More money for Texas lawmakers?

For Texas legislators their low salary of $7,200 a year has been the same since 1975. Some argue that because of this low salary it has a lot to do with the fact that Texas ranks #1 for having the highest percentage of lawmakers with financial ties to lobbyists. I don't believe our state lawmakers have the public's interests in mind, rather they have that of special interest groups in mind. The legislators in Texas are heavily influenced by the money contributions they get and where the money came from, which in turn heavily influences the outcome of policies in place in Texas.
In other large states, such as California, lawmakers typically make more money, have larger staffs, and meet more often. The salary for lawmakers in California is $99,000 plus expenses. There isn't concrete evidence on this, but Californina seems to have less conflicts within the state government because of the high pay. It would seem that legislators that make more and work longer hours would have less ethical issues. There would be less time to focus on outside income, which in Texas there is a lot of outside income with minimal to no provisions. It's obvious that the money influences our government in Texas. In this article by Emily Ramshaw of the Dallas Morning News you can see what cushy lifestyles Texas lawmakers lead because of all the campaign finances. I believe a higher salary in the first place might help the out of control spending we see from our lawmakers. As of now it seems a lot of lawmakers are in it for themselves and not to help the general population of Texas.
The salary for lawmakers in Texas is significantly less than a comfortable salary to live on, so of course most have outside jobs they rely on for most of their income. In order to be a lawmaker in Texas too, you'd have to make a lot of money at your job to make up for the low salary and be able to take time off from it as well in order to fullfill legislative duties, so this influences who can become a legislator. I think Texas should raise the salary for it's legislators to the point where it would be possible to just have that as your sole job. Lawmakers could spend more time in office and it seems the potential to be swayed by special interests would be significantly lower as well. I think this would also open up the chances of making lawmakers more diverse instead of them mosltly being people who can afford to be. I think our state would greatly benefit from this change as it would help the public have lawmakers that represent them rather than where ever the money is coming from.

Here is a website that shows the salary for legislators in each state and as you can see Texas is among the lowest, which I believe is the reason about half of Texas legislators have finanial ties to lobbyists.

Partial Nekkidness and the New 'Nudity' Tax

It seems that the new rule that charges a fee to sexually oriented businesses that allows drinking and has nudity, has a "gray area" that could leave other venues liable for the surcharge as well. In Richard Whittaker's article, Partial Nekkidness and the New 'Nudity' Tax, from January 11, 2008 he suggests that the new guidlines are too broad to reduce concerns on how they could be applied. As written the guidlines say that "any venue that allows drinking and has performers with clothing not sufficiently opaque around the breasts, buttocks, or genitals" could potentially be liable for the fee, which is a $5.00-per-customer surcharge. This could be burlesques or theatres that have plays with any kind of nudity. The fee was only supposed to target the 168 strip clubs in Texas, but if that's the case the state comptroller, who published the enforcement, needs to be more specific. The rule does apply, however, only if there is nudity and alcohol present, which is a pretty big loophole if you ask me.

The fee seems rather ridiculous to begin with, but the vagueness of it makes how it could be used even more ridiculous. In a previous article by Whittaker on the same subject, Does Harry Potter Cause Sexual Violence? Only in Texas., he shows that defenders of the surcharge are now claiming that there is a connection between sexually oriented buisnesses and sexual violence against women, which is why it was aimed at the strip clubs in Texas. The funds would benefit the state's sexual-abuse programs, which I think everyone can agree that's a good idea and makes the fee a bit more viable. However, I still think they need to be a lot more specific with who this will affect. Like Whittaker points out according to this logic the nudity in the play Equus, starring Daniel Radcliffe, would fall under the guidelines for the fee and would therefore technically be contributing to sexual violence. Maybe a revision of the way the guidlines are worded would be helpful in making this surcharge more reasonable.