Michigan voters on Tuesday approved a sweeping ballot measure that prohibits monopoly electric utilities, companies holding large state contracts, and their executives from contributing to state politicians, according to a report by Bridge Michigan. The Associated Press called the race at approximately 9:45 p.m., with four out of every five votes supporting the measure in early returns. Within 25 minutes of that call, the conservative Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed a federal lawsuit challenging the measure as unconstitutional.
Proposal 2 bars any firm with more than $250,000 in state government contracts from directly or indirectly funding Michigan politicians. The restrictions extend beyond the corporations themselves to include company officials, board members, and people with "substantial" ownership interests in targeted firms. Those individuals can't give money to candidates for governor, attorney general, or state Legislature, members of the Michigan Public Service Commission, state or local political party committees, or certain committees that support candidates. The new law also closes some pathways through which corporations pay for politicians' travel and meals. However, it doesn't stop dark money spending by corporations through 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations, which generally don't have to disclose their donors. It does require dark money groups to report donors if they run advertisements referencing a candidate or ballot issue within 100 days of a general election or 30 days before a primary.
Supporters of the initiative, sponsored by Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, called the overwhelming victory "a mandate for change" that state lawmakers should heed. Christy McGillivray, executive director of Voters Not Politicians, said voters acted because "our representatives failed to deliver on holding corrupt pay-to-play politics accountable." Opponents, including the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, previously criticized the measure as appearing "to silence the voices of job providers and limit free speech for some while giving others, like labor unions, a free pass." Patrick J. Wright, vice president of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, said in a statement that "Michiganders shouldn't face fines or jail just so that they can discuss politicians, policy, or elections."
Backers of Proposal 2 acknowledged the measure represents only a first step toward reducing corporate influence in politics, with organizers saying further reforms will be needed. Proposal 2 organizer Sean McBrearty told Bridge Michigan the initiative was "designed to take out the biggest chunk that we can." Opponents contend the law's incomplete reach would disadvantage Michigan corporations in the quest to shape policy, because money could still flow from unions and out-of-state donors who aren't state contractors. The measure's supporters say they carefully worded it to withstand legal challenges, including by not addressing contributions to super PACs allowed under the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, and by specifying that if courts void any portion of the proposal, the remaining portions stay in effect.
The Mackinac Center's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan and naming Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Attorney General Dana Nessel as defendants, challenges two specific aspects of the law. It contests the requirement for groups to disclose donors if they reference a candidate or ballot issue close to an election, and a provision that could trigger campaign finance requirements for organizations publishing content about candidates or ballot questions. The group argues those provisions could inappropriately force a wide variety of organizations and media outlets to disclose their donors, threatening "access to information voters rely on" and violating the privacy of people who support organizations they believe in.