By Robin Bravender
Gongwer News Service
The groups that put Michigan’s campaign finance proposal on the ballot are pivoting to a new battle front as they try to defend the measure in court.
Organizations behind the Proposal 2 ballot measure, which seeks to toughen campaign finance regulations, asked a federal court Monday for permission to intervene in two pending lawsuits filed by utilities and a public policy group that promotes limited government.
The two lawsuits, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, allege the ballot measure is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. Supporters of the proposal, which passed with more than 80% of the vote, say they’re confident the measure will hold up against legal scrutiny. Legal observers predict the legal battle could be a lengthy one.
“We are fully confident in the legality of Proposal 2 and look forward to seeing this out in court,” Samuel Bagenstos, a lawyer representing the organizations behind the proposal, said Monday in a statement. “The language of Proposal 2 was carefully crafted with constitutionality in mind, and we are well prepared for this expected legal challenge. We intend to vigorously defend the will of Michiganders who overwhelmingly approved this measure just one week ago.”
The groups seeking to intervene in the lawsuit are Michiganders for Money out of Politics, Clean Water Action and Voters Not Politicians. The groups were central in getting the measure passed, and now want to help see it through in court, they wrote.
Rep.-elect Joanna Whaley, D-Lincoln Park, joined the groups asking to intervene. Her anticipated reelection campaign in 2028 will be harmed without Proposal 2 in place, she told the court.
The groups offered a preview of their legal arguments in filings with the court.
In response to the lawsuit filed by Consumers Energy and DTE, the groups supporting Proposal 2 addressed the utilities’ argument that the proposal would unconstitutionally limit the speech of utility companies and their affiliates.
“It only bars their contributions to candidates for offices that regulate them,” the proposal’s backers wrote (opens gongwer.com in a new tab). “The people of Michigan voted to adopt this provision in the wake of numerous scandals regarding utility-company campaign contributions to the state officials who regulate them, both in Michigan and in other states.”
In response to a lawsuit filed by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the groups supporting Proposal 2 said new disclosure requirements would help voters by boosting transparency of political contributions.
The Mackinac Center argued in its lawsuit that the proposal 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 organizers of the ballot measure told the court in their filing (opens gongwer.com in a new tab) that the “Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed disclosure as a remedy for the pathologies of massive campaign spending.”
Notably, the proposal’s supporters argued, the state defendants in the case may not adequately represent their interests.
The state might “concede the invalidity of certain applications of Proposal 2 or agree to narrowing constructions to it, or even to enter into a settlement of the case,” the groups wrote.
—————
Utility PAC contributions
The political action committees representing employees of DTE and Consumers contributed more than $130,000 to state candidates in the third quarter campaign finance filing period, according to an analysis by the Michigan League of Conservation Voters. That brought the grand total for the year to about $395,000, MLCV found.
Some of those candidates who accepted donations from the utility PACs lost their elections, including Sen. Mark Huizenga and Republican Reps. Rylee Linting of Wyandotte, Jamie Thompson of Brownstown, Steve Frisbie of Battle Creek, Kathy Schmaltz of Jackson and Nancy DeBoer of Holland.
“Cash from DTE and Consumers was a massive liability in this past election and Michiganders of every partisan stripe roundly rejected their money polluting our politics when they passed Proposal 2 with a commanding 81% – sending a clear message that people want their government back,” said Bob Allison, deputy director of MLCV.
In Michigan, 126 state-level candidates on ballots in November had signed onto the conservation group’s pledge (opens michiganlcv.org in a new tab) to refuse contributions from energy utilities, their executives and their employee PACs, according to the group. Of those candidates, 58 won their elections, said MLCV spokesperson Alex Kellogg.
A DTE spokesperson said Tuesday in a statement that “Michiganders are frustrated by money in politics, especially when it comes from out-of-state groups with little transparency. We understand and share the goal of putting Michiganders first.”
Prop 2 “doesn’t do that,” the spokesperson said. “Instead, it potentially violates the First Amendment rights of 10,000 DTE employees and their families simply because of where they work or who they are related to. That sets a dangerous precedent.”
As it relates to the lawsuit over Proposal 2, “Consumers Energy will continue to advocate that Michiganders should not lose their First Amendment rights just because of where they work,” said Katie Carey, a Consumers spokesperson. “This proposal unfairly targets Michigan employees from all facets of our business from their constitutionally protected rights to participate in the political process. We suspected advocates of the ballot proposal and the billionaires who support it to continue fighting through the legal process in order for out of state shell companies, independent expenditure groups and Super PACs to continue disproportionate influence.”
Gongwer News Service
The groups that put Michigan’s campaign finance proposal on the ballot are pivoting to a new battle front as they try to defend the measure in court.
Organizations behind the Proposal 2 ballot measure, which seeks to toughen campaign finance regulations, asked a federal court Monday for permission to intervene in two pending lawsuits filed by utilities and a public policy group that promotes limited government.
The two lawsuits, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, allege the ballot measure is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. Supporters of the proposal, which passed with more than 80% of the vote, say they’re confident the measure will hold up against legal scrutiny. Legal observers predict the legal battle could be a lengthy one.
“We are fully confident in the legality of Proposal 2 and look forward to seeing this out in court,” Samuel Bagenstos, a lawyer representing the organizations behind the proposal, said Monday in a statement. “The language of Proposal 2 was carefully crafted with constitutionality in mind, and we are well prepared for this expected legal challenge. We intend to vigorously defend the will of Michiganders who overwhelmingly approved this measure just one week ago.”
The groups seeking to intervene in the lawsuit are Michiganders for Money out of Politics, Clean Water Action and Voters Not Politicians. The groups were central in getting the measure passed, and now want to help see it through in court, they wrote.
Rep.-elect Joanna Whaley, D-Lincoln Park, joined the groups asking to intervene. Her anticipated reelection campaign in 2028 will be harmed without Proposal 2 in place, she told the court.
The groups offered a preview of their legal arguments in filings with the court.
In response to the lawsuit filed by Consumers Energy and DTE, the groups supporting Proposal 2 addressed the utilities’ argument that the proposal would unconstitutionally limit the speech of utility companies and their affiliates.
“It only bars their contributions to candidates for offices that regulate them,” the proposal’s backers wrote (opens gongwer.com in a new tab). “The people of Michigan voted to adopt this provision in the wake of numerous scandals regarding utility-company campaign contributions to the state officials who regulate them, both in Michigan and in other states.”
In response to a lawsuit filed by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the groups supporting Proposal 2 said new disclosure requirements would help voters by boosting transparency of political contributions.
The Mackinac Center argued in its lawsuit that the proposal 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 organizers of the ballot measure told the court in their filing (opens gongwer.com in a new tab) that the “Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed disclosure as a remedy for the pathologies of massive campaign spending.”
Notably, the proposal’s supporters argued, the state defendants in the case may not adequately represent their interests.
The state might “concede the invalidity of certain applications of Proposal 2 or agree to narrowing constructions to it, or even to enter into a settlement of the case,” the groups wrote.
—————
Utility PAC contributions
The political action committees representing employees of DTE and Consumers contributed more than $130,000 to state candidates in the third quarter campaign finance filing period, according to an analysis by the Michigan League of Conservation Voters. That brought the grand total for the year to about $395,000, MLCV found.
Some of those candidates who accepted donations from the utility PACs lost their elections, including Sen. Mark Huizenga and Republican Reps. Rylee Linting of Wyandotte, Jamie Thompson of Brownstown, Steve Frisbie of Battle Creek, Kathy Schmaltz of Jackson and Nancy DeBoer of Holland.
“Cash from DTE and Consumers was a massive liability in this past election and Michiganders of every partisan stripe roundly rejected their money polluting our politics when they passed Proposal 2 with a commanding 81% – sending a clear message that people want their government back,” said Bob Allison, deputy director of MLCV.
In Michigan, 126 state-level candidates on ballots in November had signed onto the conservation group’s pledge (opens michiganlcv.org in a new tab) to refuse contributions from energy utilities, their executives and their employee PACs, according to the group. Of those candidates, 58 won their elections, said MLCV spokesperson Alex Kellogg.
A DTE spokesperson said Tuesday in a statement that “Michiganders are frustrated by money in politics, especially when it comes from out-of-state groups with little transparency. We understand and share the goal of putting Michiganders first.”
Prop 2 “doesn’t do that,” the spokesperson said. “Instead, it potentially violates the First Amendment rights of 10,000 DTE employees and their families simply because of where they work or who they are related to. That sets a dangerous precedent.”
As it relates to the lawsuit over Proposal 2, “Consumers Energy will continue to advocate that Michiganders should not lose their First Amendment rights just because of where they work,” said Katie Carey, a Consumers spokesperson. “This proposal unfairly targets Michigan employees from all facets of our business from their constitutionally protected rights to participate in the political process. We suspected advocates of the ballot proposal and the billionaires who support it to continue fighting through the legal process in order for out of state shell companies, independent expenditure groups and Super PACs to continue disproportionate influence.”
––––––––––––––––––––
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
