By Robin Bravender
Gongwer News Service
Backers of a Michigan ballot proposal to toughen campaign finance rules were elated last week as the measure passed overwhelmingly despite industry opposition.
But the fight is nowhere near over.
The issue quickly landed in court after two federal lawsuits were filed to challenge Proposal 2. The measure aimed at curbing utilities’ political influence and imposing new rules for political communications passed last Tuesday with 81.3% of the vote.
Consumers Energy and DTE Energy signed onto a lawsuit filed last Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan alleging the proposal violates the First Amendment. That came on the heels of a lawsuit filed last Tuesday by the nonprofit Mackinac Center for Public Policy in the same court that also challenges the proposal on free speech grounds.
The coalition behind the ballot measure says it was ready for the legal fight and expects the measure to hold up in court. Defense of the proposal will be up to the state, whose officials are the named defendants in the lawsuit.
“The corporations bankrolling our opposition have been gearing up” for legal action “since Proposal 2 first qualified for the ballot, if not before,” Maura Cowley, campaign manager for the Michiganders for Money Out of Politics campaign, said last Thursday in a statement. Organizers are “confident Proposal 2 will withstand legal scrutiny, and we were fully expecting and are prepared to take on this challenge,” Cowley said.
The lawsuit filed last Thursday by utilities argues that the ballot proposal is unconstitutional because it discriminates against certain viewpoints. The proposal bans public utilities, some government contractors and “people and organizations with substantial connections” to those utilities and contractors from making direct or indirect campaign contributions.
“The First Amendment forbids the government from silencing disfavored speakers or viewpoints in this fashion,” the utilities’ lawyers wrote.
Michiganders “should not lose their First Amendment rights because of where they work,” Consumers Energy spokesperson Katie Carey said last Thursday in an email.
“This proposal unfairly targets a Michigan business, its Michigan employees and their family members from exercising their constitutionally protected rights to participate in the political process,” Carey said, “while allowing out of state special interest groups and billionaires to continue flooding Michigan with political spending.”
That lawsuit also alleges the ballot proposal is too vague and violates the 14th Amendment’s due process. The language “does not define or limit what it means for an entity to be ‘affiliated with’ a utility,” the lawsuit says. Other terms in the proposal are also "unconstitutionally vague,” the lawyers wrote.
The legal challenge from utilities follows the Mackinac Center’s lawsuit filed last Tuesday night as votes were still being tallied.
Prop 2 is “an alarming and far-reaching law” that violates the First Amendment and “targets everyone who spends money speaking about public policy if they talk about an elected official at the wrong time or with the wrong words,” the Mackinac Center argued in its lawsuit.
In addition to limiting political contributions, the proposal would also impose new rules on political communications, including donor disclosure requirements.
“There’s too much speech that’s potentially regulated,” Patrick Wright, vice president of legal affairs at the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, said last Thursday in an interview. “The consequences are it puts people on a watch list and can lead to harassment and it’s likely to chill people from engaging in discussions about policy, politics and elections.”
The Michiganders for Money Out of Politics campaign declined to make a representative available for an interview about the legal challenges last Thursday.
“On Tuesday, Michiganders spoke loud and clear, voting to pass Proposal 2 with an overwhelming majority and delivering a resounding mandate to end pay-to-play politics and put power back where it belongs – with the people,” Cowley said in the emailed statement.
Gongwer News Service
Backers of a Michigan ballot proposal to toughen campaign finance rules were elated last week as the measure passed overwhelmingly despite industry opposition.
But the fight is nowhere near over.
The issue quickly landed in court after two federal lawsuits were filed to challenge Proposal 2. The measure aimed at curbing utilities’ political influence and imposing new rules for political communications passed last Tuesday with 81.3% of the vote.
Consumers Energy and DTE Energy signed onto a lawsuit filed last Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan alleging the proposal violates the First Amendment. That came on the heels of a lawsuit filed last Tuesday by the nonprofit Mackinac Center for Public Policy in the same court that also challenges the proposal on free speech grounds.
The coalition behind the ballot measure says it was ready for the legal fight and expects the measure to hold up in court. Defense of the proposal will be up to the state, whose officials are the named defendants in the lawsuit.
“The corporations bankrolling our opposition have been gearing up” for legal action “since Proposal 2 first qualified for the ballot, if not before,” Maura Cowley, campaign manager for the Michiganders for Money Out of Politics campaign, said last Thursday in a statement. Organizers are “confident Proposal 2 will withstand legal scrutiny, and we were fully expecting and are prepared to take on this challenge,” Cowley said.
The lawsuit filed last Thursday by utilities argues that the ballot proposal is unconstitutional because it discriminates against certain viewpoints. The proposal bans public utilities, some government contractors and “people and organizations with substantial connections” to those utilities and contractors from making direct or indirect campaign contributions.
“The First Amendment forbids the government from silencing disfavored speakers or viewpoints in this fashion,” the utilities’ lawyers wrote.
Michiganders “should not lose their First Amendment rights because of where they work,” Consumers Energy spokesperson Katie Carey said last Thursday in an email.
“This proposal unfairly targets a Michigan business, its Michigan employees and their family members from exercising their constitutionally protected rights to participate in the political process,” Carey said, “while allowing out of state special interest groups and billionaires to continue flooding Michigan with political spending.”
That lawsuit also alleges the ballot proposal is too vague and violates the 14th Amendment’s due process. The language “does not define or limit what it means for an entity to be ‘affiliated with’ a utility,” the lawsuit says. Other terms in the proposal are also "unconstitutionally vague,” the lawyers wrote.
The legal challenge from utilities follows the Mackinac Center’s lawsuit filed last Tuesday night as votes were still being tallied.
Prop 2 is “an alarming and far-reaching law” that violates the First Amendment and “targets everyone who spends money speaking about public policy if they talk about an elected official at the wrong time or with the wrong words,” the Mackinac Center argued in its lawsuit.
In addition to limiting political contributions, the proposal would also impose new rules on political communications, including donor disclosure requirements.
“There’s too much speech that’s potentially regulated,” Patrick Wright, vice president of legal affairs at the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, said last Thursday in an interview. “The consequences are it puts people on a watch list and can lead to harassment and it’s likely to chill people from engaging in discussions about policy, politics and elections.”
The Michiganders for Money Out of Politics campaign declined to make a representative available for an interview about the legal challenges last Thursday.
“On Tuesday, Michiganders spoke loud and clear, voting to pass Proposal 2 with an overwhelming majority and delivering a resounding mandate to end pay-to-play politics and put power back where it belongs – with the people,” Cowley said in the emailed statement.
––––––––––––––––––––
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
