Are You Saving Pets—Or Funding Politics?
How Texas Public Records Pulled Back the Curtain on Best Friends Animal Society’s Lobbying Machine
For nearly a year and a half, Animal Politics has investigated the growing influence of Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS)—an organization long synonymous with the no-kill movement in America. With hundreds of millions in donations and a powerful national brand, BFAS promises a future where every healthy and treatable pet finds a home.
But as our previous reporting has shown, its rise to power has come with troubling questions about transparency, priorities, and political influence. This latest installment focuses on Texas, but what it reveals may disturb donors in every state—shedding light on how BFAS may be leveraging contributions nationwide in ways few supporters ever see—or intended.
Texas: A Case Study in Political Influence
Texas stands out for its unique lobbying disclosure requirements: lobbyists and their clients must report payments in broad ranges, which are then published in public databases like Transparency USA. This system allows for rough, if imprecise, estimates of what organizations like BFAS spend on lobbying in the state.
In the 2023–2024 reporting cycle, BFAS retained at least eleven lobbyists in Texas, with individual compensation ranging from approximately $20,000 to over $200,000 each. Total lobbying expenditures in Texas are estimated between $269,360 and $735,980—a result of Texas’s reporting laws, which require only broad compensation bands, such as $50,000–$99,999, rather than exact figures. For context, BFAS reported just $30,000 in lobbying at the federal level for all of 2022. In other words, BFAS is spending many times more to influence policy in a single state than it does in Washington, D.C.
These estimates also do not include ancillary costs—like overhead, travel, or administrative support—which means the true amount spent on lobbying in Texas is likely even higher.
Beyond Direct Lobbying
But direct lobbying is only part of the picture. Documents, event programs, and public acknowledgments confirm that BFAS is also a major sponsor of political and legislative events across Texas:
TCCRI Black Tie & Boots Gala (2025): BFAS was a $15,000 “Sustaining Sponsor” for the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute’s flagship gala, a high-profile event for policymakers and business leaders.
Pink Granite Foundation Legislative Summit (2025): BFAS served as the Presenting Sponsor, providing boxed lunches and moderating a keynote panel, with a $15,000 sponsorship. The summit’s focus was on legislative procedures, communications, and professional development for women in Texas politics.
Texas Unites for Animals Conference (2025): BFAS was the “Heart of Texas Sponsor” for this statewide animal welfare conference, a role typically reserved for top-tier funders.
Texas Animal Control Association Conference (2024): BFAS is listed as a major sponsor, with contributions estimated between $10,000 and $15,000.
MALC Gala (2024): BFAS attended and supported the Mexican American Legislative Caucus Gala in San Antonio, further signaling its outreach to influential legislative groups.
ALEC Annual Meeting (2023): BFAS CEO Julie Castle spoke at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s national meeting, aligning the organization with a powerful policy group known for shaping state legislation.
From Animal Advocacy to Political Influence
While some of these sponsorships—such as Texas Unites or the Texas Animal Control Association Conference—may appear aligned with BFAS’s mission, they serve a broader strategic purpose: placing the organization in front of municipal decision-makers, enforcement agencies, and political influencers.
These events offer opportunities for political positioning and relationship-building rather than direct investment in animal care. Animal Politics has previously documented the consequences of this influence, including policy shifts that deprioritize intake, reduce transparency, marginalize prevention strategies like spay/neuter, and place public safety at risk—all under the banner of “no-kill” reform.
In addition to influencing municipal policy through animal welfare channels, BFAS has expanded its reach into broader political and legislative circles. Other sponsorships place BFAS in the company of major political, corporate, and policy organizations. The Pink Granite Foundation, for example, is a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on empowering women in politics, while TCCRI is a leading conservative think tank. Sponsorship of these organizations often comes with formal recognition and membership—as with TCCRI, where BFAS’s $15,000 contribution conferred “Sustaining Member” status for the year.
Participation in the ALEC Annual Meeting—a gathering best known for promoting corporate-friendly model legislation across statehouses—suggests a broader policy agenda that extends well beyond animal welfare.
Such political engagement marks a deliberate shift away from traditional animal welfare work. BFAS representatives not only fund but also participate in policy discussions and networking events with lawmakers, lobbyists, and legislative staff. These activities are rarely, if ever, highlighted in donor communications or public-facing reports.
What Do Donors Get for Their Money?
BFAS’s fundraising campaigns urge donors to “save lives in your community” and “end the killing of healthy and treatable pets.” Yet, as the Texas case shows, significant funds are directed toward lobbying, political event sponsorships, and legislative influence—often with little or no disclosure to donors.
These expenditures are aggregated under the broad “programs” category in annual reports and IRS filings, making it impossible for donors or the public to discern how much is actually spent on direct animal care versus advocacy, lobbying, or marketing.
While BFAS highlights legislative “wins” and gubernatorial proclamations as evidence of progress, public filings and annual reports show that funding for essential programs like spay/neuter has been significantly reduced in recent years. For example, in 2025, BFAS withdrew a nearly $1 million offer to fund a citywide cat spay/neuter program in Provo, Utah, citing delays and lack of urgency from city officials—even though more than 70 percent of local voters supported the initiative.
The episode mirrors BFAS’s tactics in Los Angeles, where the organization attempted to use promised funding as leverage to dictate shelter policy—an effort that Animal Politics documented in detail here. In both cases, BFAS framed municipal hesitation as obstruction, while withdrawing essential support that communities and animals desperately needed.
Meanwhile, legislative victories such as the repeal of breed-specific bans in Aurora, Colorado, are promoted as major achievements, but these policy changes often have limited direct impact on animal welfare outcomes. These examples illustrate a broader shift in BFAS’ strategy: prioritizing high-profile advocacy and symbolic policy wins over sustained investment in direct, preventative solutions like spay/neuter.
National Implications
Texas’s unusually robust public records laws have made it possible to document, for the first time, the full scale of BFAS’s lobbying and political spending in one state. But with BFAS operating in all 50 states and maintaining partnerships with thousands of shelters and rescues nationwide, the obvious question remains: If this is happening in Texas, is it happening everywhere?
The absence of similar transparency laws in most states means the true extent of BFAS’s lobbying and political activity across the country remains hidden from donors and the public. As watchdogs and local officials in places like Los Angeles have begun to demand audits and full accounting of BFAS’s spending and advocacy, the case for nationwide scrutiny grows ever stronger.
A Transparency Gap
IRS rules and state disclosure laws allow nonprofits to aggregate lobbying expenditures, and the definition of “programs” is broad enough to include almost any activity. As a result, donors who believe they are funding direct animal care may instead be underwriting lobbying campaigns, political event sponsorships, substantial advocacy efforts, and inordinately high executive compensation.
Of the $272 million BFAS reports spending on “programs,” the organization does not provide a breakdown showing how much is allocated to direct animal care, advocacy, lobbying, or marketing. Without this detail, donors and the public are left in the dark about how their contributions are actually used.
Best Friends Animal Society’s Position
In response to requests for comment on Animal Politics’ investigative reporting, BFAS has indicated that it generally does not engage substantively with blogs, which it characterizes as prone to one-sided coverage. Spokesperson Eric Rayvid stated:
“As someone who has been in PR for 30 years, I don't usually recommend engaging with them.”
While this is BFAS’s stated approach to blogs broadly, Animal Politics is an investigative publication committed to rigorous, evidence-based reporting and journalistic standards. Despite this, BFAS has consistently declined to comment or participate in interviews related to our reporting. Should BFAS choose to respond in the future, their statements will be published in full.
Given this stance—which prioritizes public relations avoidance over direct engagement and transparency—it is imperative that national media, public officials, and those affected by BFAS policy and funding begin asking the questions the organization has thus far avoided.
The Case for Independent Oversight
As calls for transparency grow louder, advocates and donors are demanding an independent audit of BFAS’s finances and practices. A recent Animal Politics investigation, By the Numbers, revealed similar concerns in the organization’s overall budget priorities—particularly the growing share of spending allocated to marketing, administration, and executive compensation, rather than direct animal care.
Only a thorough, third-party review can clarify how much is truly spent on lobbying, political sponsorships, executive compensation, and shelter programs—and whether the organization’s priorities align with its stated mission.
For donors who want their money to make a real difference, the question is urgent:
Are your donations saving animals, or funding a national lobbying and marketing machine?
Until BFAS opens its books, the answer remains unclear.
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, City of Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
Stay Informed
For more analysis and updates on the evolving landscape of animal welfare policy, visit Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
With your previous investigative articles as foundation, this article is on fire!
The financialization of companion animal welfare, using animals as disposable fundraising props and cynically monetizing compassion to amass hundreds of millions, is perhaps one of the most untold national stories and worthy of major documentary.
Did any of the BFAS lobbying result in policy changes - local or national - that do help animals?