Texas fee funds Flock cameras

In 2023, every member of the Texas Legislature present for the final votes supported a bill that raised an annual fee on each insured motor vehicle from $4 to $5. The stated purpose was urgent and easy to sell: Help law enforcement fight catalytic converter theft.

Three years later, Texans can see where a significant share of that money went.

Texas Tribune reporting found that at least $30 million in Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority revenue helped finance a statewide network of at least 3,200 Flock license plate cameras. Ninety-five grants helped local agencies obtain and maintain roughly 2,000 cameras. Another $15.9 million agreement helped the Texas Department of Public Safety add nearly 1,200 more. In August, the authority approved another $3 million for 583 cameras along Texas tollways.

The $1 increase was expected to raise about $81 million. Of that total, the authority awarded $50.8 million through 234 grants covering not only cameras but officers, analysts, prosecutors, drones and other equipment. Those figures matter because the entire $81 million was not spent on Flock. The documented amount tied to the camera network is at least $30 million.

There is another important distinction. The Texas Department of Insurance says the fee is assessed against insurers. Companies may recoup it from policyholders, but the state does not require them to do so. The law nevertheless embeds the cost in Texas’ auto insurance system and creates a recurring source of government revenue.

The deeper question is not whether police may use technology to solve crimes. It is whether Texas officials built a searchable surveillance network before establishing protections strong enough to govern it.

Flock cameras can record a vehicle’s license plate, make, model, color and other visible features. That information can be shared across jurisdictions, allowing agencies to reconstruct patterns of movement. Used lawfully and with a specific target, the system can help investigators. Used broadly, without strict retention rules, warrant standards and audits, it can become a tool for tracking people who are suspected of no crime.

Gov. Greg Abbott ordered state agencies to pause funding on Aug. 28. The pause is a start, but it does not answer how lawmakers unanimously approved the revenue stream, how the grants were monitored or what will happen to the thousands of cameras already installed.

In this episode of Politics with the Big Dogs, Anthony Holm follows that money and asks what genuine oversight should look like. He also examines U.S. Sen. John Cornyn’s decision not to raise money for Republican Senate nominee Ken Paxton, the debate over houses of worship serving as polling sites and the latest federal ruling against Texas Senate Bill 12.

On Senate Bill 12, precision matters. U.S. District Judge David Hittner blocked the law again after finding its language unconstitutionally vague and broad. The law had been allowed to take effect during part of the appeal, and Paxton has said he will appeal again. The question is not whether parents and lawmakers may debate age-appropriate public performances. They may. The question is whether the law they write is specific enough to regulate unprotected conduct without sweeping in protected expression.

Across every topic, the standard is the same: Public officials must do more than deliver headlines. They must understand the policy, protect constitutional rights and remain accountable for the results.