts because TV ads, mailers, door knockers, it's going to be just nonstop for the next two months. Absolutely. And I do want to plug Holly's piece really fast. Holly wrote a piece this week about that HEB CEO Charles Butt and his involvement in Texas politics at large and how several GOP counties or county parties have adopted resolutions criticizing him and his involvement in this political climate right now. And also referencing back previous issues that he's involved himself in, whether it be sanctuary cities or all-age drag shows, those kinds of issues as well.

So definitely worth going and checking out Hawley's coverage on that. Do you have any predictions for the runoff spread? And Cameron? I want Cameron in on this too. It depends on – it's all about turnout, which it always is, right? It's a joke. I was wondering if you were saying that in seriousness, and I was going to give you a lot of crap.

Here, though, there's a barometer with the returns we saw in the primary. And it's just a question of who can get their supporters out, get them fired up enough to be dedicated enough to go vote in this off-rate election. Because it's not, Trump's not on the ballot, right? So you're not going to have the hardcore Trump voters, unless they're also very invested in these races, they're not also going to be voting. And so that is probably going to hurt the challengers to some degree,

whether it's enough to flip the script, who knows. But runoffs always have lower turnout just because it's a less significant election, or at least less significant in the number of things that are on the ballot. And you're not going to have the presidential race there. So that's interesting, something to watch. You're also going to have incumbents try and turn out, especially in the school choice races, turn out teachers, people that are involved specifically in the education in school districts. They're a motivated constituency to vote against vouchers, education savings accounts, whatever you want to call it. But, you know, that's going to have to counterbalance the broader political wind that we're seeing with this pro-school choice movement within the Republican Party electorate. So there's that. There's a handful of open seats, one of which is SD30, which you've covered, Cameron.

What are you, what do you think is a notable factor to watch in that one? Well, just what I've been seeing recently over the past you know three four weeks is with yarbo yarborough he seems to be trying to play to win you know i see him on x like posting like he was tweeting through the say the union address and i so i thought that was interesting he's really trying to be out there and with Hagenbue he appears to be a ghost you know I haven't seen him all that much or if at all on social media and that's where I primarily get my information is on social media I'm not sure what he's doing in the district. That could be something completely

different. But just what I've seen, it seems as though Yarbrough has really, you know, put himself out there in recent weeks. And the dynamic between Hagenbue has all the top level endorsements from Trump and Dan Patrick and Abbott and all those. But then Yarbrough has support from all these more local-level grassroots organizations. And that obviously propelled Yarbrough pretty well in the primary. And it was, how many points did it finish between them? A couple? Yeah. It was very close.

It wasn't, Hagenby was not close to avoiding a runoff in Eclipsin, 50%. Yeah. It wasn't. Hagenbue was not close to avoiding a runoff in Eclipse in 50%, which itself, especially for the guy that's the hand-picked successor by Dan Patrick. In the Senate, who runs the Senate. And also take into consideration, too, how quickly Hagenbue got into the race and entered the race and how late Yarbrough was to get in as well, right? He was a candidate that I think a lot of folks watching thought would be the third place candidate in the runoff, and he outperformed that significantly, making it into the runoff and being very close to Hagenbue in a lot of the different areas of the district. Yeah. Something

else to watch, there are three, I think, runoffs that are probably impeachment-focused. Incumbents that voted for the school choice, so they're not getting opposed by Abbott, but they voted for impeachment, and that's HG61, incumbent Frederick Frazier against Carissa Richardson. Now that one's especially notable because Frazier is Paxton's actual representative in the House, so a huge axe to grind there. HG64, Lynn Sty against andy hopper and then stephanie click in hd91 against david lowe and those last two are rematches from 22 and so um oh yeah and especially stucky against hopper was very close last time. Well, and I came across this tweet from Beau French,

the chairman of the Tarrant GOP. He said he's going to be hosting debates in the lead-up. So I think that might be interesting if that, you know, if there's clips taken out of there or people say things and they can put it on mailers or whatever it is. And so Stephanie Click and David Lowe will be debating. Cheryl Bean, John McQueenie will be debating. That's another big race.

And Craig Goldman and John O'Shea. That's an interesting one to watch too. And that's on the federal side. That's for Congress. But Goldman was feeling comfortable that he was going to hit 50, and he didn't quite hit it. And O'Shea managed to finish second and push him to a runoff. That's going to be fascinating to watch.

And then another one on the Democratic side, Sean Thierry, in a runoff against – How's his job? 146. Is it Amanda Edwards? I can't remember exactly. No, it's – I can pull it up, but it's not Amanda Edwards. But that's notable because she kind of bucked, not kind of, she did buck her party on two specifically huge issues, the gender modification ban, and then I believe the Reader Act, she voted for that as well. Yeah, well, really with the gender mod issue that she voted against the party line on that one. She gave that big speech and, you know, that went viral. And it appears she's gotten a lot of positive feedback

online from it and from, you know, prominent individuals, but it's not. The center-right folks. Yeah, the center-right folks, but it hasn't played well with the Democratic base. Lauren Ashley Simmons. Lauren Ashley Simmons. Thank you. So, yeah, it's going to be a wild ride the last two months of this, and I'm sure whenever it's done, everyone's going to be very glad that finally it's over with.

Even, obviously, the ones who lose are going to be upset, but this thing has been grueling, and everyone is just sick of it. Yeah. I was talking to a pollster earlier this week, and he basically was just like, I'm just excited. He's a Republican pollster, right? I mean, these pollsters usually work for one party or another, have affiliation to one party or another. And he basically said, I'm just excited to get to the general so we can beat them all with some Democrats. Craig, it's fair, right?

I mean, these people, these pollsters on either side of the aisle, they're just, primaries are tough. And relationships can get really tough. Well, and after redistricting, there's not a lot of competitive races in the general. Now, there will be statewide races, right? But in terms of these House seats or especially Senate seats, there's really no, there's one Senate seat that is going to be interesting to watch. I think it's 27. That's Morgan LaMontia against Adam Hinojosa, the Republican. Yeah.

And then there's maybe three or four in the House that are going to be notable to watch. But other than that, the battleground is in the primary, and especially the Republican primary, and that's exactly what we've seen. Yeah, totally. Well, we spent a lot of time on the runoff. So we're going to run through our other stories here. Brad, thank you for that. Cameron, thanks for joining in. We're going to go with your story here, Cameron. Next, the legal disputes regarding the abortion pill have reached the Supreme Court. Tell us about what happened during oral arguments this week.

Yeah. So the drug at the center of this controversy, Mifepristone, it was initially approved by the FDA in 2000, and it's one pill and a two-pill regimen for chemically induced abortions. And we saw the Alliance Defending Freedom had filed a lawsuit challenging multiple aspects of this FDA approval and administration of the drug. And in their initial suit, where they were challenging the FDA's approval, they said the FDA was wrong in characterizing pregnancy as, quote, an illness and deemed the effect of abortion drugs as, quote, meaningful therapeutic benefits. So the initial lawsuit really challenging their approval and also the administration of it.

And it's gone through quite a bit of legal challenges to get to this point. And once it reached SCOTUS, they were tasked with answering three questions. One being whether respondents have Article III standing under the Constitution to challenge the FDA's 2016 and 2021 actions. That's when the FDA rolled back some of the restrictions on the administration and access to mifepristone. And they were also tasked with answering whether those FDA actions were arbitrary and capricious. And third, whether the district court properly granted preliminary relief. And all sorts of questions were lobbied back and forth between the justices and the lawyers representing the FDA

and Alliance Defending Freedom. Questions on the standing of the lawsuit itself, the scope of the arguments, conscious harm when the drug is being administered. And just some brief background on how it got here. It had gone through the Fifth Circuit and there was different actions taken, but eventually when it landed with SCOTUS, they placed a stay on it so they could address it fully with these oral arguments. And what finally led to the oral arguments to take place is there was dueling rulings that happened, one here in Texas and then one in Washington

State. And so it sort of prompted SCOTUS to say, okay, we have to address this. But now that oral arguments are over, SCOTUS will have to deliberate before coming to a decision. And it could really have widespread effects across the nation on the availability of these drugs. So big case, big effects. And yeah, just right now, wait and see. Yeah, absolutely. Big story. Thank you, Cam, for that coverage. Matt, coming to you,

we have arguably the biggest news story of the week, a nearly decade-old criminal case against Attorney General Ken Paxton will finally come to a close and just ahead of a trial that was set to start in mid-April. Give us the rundown of what happened this week. Attorneys for both Paxton and special prosecutors announced they had agreed to a pretrial diversion deal earlier this week in a nine-year-old felony securities case against Paxton.

The deal will result in the charges being completely dropped against Ken Paxton if he meets the terms of the agreement. Now, before we get into the terms of the agreement, I think we should revisit the background on the case as sort of a little refresher. Paxton was indicted on accusations that he solicited investors in a company that he didn't disclose that he held a financial ownership in and did so without being a registered securities broker. There were also controversial details in how these charges came about back in the day. One of the accusers was a former state rep, and a prosecutor shopped the charges to multiple grand juries before ultimately obtaining the indictments.

Then the case was strung along for years, while battles occurred along the way over. Then the case was strung along for years while battles occurred along the way over pay for the prosecutors, what jurisdiction would hold the trial. It was torn between Collin County, where Paxton is from, or Harris County, and what judge would ultimately preside. Add on top of that the COVID-19 pandemic, which slowed the court system down to a halt. A few other worthy mentions in the background of this case was that the state securities board had fined Paxton $1,000, and the federal government opted against bringing the equivalent federal charges against him, which made the state deciding to pursue the case even that much more unusual.

Fast forward, one of the two prosecutors recently pushed for a deal to be offered to Paxton, in which his counterpart, Special Prosecutor Brian Weiss, disagreed. With an April 15th court date finally set and in Harris County, a venue most would agree benefits the prosecution, Weiss stood his ground only weeks ago, firmly committed to taking Paxton to trial. Then, in a 180-degree turn this week, Weiss, along with Paxton defense attorney Dan Cogdell, announced the pretrial diversion deal. Under the terms of the deal, Paxton must undergo 15 hours of continuing legal education in ethics, perform 100 hours of community service in his home base of Collin County,

and pay upwards of $300,000 in restitution. Once these terms are met, the charges will be officially dropped and no omission of guilt is made by Paxton on his part. Both Paxton and Cogdell issued statements on the deal echoing similar sentiments that they are glad that this legal saga is behind them. Weiss addressed reporters saying that his job as a prosecutor is not to convict, but to see that justice is done. Absolutely. Matt, thanks for your coverage there certainly a big piece of news and something we've been keeping an eye on for a long time and most folks in and around texas politics have been engaged with for over a decade so wild um wild to see this all end up this way and matt thank you so much for covering that for us and breaking it down cameron we're coming to you long. Longtime Texas Congresswoman Kay Granger has already announced her retirement, but now she's saying that she'll

be stepping down from a very important chairmanship in D.C. Tell us what happened. Yeah, that's right. In a letter to U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, Granger announced she'd be stepping down as chair of the Appropriations Committee. And Granger said she will do everything in her, quote, power to ensure a seamless transition into the next fiscal year. And like you mentioned, she has already announced she will not be seeking re-election in 2024. And this announcement from Granger came following the House passing a $1.2 trillion spending package, and she was one of the

six Texas Republican representatives to vote yes on that budget. And the House Appropriations Committee is one of the most important and powerful in Congress. Members of the committee are responsible for bill proposals and budget considerations. And the committee currently comprises of 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats who make changes and recommendations to the full chamber. And in anticipation of who will take over this chairmanship, we've seen Tom Cole out of Oklahoma emerge saying he is intending to um be a candidate for the position and already has um California representative King Calvert endorsing him saying quote he's a friend a scholar a conservative and a patriot. A patriot. Stamp of approval if I ever heard one. Yeah, but just an interesting development for one of the most powerful committees in Congress, Kay Granger,

stepping down from her position. Big stuff. Thank you, Cam. Bradley, coming to you. This piece, fascinating, and particularly in light of all of the runoff anticipation and the primary results in Speaker Phelan's race. We're seeing a lot of members in the House kind of jockey behind the scenes and have more public conversations, even one coming forward and saying he was going to run against the Speaker. And you wrote a piece this week after interviewing a more typically quiet and kind of moderate member of the House, and he began speaking up on the speakership. Walk us through your interview with him. So he told me, quote, Jay and Lozano told me, quote,

this is not the time to continue a civil war. We need a complete and total reset with a leader that will work to unite the legislative branch and executive branch to the extent that it's possible. Lozano joined Representative Tony Tenderholt in authoring an op-ed that posited Phelan's speakership is over, that reforms need to be made to how the House is conducted, including banning Democratic chair appointments. Now, the reason this is notable, Lozano is a chairman, and he is... As is Oliverson, who jumped in to challenge Phelan. As is Oliverson, yep.

And then he's typically quiet, like you said, doesn't rock the boat on much, and he's moderate. On the various scorecards, Mark P. Jones comes to mind. He was, I think, after the post-special sessions, the second most liberal member of the House based on the rating system they do. And so it was interesting to see him come out kind of swinging hard at Phelan, who appointed him to that position, and also the fact that he's a former Democrat. He flipped parties in, I think it was 2012, after his first session in 2011 that followed redistricting. And so it's an interesting kind of combination of factors here. And it's, you know, Tony Tenderholt, you know, hitting the speaker on stuff is not surprising at this point. Totally.

He ran against the speaker. Jay Lozano coming out alongside Tenderholt, given all these other factors, is noteworthy. And it shows what the primary results did and what kind of chaos it introduced into the House. Yeah, absolutely. So why did Lozano begin taking this stance? Lozano said he was displeased with the process of Ken Paxton's impeachment. He voted for it back in May of last year. At the time, he also submitted a state journal statement

that criticized the process and the speed of the investigation and the announcement of the articles and then the vote in a short amount of time in terms of introducing it publicly and then having the vote. It's a common criticism of the impeachment, so it's not like he's voicing something new there. But then after the primary, Lozano said the message was clear from the GOP voters, things needed to be changed. Specifically, he wants a solely GOP-nominated speaker, no Democratic chairs, and some other rules changes like the Hastert rule, which requires a certain majority, whether it's a simple majority or a two-thirds majority of the GOP caucus, to support a bill before it comes to

the floor for a vote. The Senate kind of operates like this within its GOP caucus. You know, there's a lot more control by the lieutenant governor from the top down because there's fewer members and they actually have a supermajority. But that's the kind of things that Lozano is hoping for, and he's not the only one. There are others talking about this actively right now as well. Yeah, absolutely. So what are the chances of Lozano and others who are voicing this kind of discontent getting what they are looking for? That's a big question.

Like I said before, it's a numbers game. Whoever gets to 76 wins. And there are 86 Republicans. So they have what they need. They have what they need. But it's not a surefire bet because, A, the Democratic caucus exists. You can't just will them out of the equation here. But then, you know, there's always the threat of a Strauss-like coalition of, you know,

about a dozen Republicans joining with the Democratic caucus and naming a speaker. And that's exactly why Democratic chairs is a thing. This tradition discussion, that's just window dressing. The real reason it happens is because the minority party controls a significant stake in the House. There is no supermajority by Republicans, and so they can't lock out Democrats entirely. And so in order to prevent that coalition speaker with a very small number of Republicans and all Democrats, they have given Democrats some positions of authority that then takes away those votes from a potential Strauss-like bid. That may happen again.

And also, Phelan's not dead yet. He is very much in the mix. Despite what Lozano and Tenderholt said in their op-ed, his speakership's not over yet. There's still very much possibility that he maintains that, provided he wins first and foremost, of course, right? Wins the runoff. Which makes it very interesting for Lozano and allson and Al for, you know, who returns. Everything's up in the air right now. And there's a lot of behind-the-scenes jockeying, and it will continue to be. But we have to hit the runoff result first before we really see how things shake out.

Yeah. Curious if there will be other speaker candidate announcements before the runoff results come in. And if there aren't, after the runoff results happen, you will, I'm sure, see a flood, especially if Phelan loses. Right. Absolutely. Well, Brad, thanks for your coverage, and definitely go check out that interview at the Texas Knot News. Cameron, coming back to you, the governor has issued an executive order to address anti-Semitism on college campuses.

Tell us about it. Yeah, Greg Abbott issued this executive order to address, quote, acts of anti-Semitism in institutions of higher education. The order addressed three areas of policy that institutions of higher ed in Texas must abide by. In the order, it will require a review and update of free speech policies at Texas colleges, requiring them to, quote, establish appropriate punishments, including expulsion from the institution. The order also addresses two student groups by name, the Palestinian Solidarity Committee and Students for Justice in Palestine. I'm sorry, I just ran on both. That was two different names, The Palestine Solidarity Committee and Students for Justice in Palestine.

Just want to make sure I'm clear there. Stating they will be, quote, disciplined for violating campus policies. Abbott also goes on to state in the executive order that part of the government code section 448.001 will be required to include be included in the university free speech policies and what's interesting is we saw the fire Institute that's a free speech and expression organization they came out and sort of towed the line drawing a distinction on the definition that was used in the executive order and the fact that student groups were singled out in this executive order.

And there was also a response from Manhattan Institute senior fellow Chris Ruffo. So there's lots of discussion currently happening in regard to this executive order, all revolving around the ideas of what is free speech, what is campus free speech. So this is going to be something I'll be exploring more this week. If our listeners are interested in checking out a deeper discussion on that, stay tuned for my newsletter. Plug the newsletter. And folks, if you've not already subscribed to The Texan and gotten access to our eight new newsletters and three new podcasts, what are you doing?

What are you doing? Go to subscribe, thetexan.news, forward slash subscribe. Sign up. And make sure you check your spam inbox. Yes. Last week we sent out, you know, everyone on our email list got all access to our newsletters. This week it's your subscribers, as is the plan. So certainly go to the texan.news, subscribe, get access to everything.

It's exciting stuff. And everyone's put a lot of work into it, and it's great, great content if I do say so myself. So killing it team. Okay, speaking of someone who's killing their newsletters, Matthew, we're coming to you. The Department of Justice announced the arrest of five men in South Texas for supplying firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Wow. Give us the details. That's right, Mackenzie. You know, this is actually a occurrence we report on pretty frequently when state or federal officials run into individuals who are helping supply Mexico drug cartels with firearms from the United States. So the Department of Justice announced this week that Gerardo Rafael Perez Jr. of Laredo, who was age 23, is accused of leading a group that obtained over 100 firearms in Texas and smuggled them into Nuevo Laredo. I'm sorry, I'm going to butcher that name.

Tamaulipas, Mexico. Tamaulipas. For drug trafficking cartels. I'm going to butcher that name. Tamaulipas, Mexico. Tamaulipas. For drug trafficking cartels. He and five others were indicted and arrested in South Texas as being part of an operation to supply the cartels with firearms. Some of the men involved acted as straw purchasers, where they lied to obtain firearms from licensed gun dealers or purchase them from private sellers. Some of the firearms obtained by the group include the civilian versions of military-type firearms, including the FN SCAR rifle, the Browning 1919, a semi-automatic version of the belt-fed machine gun that's been a mainstay in the military for eons.

And the Barrett.50 Cal, which I'm told is highly popular with the drug cartels south of the border. And other high-powered semi-automatic rifles. While the flow of drugs coming north is a constant battle for law enforcement, the flow of guns going south to supply and arm the cartels is also a constant problem. According to officials, thousands of firearms are being smuggled from the U.S. to Mexico each year, with estimates ranging between 200,000 and as high as half a million. Wow. Crazy story and definitely worth also going and checking out at the Dexanaut News. Matt, thank you so much. Cameron, we're coming to you.

Some new numbers came in this week about opioid overdoses and homicide rates in Travis County here in Austin. Tell us what you found. Yeah, so there was an Austin City Council meeting on public safety where we saw the Austin-Travis County EMS give a presentation that revealed some interesting numbers in regard to opioid overdoses. They said Travis County now has twice as many opioid overdose deaths than any other county in Texas per capita. And per capita is a term that is used in economic and statistical analysis that means per person. So very interesting for that to come out. They also mentioned in 2018, there were about 30 overdoses per month and quote, now we're averaging about a hundred overdoses a month. They also went into some different strategies they've been employing.

We're trying to curtail an issue, whether it be Narcan administration or a bridge program for those who have overdosed, getting them into a long-term care facility. So there's the overdose aspect that was touched on. And then I came across some other numbers that had to do with the homicide rates here in Austin. And there was an analysis that was done that showed from 2012 to 2019, Austin experienced a stable homicide rate of 3.4 per 100,000 residents as the population continued to grow. So you might expect those numbers to go up as we've seen Austin and Texas see a massive growth in population. But as we've seen in 2020, the national homicide rate did increase 27%, but the analysis states that, quote,

one might have expected 33 homicides, yet 46 occurred here in Austin. And then they also go into some additional numbers they highlighted. There was the national homicide rate in 2021 was 33% higher than in 2019. But in Austin, it was 142% higher than expected. And then in 2022, it was 24% higher nationally than in 2019, but 107% higher in Austin. So we're seeing as homicide rates are creeping up nationwide, it's growing exponentially, it appears here in Austin. And so we've seen people throw around different reasons why this is occurring. We saw a big name, Daniel Lebequets.

He's the founder of Kind Snacks, and he was a big supporter of Jeremy Silstein, who was running against Jose Garza in the Travis County DA race. And he sort of attributed these numbers to some of the policies of Jose Garza. So just some interesting numbers that I thought readers would want to know about, because it's not just something you're seeing as you're walking through downtown Austin or around the city. It's actually being represented in the stats now. So just something interesting that I came across there. Yeah, absolutely. Also worth going and checking out. Cameron, thank you. Now people are going to be like, okay, what about the

stories you didn't say were worth checking out? I've said so many are worth it this pod. They're all worth checking out. It's your new good stuff. Watch me get hate emails about that this week. Thank you, Cam. Bradley, let's talk about the Texas GOP chairs race you were to preview. Give us a rundown. Currently, there are four candidates in the race, Abraham George, Dana Myers, Weston Martinez, and Ben Armenta.

George is the latest entry in the race. Notable, he was running against Candy Noble for Texas House, and before that he was the Collin County GOP chair, a big Paxton ally. He announced earlier this month in a clearly very coordinated manner, minutes after Matt Rinaldi announced he wouldn't seek re-election. And right after George announced, Paxton came out and endorsed George. And then a few minutes after that, Rinaldi endorsed George. So clearly this was coordinated. This was planned.

But just those two supportive figures I think kind of puts him in pole position, at least for the moment. Pole position, I like that. Yeah, that's a horse race term, I believe. And a racing term, like a car racing term. I think it started with horses. Probably, as horses existed before cars. Horses, yes, exactly.

And horse racing existed before cars. Obviously, Brad, horses existed before cars. Obviously, Brad. Horses were before cars. Thanks for putting the final nail on that. I'm sure you're mansplaining, Bradley. Oh, yes. So in my mind right now he's the frontrunner, though things can change wildly. I think the convention at which someone's going to be elected is May, it's right before the primary, I think. 23rd through the 25th. There you go, you had it down.

It's almost like we were just planning on how we're going to go and when, yeah. Yeah. Then you have Dana Myers, who is the current Texas GOP vice chair, she ran on the same ticket essentially as Rinaldi, and she announced her run against Rinaldi back in January before he had announced he's not going to run for re-election. That had been brewing for a while behind the scenes, and finally in January she made her run official. She has a large backing from the Texas Federation of Republican Women, who is a massive block in GOP activist circles. And that right there makes her formidable, let alone as she can build onto other segments of these factions that we see in the party right now. Weston Martinez is a familiar name and a frequent flyer in Texas campaign world. Pole position, frequent flyer in Texas campaign world. What?

Pole position, frequent flyer. I like this. Keep going. Okay. That's good. That's phenomenal. He's the only one that has signed the Texas Pledge and thus could receive a boost from the Texas Nationalist Movement, provided its members are organized enough to become delegates and vote in a block together for Martinez. Now that's notable because there was the scrap between

TNM and Rinaldi when he rejected their petition to put a Texas question on the GOP primary ballot in March. They submitted, I think it was like 140,000 signatures. Many of them were electronic signatures submitted through DocuSign, basically. And Rinaldi ruled that, and the party ruled that, that's not a legitimate way to submit signatures. They have to be wet ink, essentially. So they have a massive ax to grind against Rinaldi. And before Rinaldi said he wasn't going to run for re-election, there were plenty of rumors that some sort of TNM-backed candidate was going to enter against Rinaldi. Maybe that's Martinez. Here we are. But that requires them to actually get organized, and who knows if that's going to happen. But that's something to watch, definitely. Then

there's Armenta, who ran for general land office in 22 alongside Martinez, who has run for many different offices in the state. But overall, there's this constant debate about what the role of the party is, and that's taking center stage in this as well. Should the party chair act like Rinaldi has and get basically in fistfights with Republican lawmakers and try and push the envelope on legislation especially? Or should the party and the party chair play more of a hands-off role and focus on elections specifically, just getting Republicans elected?

Now, there's middle ground there, right? It's not one or the other for everyone. Necessarily. Right. But that's generally the two views of whether the party is on the right track or on the wrong track. And, you know, those criticizing Rinaldi point to kind of lackluster fundraising. You know, it's not – he's not killing it.

It's also, from what I understand, not where it was under Allen West. At least it's better. It's also, from what I understand, not where it was under Allen West. At least it's better. It's better, yeah. But, you know, the party could always raise more money, right? And so especially when you have a presidential race, and that's the main contention here, that you're focusing on taking out a sitting House Republican speaker, which Rinaldi is very much doing, over raising money and building the apparatus necessary to make sure Biden gets beat and beat pretty bad in the state and defeat Colin Allred, who's running against Ted Cruz, and then, you know, all the down ballot

races. So that's kind of the dynamic, you know, Vernalde's of the opinion that we need to actually, that we as in the party need to, you know, do something with the political power that we have, including passing whatever he, you know, deems as important. The party platform. Yes. Really is part of what that all comes down to is advocating as chairman for the party platform that your delegates have voted to support. Right.

Which is a massive thing. And there's a lot of people who don't realize everything that's in the party platform when you ask them about it. And there's just a lot to this. Specifically the priorities that they lay out. Priorities, yes. Yeah, the 10 or so priorities that are laid out. The platform has hundreds of things in

it right so um overall this is going to be an interesting another interesting proxy fight between the competing factions of this party um and may 23rd through the 25th is going to be the epicenter of it um what,000 delegates usually go to this thing? In a presidential year, it's usually high attendance, so it'll probably hit around that. Okay. They're going to be who's going to elect the next party chair for two years, and then they'll be off to the races.

And by then we'll have some more clarity on, or right after that we'll have more clarity on these runoffs and how that's going to shake out. Yeah, certainly. A lot to be decided in May. Absolutely. Riley, thank you. Cameron, going back to you. City of Austin has selected a new city manager. It's familiar to a lot of folks. Give us the details. Yeah, they've settled on their selection of former Dallas city manager Tc broadell didn't is it broadnax oh it's not a silent x interesting well um we've come i think i could be totally wrong someone in the comments someone you know that's the fastest way to get the right answer is to give the wrong one. Oh, totally. Yeah. So someone will let us know. But he began his role as the Dallas city manager in 2017, previously served as city manager in a

variety of different cities. In Tacoma, Washington, he was an assistant city manager in San Antonio and also a city in Florida. And then what was interesting, like I mentioned, we've reported on some of his dealings as city manager in Dallas. It's been fraught with some different difficulties. Notably, there was some disagreements between him and the Dallas mayor, Eric Johnson, where Eric Johnson said him and Brodnax did not see eye to eye on some issues. In 2022, Brodnax's position as Dallas City Manager was uncertain at one point, where the City Council actually considered firing him over handling of 911 call center wait times and hiring practices for the city. But after he said he would address these concerns, he retained his

position as the city manager. And the Austin City Council now, after the selection, will finalize that in a vote on April 4th. Wow. Exciting stuff. Exciting. Exciting stuff. And certainly somebody we've covered in different capacities in different areas of the state before his move to Austin. So we'll certainly keep an eye on that. Absolutely. Thank you, Cameron. And last, but certainly not least, Matt, we're coming back to you. Texas Skies are about to play a celestial spec or about to play host to a celestial spectacle. Matt, this intro is phenomenal. A celestial spectacle.

This is like a tongue twister. I can't even say it. Basically, the eclipse is coming to Texas. This is exciting. The last story you wrote got unbelievable traction, amazing stuff. Walk us through what's going to happen on Monday, April 8th. Well, it got a lot of traction because there's a lot of interest, particularly in the last one. But this one, I think there's even more interest. Why might that be?

I said, why might that be? Well, I'm glad you asked let me explain uh so just a quick question did you see the last eclipse back in october did you get to watch it i didn't you didn't oh my gosh i know well guess what you've got one more shot so uh in october we experienced an annular eclipse uh which is sometimes referred to as the ring of fire because of the distance between the earth and the moon. The moon can't quite block out the entire sun, so you end up with this ring of fire, and you're required to use special viewers to view the whole thing because even the edges of the sun can still burn your retinas um

that is different from this eclipse and it is a total eclipse coming up a total eclipse the moon is total eclipse and so uh according to experts on this issue which I hate to say aside experts, but I'm going to, the temperature is supposed to drop about 10 degrees. Animals are supposed to act real funny. It's supposed to get real dark and be sort of this strange twilight sort of atmosphere, and it's just a very surreal moment during what they call the moments of totality. Now, the actual shadow is kind of a path that will form a stripe across the state, and the center of it, where you'll have absolute totality is going to be centered somewhere around Eagle Pass,

and it's going to run across the state, exiting somewhere around Texarkana. And so the further you get from the center of the shadow, the eclipse becomes more of a partial eclipse. But the closer you get to the center, not only does it become more total, but the eclipse actually lasts longer. And so one of the places that experienced both eclipse passes is the city of Kerrville. A lot of people coming there. The moments of totality is supposed to be around four minutes and some change. And you're actually seeing NASA partner up with the city of Kerrville this time. They're going to do a big event that's free to the public. You got to get a ticket though at Lewis Hayes Park there on the river where they're going to have scientists giving speeches.

They're going to have live music, all sorts of stuff, a live broadcast as the moment goes down. I'm also hearing that hotels are, if you haven't got one, it's going to be difficult to finding a hotel that a lot of rooms are being booked up. Airbnb is being booked up. Texas Parks and Wildlife put out a statement, you know, saying there's some 30 something state parks that lie within the band of totality. But, I mean, if they're not already booked up, they're getting close to being booked up. A lot of people expected to come in from this actually even holding over for a couple of days. And so, yeah, a lot of enthusiasm on this particular one. And I think, you know, while eclipses of various different types and sorts aren't necessarily uncommon,

this particular one is, and that the next total eclipse that can be viewed from the United States is going to occur decades from now. So this will actually be the last eclipse for a lot of people since the next one is on August of 2024, I believe. Or 2045, I think.

2045, right? Well, according to the Texan.news, it's going to be August 23rd, 2044. 2044. There we go. We got there eventually. Yeah. The moment of

totality. Is that a scientific term? Yeah, it's what NASA refers to it as. I guess it's scientific. Matt would know. Matt would know. When you're talking about hotels being booked up, Matt, my husband and myself,

our house is going to be a hotel for family coming into town oh really yeah so we'll have i think we'll have i think austin's right on the edge of it right yeah i think so um but it's monday it's that like you said that monday and family's coming into town and staying with us and my family's in curville and so my parents house has also turned into a hotel we've got friends and family from all over. I'm going to take a hammock just in case I have to like set it up in the backyard. A little camping on the hammock.

Yeah. Yeah. It'll be awesome. But yeah, so I'll be heading that direction for the eclipse. And so it's going to be pretty cool. I'm hoping that like the October one, there were no clouds that day. It was a completely clear afternoon. And so it was just a phenomenal place to view it from. And so fingers crossed, I'm hoping the same occurs for everyone

this on Monday, the 8th. Yeah, it's going to be fun. We'll certainly go check it out at the texan.news. Thank you, Matthew. Gentlemen, we are at 58 minutes already, so we're going to go through Twitter pretty quickly here. Wow. Heads up. Heads up. Here we go. Brad, let's start with you. What did you see on Twitter? There is a North Texas man who is running for president. How does that compare to Florida man? Well, it's a lot more interesting than Florida man, and it's not, who was the guy that dropped out? Binkley. It's not Ryan Binkley.

Oh, Ryan Binkley. It's not Ryan Binkley. Oh, Ryan Binkley. It is a man, not with no name, but with a new name, and the new name is literally anybody else. He changed his name legally and is running for president. Reminds me of Larry Sissi and Kilgore. Yes. And I assume he is not happy with the two presumptive nominees for the major parties, and so he is running as the—we see Mickey Mouse get votes every year. Literally anybody else, we'll see if he gets some interesting number of—some significant number of support. That's hilarious. Yeah. Well, that sort of leads into my tweetery

is in this Harvard-Harris poll that was just released, 62% of voters say the country needs another choice other than Biden and Trump, and 55% say they would consider an independent, moderate candidate in 2024. 55% say they'd consider and 62% say they need somebody other than Trump or Biden. Right. So if there is another name on there, literally anybody else, who knows, people can vote for it. Well, you know, that was that was a big contention that Haley made in her run against Trump that polling shows most people want someone other than the two, than Biden or Trump, and she still got shellacked. So I think when a push comes to shove, people are going to, by and large,

vote for Trump or Biden. Like, obviously that's going to happen. The other Twitter I had was Texas Ethics Commission is advancing a rule, an interesting rule. This was broken by Mark McCaig, who runs the Texas Voice. They are looking into a requirement that influencers disclose if they're being paid for political advertising. So we saw a lot of these random conservative political influencers on Twitter just blasting out messages. You know, Charlie Kirk was doing it.

I can't remember other ones. But Donald J. Trump. Yeah. Donald Trump Jr. You know, all these guys. But then you had a bunch of, like, lower level ones. And I think it was current revolt broke that this group called Influenceable was shopping this around and paying people $50 for a tweet. And they were getting a lot of takers

for it, obviously. And, you know, that happened during the impeachment stuff. I think we saw a little bit of it during the property tax fight, but particularly impeachment. And it, we saw it was Defend Texas Liberty that at least had made one payment to them, to Influenceable. That's kind of how they found it. That's how Current Revolt found the paper trail. But this would require these people to disclose that. I'm not sure how that's enforceable.

I don't remember. Did the Current Revolt story show which individuals were receiving payment from Influenceable? Or was it just the fact that Influenceable was being paid? It was a transaction from Defend Texas Liberty to Influenceable. There was no way to trace the rest of it. To trace after that. But current Revolt had text messages from Influencecible to influencers asking them to tweet for $50 a tweet. And maybe that pricing changes based on the significance of the influencer, right?

I'm sure Jack Posobiec has a higher rate than just some rando with 15,000 followers. But this would be an interesting change. And if they're able to even enforce that, which I don't know how they would, that would make for a lot of interesting reading and more campaign finance reports. Because these are, a lot of them, if they're being paid to do that,

that's political advertising. That's not just someone giving their opinion. And it's pretty pretty it was pretty noticeable political speech is what the argument is yeah it's pretty noticeable that a lot of people that had nothing to do with texas politics that were jumping into this debate so what they're they would be required to report this to the texas ethics commission or the let's say the post itself would have to have a label on it uh both i think interesting now they haven't finalized the rule so there's still some um probably tweaking to do

but yeah it'd be both and that would be interesting yeah especially because this is it's it was very effective and it's probably gonna be utilized again probably still being utilized but uh yeah i'll be most interested to see if this is this thing is something that can actually enforce and make ground on but we'll see yeah i'd be interested to to see the enforcement mechanism because let's say they do enact a rule change like this um you know there's ways to get around that you know it could be just a conversation on the phone with the influenceable and the influencer where it's where it's not we're going to send you the exact wording in an email where a paper trail is established you know it's a more general conversation about posts. There's this issue

we want you to address, you know, just leaving it more vague. And so that tagging on a post or in the reporting. Yeah, it's the establishing of a paper trail between the payment and the post will be interesting to see how they track that. Receipts. Yeah. And every time you close one pathway off. Another one opens. Another one opens. And that happens in all circles.

Totally. Of these political machines, basically. But just the fact that they're seeing this as something that needs to be addressed is interesting enough. And if you like this conversation, tune in to send me some stuff. But in all seriousness, you definitely should. This dovetails with a tweet I want to chat about.

Brian Phillips from TVPF tweeted something interesting in response to a Texas Monthly article a little bit similar to what Hawley posted earlier this week. Party officials in several counties have adopted resolutions against the grocery store magnate for a litany of alleged offenses against the state Republican platform. So Texas Monthly published that article. I definitely recommend you go read Hawley's. It's really in-depth, has some great information. In response to that tweet from Texas Monthly, Brian Phillips, he's the chief communications guy at TPPF, tweeted, Texas Monthly doesn't like billionaires until it does.

Hashtag hypocrites. Hashtag tech sludge. But I thought this was notable because I think the conversation surrounding billionaires' involvement in Texas politics is a lightning rod every single election cycle. And during legislative session two, in one way or another we see folks like Tim Dunn, Ferris Wilkes, whoever it might be be lambasted by mainstream media for their involvement in funding groups like DTL or whatever it might be the Daily Wire has come under fire for that as well as they've been funded by the Wilkes. Wild and then you see this as well you know a billionaire with a different political mindset is entering the same arena and having a big impact on how races shape up. Yeah. But you see it, the stark difference though, is there, these local groups you're saying are

passing resolutions condemning the actions. But what we see when more of the Republican right-wing billionaires put money into causes they care about, there's this blanketing of negative media coverage about it. And they use very hyperbolic language, you know, calling it far right, dark money, you know, so it's a difference of approach approach true but also george soros is blasted every time he puts money into anything and right-wing media loves to lambast him for that soros is in a headline media gets excited about the click-through oh yeah and it's notable absolutely we've written on soros like the. Totally. Him donating to Jose Garza. Yes.

And really flipping that script there and putting him in office. That was a lot of money they put in to a county DA's office. Yeah. So it absolutely is notable. But billionaires in the eye of the beholder, I guess. The ability to – all these guys are putting their money in. You wrote about Mackenzie Scott donating to all these – she's Bezos' ex-wife – to these various causes. They're all doing it.

And if you want to attack their motives or their preferred policies, that's one thing. But just saying, oh, these billionaires are getting involved, they're all doing it. And each side really has a billionaire that's helping them, or multiple. I'd be curious the breakdown of billionaires in Texas and how many contribute to each party. That would be an interesting situation at some point. Obviously, the oil and gas billionaires play a huge role, and that's what the media tends to go after. Yeah, Matt. I have two cents on the topic. Bring it on. So you have billionaires on the right and billionaires on the left that are involved in Texas politics, donating to campaigns, all that sort of stuff. And I think, you know, it's

fair for the political activists on those sides to, you know, attack each other. That's politics. I think what I would like to put an emphasis on is that we as the media, whenever we report on a billionaire from the right or a billionaire for the left being involved, to stick to the facts and not frame one as an esteemed, respected entrepreneur that's cherished by all, as opposed to the other, you know, being, you know, the dark money trying to own the state, you know, sort of thing. So it's, you know, from our perspective, we just need to be neutral on how they're being involved, what they're doing, et cetera. Maybe what the two sides are saying, if it's relevant, but avoid any commentary on our own as far as, you know,

portraying one in a positive or negative light. At the end of the day, everybody has a right to be civically involved, whether you're putting a $5 campaign contribution down or a $5 million campaign contribution down. So that's my two cents. Great, great point. And I think, again, it's not a bad thing for media to report on the involvement of huge stakeholders or big donations. That's not worth knowing. It's certainly newsworthy and noteworthy. but how it's framed is really what we're um criticizing here yeah stop the billionaires for me but not for the thing yeah totally yes and also county parties have a total um have total leeway to criticize somebody's

involvement if it's against their party platform totally fine let's just be fair about it everyone's doing it no great point to matt and i think that's really be fair about it. Everyone's doing it. No, great points, Matt. And I think that's really worth noting too, is how media covers it and our aim in that. Matt, your Twitter here is fun. So I want to end on your fun one. What do you got? Oh, well, thank you. I thought it was fun too. So it's sort of a this day in history, but it was actually yesterday in history from the date that we're recording this podcast. And that is that on March 27th, 1978, Schoolhouse Rock released the I'm Just a Bill episode. One of my favorites. Matt, I'm raising my hand. You have to call on me.

Oh, I'm calling on you, Mack mckenzie okay can you sing it for us remember how whenever we started this off i said that i wasn't happy with my editor today yes no i cannot oh man understandable it would it would get turned into a gift that will a gift that will be recirculated in slack for in perpetuity that was my aim was to get something yeah a little bit more long lasting but that's fair but it is a frequent reference of mine in relation to Texas Ledge all the time. But yeah, fun little point in history there. Absolutely. Very fun.

Thank you, Matthew. Okay, gentlemen, thank you for joining me. Happy Weekly Roundup Day. What? You're just typing. Brad just looks at me ominously all the time. I just think I'm in trouble with him all the time. Am I not allowed to type?

Well, you're not allowed to type and look like this. You were glaring at me. I was not glaring at you. Lord in heaven, let's end this before we get into this fight. Folks, we appreciate you listening, and we will catch you on next week's episode. Thank you to everyone for listening. If you enjoy our show, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. And if you want more of our stories, subscribe to The Texan at TheTexan.News.

Follow us on social media for the latest in Texas politics. And send any questions for our team to our mailbag by DMing us on Twitter or shooting us an email to editor at TheTexan.News. Tune in next week for another episode of our weekly roundup. God bless you and God bless Texas.