Interesting Arizona case wherein prosecution wants jury to hear that NRA is paying the defendant's legal fees:
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/23266

Would that info be admissible in Texas?

I was doubtful at first. But finally the article mentioned that the defense's "self-defense expert" is an attorney who represented the NRA in various other matters. I think showing the NRA is also bankrolling the defense is perfectly legitimate to show potential bias.

Another interesting tidbit towards the end of the article -- the NRA lobbied for a recent change in the self-defense law, putting more of a burden on the prosecution, and now they're arguing the new law should apply in this case. This is starting to turn a little incestuous, don't you think?

Unlike the (misnamed) "castle doctrine" bills that the NRA has been pushing across the country, it's my understanding that the recent change in Arizona merely made self-defense a "defense" under the Texas definition (once raised, must be disproved BRD by state). Formerly, it was the equivalent of our affirmative defense (once raised, must be proved by preponderance by defendant). Now it's more like Texas law.

All that aside ... I have a hard time seeing how you'd get that before a Texas jury. Maybe I'm just not creative enough.

I can't see any relevance that would overcome a 403 objection.