By Nick Smith
Gongwer News Service
The full implications of the proposed changes under a ballot measure that would ban public utilities and corporations with large state contracts from being able to contribute to political campaigns are not yet known.
That was the conclusion of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in an analysis it published last week on Proposal 2026-2, put forward by Michiganders for Money Out of Politics.
“The full effects of Proposal 2’s proposed amendments to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act are difficult to know. Some of the changes would be implemented based on the secretary of state’s own interpretation of the law,” the analysis states. “Existing judicial rulings may influence how these amendments would work as well. Still other elements of the proposal may be challenged legally, which could result in courts deciding what impact Proposal 2 ultimately has.”
Proposal 2 would prohibit utilities and contractors with over $250,000 yearly in government contracts, and people with organizations with connections to those contractors, from making direct or indirect campaign contributions.
Protect MI Free Speech, a coalition of business groups, is opposing the measure. Opponents have argued it would prevent more people from being able to donate to campaigns than what proponents have stated, adding it would silence the voices of rank-and-file employees, among others tied to corporations or contractors.
The constitutionality of the measure as well as potential First Amendment effects have also been raised by opponents.
Under the measure, internet communications would be added to campaign finance law under disclosure requirements. Another change to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act would enact spending and donor disclosure requirements for some issue ads not currently treated like campaign ads.
The Mackinac Center noted that a new term, “electioneering communication,” that would be created under Proposal 2 is defined as a public message that occurs within 100 days of general elections or within 30 days of primary or special elections.
If the proposal were currently in effect, it would cover all election communications since July 26 ahead of the general election.
“This broad definition seems to include many types of messages and communications that would not be considered political activity under the current law,” the analysis states.
It could be interpreted to include media coverage mentioning local candidates, voter guides that outline candidates, trade association publications mentioning a candidate’s position on an issue and social media posts highlighting a candidate.
Current state campaign finance law only regulates communications that advocate voting for or against a candidate, which Proposal 2 would expand to include messaging that does not do so.
“This would be a significant expansion of the statute’s scope,” the analysis states.
The Mackinac Center also focused on the reporting mandates that would be instituted under Proposal 2.
It states that anyone who makes electioneering communications aggregating $5,000 or more in a calendar year would have to file a report with the state, which would have to be filed within 10 days of reaching the $5,000 threshold. The 10-day deadline would be in place for each $5,000 in aggregated communications beyond the threshold.
“It is not clear from a plain reading what spending would count toward the $5,000 threshold,” the analysis states.
The analysis includes an example of a group printing and mailing copies of a publication listing election candidates.
“Would the $5,000 threshold include what was spent on employee compensation and other costs used to produce the voters guide? Or would it only include the costs the organization spent on promoting and distributing the
publication?” the analysis states.
The Mackinac Center also pointed to the disclosure requirements for such reports, including spending records of electioneering communications, names and addresses of who received the spending, information on each individual who contributes more than $100 to pay for the communications and any other information the secretary of state deems necessary.
“The proposal does not provide further details about these requirements,” the analysis states. “It is not clear how organizations would track the people who may have contributed to them to make an electioneering
communication.”
It was noted that, if passed, the secretary of state would likely have to address these types of questions as well as develop the report that organizations would be required to submit.
Gongwer News Service
The full implications of the proposed changes under a ballot measure that would ban public utilities and corporations with large state contracts from being able to contribute to political campaigns are not yet known.
That was the conclusion of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in an analysis it published last week on Proposal 2026-2, put forward by Michiganders for Money Out of Politics.
“The full effects of Proposal 2’s proposed amendments to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act are difficult to know. Some of the changes would be implemented based on the secretary of state’s own interpretation of the law,” the analysis states. “Existing judicial rulings may influence how these amendments would work as well. Still other elements of the proposal may be challenged legally, which could result in courts deciding what impact Proposal 2 ultimately has.”
Proposal 2 would prohibit utilities and contractors with over $250,000 yearly in government contracts, and people with organizations with connections to those contractors, from making direct or indirect campaign contributions.
Protect MI Free Speech, a coalition of business groups, is opposing the measure. Opponents have argued it would prevent more people from being able to donate to campaigns than what proponents have stated, adding it would silence the voices of rank-and-file employees, among others tied to corporations or contractors.
The constitutionality of the measure as well as potential First Amendment effects have also been raised by opponents.
Under the measure, internet communications would be added to campaign finance law under disclosure requirements. Another change to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act would enact spending and donor disclosure requirements for some issue ads not currently treated like campaign ads.
The Mackinac Center noted that a new term, “electioneering communication,” that would be created under Proposal 2 is defined as a public message that occurs within 100 days of general elections or within 30 days of primary or special elections.
If the proposal were currently in effect, it would cover all election communications since July 26 ahead of the general election.
“This broad definition seems to include many types of messages and communications that would not be considered political activity under the current law,” the analysis states.
It could be interpreted to include media coverage mentioning local candidates, voter guides that outline candidates, trade association publications mentioning a candidate’s position on an issue and social media posts highlighting a candidate.
Current state campaign finance law only regulates communications that advocate voting for or against a candidate, which Proposal 2 would expand to include messaging that does not do so.
“This would be a significant expansion of the statute’s scope,” the analysis states.
The Mackinac Center also focused on the reporting mandates that would be instituted under Proposal 2.
It states that anyone who makes electioneering communications aggregating $5,000 or more in a calendar year would have to file a report with the state, which would have to be filed within 10 days of reaching the $5,000 threshold. The 10-day deadline would be in place for each $5,000 in aggregated communications beyond the threshold.
“It is not clear from a plain reading what spending would count toward the $5,000 threshold,” the analysis states.
The analysis includes an example of a group printing and mailing copies of a publication listing election candidates.
“Would the $5,000 threshold include what was spent on employee compensation and other costs used to produce the voters guide? Or would it only include the costs the organization spent on promoting and distributing the
publication?” the analysis states.
The Mackinac Center also pointed to the disclosure requirements for such reports, including spending records of electioneering communications, names and addresses of who received the spending, information on each individual who contributes more than $100 to pay for the communications and any other information the secretary of state deems necessary.
“The proposal does not provide further details about these requirements,” the analysis states. “It is not clear how organizations would track the people who may have contributed to them to make an electioneering
communication.”
It was noted that, if passed, the secretary of state would likely have to address these types of questions as well as develop the report that organizations would be required to submit.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
