A network of consultants, contractors, and taxpayer-funded entities is driving Texas’ multibillion-dollar school bond system while reaping massive financial returns, according to a new report.
The analysis from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, titled “Hijacked: How the Bond Process is Being Used Against Taxpayers,” argues that the state’s school bond process has been overtaken by what it describes as a “cartel”-like system of firms and organizations with a vested interest in ensuring bonds pass—and continue growing.
School bonds, which are repaid through local property taxes, now account for more than $236 billion in debt across Texas. In May 2023 alone, voters approved 79 percent of 245 bond propositions, adding $22.9 billion in new costs.
While school districts are prohibited from using taxpayer funds to advocate for bond elections, the report outlines how political action committees—funded by consultants, construction firms, and other vendors—step in to promote the measures.
In multiple cases, the report identifies companies that contributed relatively small amounts to bond-supporting PACs and later received millions in contracts tied to those same bond projects.
For example, in Conroe ISD, seven firms contributed a combined $27,500 to a PAC backing a nearly $2 billion bond package. Those same firms later received more than $26 million in payments from bond-related work.
In Denton ISD, firms that contributed $54,000 to a bond campaign later received more than $173 million in district payments.
Similar patterns were identified in Northwest ISD, Northside ISD, and Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD, where contributing firms were later awarded contracts funded by voter-approved bonds.
The report argues that these arrangements create powerful financial incentives for vendors to support repeated bond elections. In some cases, a $2,000 political contribution can result in more than $2 million in compensation.
Beyond private firms, the report also highlights the role of government-backed organizations in the bond process.
Among them is the Texas Association of School Boards, which is identified as a key player providing “bond election assistance,” including planning, facility assessments, and communication strategies used to present bond proposals to voters.
This assistance helps shape how bond measures are presented to the public, even as school districts themselves are restricted from direct electioneering.
In addition, the report claims some school districts routinely return to voters with new bond proposals within months of a failed election, raising concerns about voter fatigue and sustained pressure to approve additional debt.
Supporters of school bond programs argue they are necessary to fund growing student populations and maintain aging infrastructure. But critics contend the current system incentivizes ever-larger bond packages while limiting meaningful opposition.
The findings come amid broader scrutiny of taxpayer-funded influence in Texas, including lobbying efforts by school districts and their affiliated organizations at the state Capitol.
Among their recommendations, TPPF is calling on lawmakers to tighten restrictions on political activity surrounding bond elections, increase transparency around political action committees and vendor relationships, and strengthen enforcement of existing laws prohibiting the use of public resources for electioneering.
They are also suggesting reforms to limit repeat bond elections and reduce the influence of firms that stand to financially benefit from bond passage.
