Proposal 2: Prohibit Campaign Contributions From Certain Regulated Utilities and Government Contractors

The law today

Per the Senate Fiscal Agency, the Michigan Campaign Finance Act already regulates contributions and spending and requires disclosure of who pays for specified advertisements, and companies and individuals are subject to the same standards. Thirty-eight states require sponsor disclosure on internet communications; Michigan does not. Currently any person may give an unlimited amount to PACs running electioneering communications without the donor being reported; the PAC's name, but not its contributors, must be disclosed. The proposal would add the utility and contractor contribution prohibitions and expand the Act's definitions and disclosure rules.[8]

Official fiscal estimate

Senate Fiscal Agency: a minor negative fiscal impact on the Department of the Attorney General (costs of suing utilities that refuse to pay fines; a high volume of cases could require one or more additional full-time positions, about $145,700 each per year); a minor negative impact on State district courts from new misdemeanor cases; negative and corresponding positive impacts on local government (jail and court costs, offset by fines up to $1,000 and civil fines on utilities of up to 10 times the contribution, which fund local libraries; amount indeterminate); and a possible negative impact on the Department of State, which could need one or more additional full-time positions depending on the number of investigations.[8]

Arguments made for

• Christy McGillivray, co-chair of Michiganders for Money Out of Politics: "Michiganders are ready to finally rein in pay-to-play politics and out-of-control political spending in Lansing this November."[1]
• Michael Brady, attorney for Michiganders for Money Out of Politics: "What we have here today is the culmination of thousands of Michiganders, Michigan citizens, Republicans, Democrats and independents, exercising their constitutional and statutory right to reform their government."[2]

Arguments made against

• Michigan Chamber of Commerce statement (issued when the proposed language was posted; the Chamber is not identified in the sources as the registered opposition committee): the proposal "appears to silence the voices of job providers and limit free speech for some while giving others, like labor unions, a free pass."[4]
• John Sellek, spokesperson for the opposition committee Protect MI Free Speech: "The gist of what we have to do between now and November 3 is to educate people that nothing is as simple as it appears on the surface. They need to understand all the pros and cons before they vote on this in the fall."[7]

On record in support

• Michiganders for Money Out of Politics (sponsoring ballot question committee; co-chair Christy McGillivray)[1][2]

On record in opposition

• Protect MI Free Speech (registered ballot question committee opposing the proposal; spokesperson John Sellek)[7][9]
• Michigan Chamber of Commerce (statement opposing the proposal; the committee's treasurer, Wendy Block, is described by Bridge Michigan as the Chamber's head lobbyist)[4][10]
• Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and CMS Energy (Consumers Energy's parent) (contributors to Protect MI Free Speech who said the proposal would silence their employees)[9][10]