Campaign Contributions Raise Questions About Dan Patrick’s Push to Ban THC Products

As Texas weighs the future of its hemp industry, the spotlight is on Senate Bill 3—a legislative push at the heart of the ongoing THC ban Texas debate. The bill, which seeks to prohibit consumable hemp-derived THC products, is championed by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who has called the legislation one of his top priorities. But behind the public safety messaging tied to the THC ban Texas effort lies a trail of significant campaign donations from the alcohol industry, raising questions about the motivations driving this high-profile initiative.

SB 3, passed during the 89th Texas Legislature, targets consumable products containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana, while exempting non-intoxicating cannabinoids like CBD and CBG. The bill passed the Texas Senate on March 19 and the House on May 22, and was sent to the Governor on May 27. If signed, it would take effect September 1, 2025.

Dan Patrick has made SB 3 one of his top priorities, calling it one of the most important bills of his 17-year tenure. In a Senate session, Patrick declared, “Kids are getting poisoned today,” and referred to THC products as “a poison in our public.” At a news conference, he displayed various THC products, accusing manufacturers of being “drug dealers” motivated solely by profit.

But while Patrick has emphasized protecting public health, critics argue his efforts are undercut by his campaign’s funding. Public records from the Texas Ethics Commission show Patrick received a $250,000 contribution on April 12, 2024, from John Nau, the CEO of Silver Eagle Distributors—a major Anheuser-Busch beer distributor. This was followed by a $25,000 donation on December 2, 2024, from the Beer Alliance of Texas PAC to “Texans for Dan Patrick,” a specific-purpose PAC supporting the Lieutenant Governor.

These donations are fueling accusations that Patrick’s policy positions are being shaped by industry influence. Social media commentary has grown increasingly pointed, with one viral post stating, “Dan Patrick sold out Texas. He took hundreds of thousands from Big Pharma, Blue Cross, & medical lobbyists — then pushed SB3 to kill hemp and lie about ‘protecting kids.’”

A flyer circulating on Facebook that appears to be from the Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas shows the group’s push for a full THC hemp ban under Senate Bill 3—citing not only public safety but also a need to “preserve a level playing field for Texas beer distributors.”

SB 3 originated as a response to a loophole in a 2019 law that allowed the sale of THC-laced edibles, beverages, and vapes across more than 8,300 retail outlets. Lawmakers including Rep. Tom Oliverson claim the intent is to close this gap. “What began in 2019 as a bipartisan effort to support Texas agriculture has since been hijacked by a cottage industry of unregulated THC sellers,” Oliverson said in support of the bill.

Opponents, however, argue the bill would devastate Texas’s $8 billion hemp economy, which supports thousands of jobs and contributes significant tax revenue. Critics contend that rather than promoting public safety, the legislation serves entrenched interests seeking to curb competition. Industry groups and small business advocates have called for a gubernatorial veto.

Dan Patrick’s legislative influence was instrumental in advancing SB 3. As President of the Texas Senate, he used his authority to prioritize the bill and signaled a willingness to call a special session if it failed; a level of pressure usually reserved for budgets or disaster response. This assertive maneuvering ensured the bill’s passage and underscored his political clout.

The timeline of SB 3’s journey highlights Patrick’s role:

The financial backing from alcohol industry figures like John Nau, combined with Patrick’s policy push to ban THC but not alcohol, has prompted deeper questions about selective public health advocacy. While THC products face prohibition under SB 3, no such legislative urgency has been applied to alcohol, despite its well-documented public health risks.

As of June 3, 2025, Governor Abbott has not signed or vetoed SB 3. The 10-day window for executive action is expected to close within days. The political stakes are high, not just for the hemp industry, but for Patrick’s credibility, as public discourse intensifies over the intersection of campaign finance, legislative priorities, and individual liberties in Texas.

With Senate Bill 3 awaiting Governor Greg Abbott’s decision, the future of the THC ban Texas campaign remains uncertain. While supporters claim it’s about protecting children and public health, the campaign finance records linking Lieutenant Governor Patrick to key players in the alcohol industry suggest other interests may be at play. The outcome of the THC ban Texas bill will not only impact thousands of businesses but could also reshape the conversation around political influence and policy in the state.