The ballot measure to limit corporate spending in Michigan’s political arena passed by an overwhelming margin on Tuesday and was immediately met with a lawsuit from opponents.
The Associated Press declared the proposal passed at about 9:45 p.m., with 4 out of every 5 votes supporting the measure in early returns.
By 10:10 p.m., the conservative nonprofit Mackinac Center for Public Policy had filed a lawsuit contending the measure is unconstitutional and seeking to block parts of it from being implemented.
Backers of Proposal 2, sponsored by the group Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, called its resounding victory a “mandate for change” that Michigan lawmakers should heed.
“Our representatives failed to deliver on holding corrupt pay-to-play politics accountable, so we said enough,” said Christy McGillivray, executive director of the group Voters Not Politicians. “And tonight, Michiganders delivered.”
Officials with the Mackinac Center called the measure “a nasty tool” that can be used to punish people for “daring to speak their minds.”
The lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Attorney General Dana Nessel as defendants, was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
The new law will prohibit monopoly electric utilities, companies with more than $250,000 in state government contracts and people with close connections to those companies from directly or indirectly contributing to Michigan politicians.
Supporters of the measure, including voter advocacy, environmental and racial justice groups, argued it offers a needed check on corporate lobbyists’ influence in Lansing.
That message resonated with voters like 26-year-old Emily Rose of Mason.
Michigan’s monopoly utilities “make a lot of money off of us,” Rose said. “And if they’re using that money to support politics, that doesn’t really do us any favors as the people paying those bills.”
Opponents, including business groups and utilities, argued it violates corporations’ right to free speech and gives unions and out-of-state donors an unfair advantage.
They point to past court cases, including the US Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling that gave corporations the right to make unlimited political expenditures.
Officials for Michiganders for Money Out of Politics say they carefully worded the measure to withstand legal challenges. For instance, it doesn’t address contributions to super PACs that are allowed under Citizens United, and it specifies that if courts void any portion of the proposal, “the remaining portions remain in effect.”
Here’s what to know:
What’s in the measure
Proposal 2 expands upon Michigan’s existing prohibition on direct corporate contributions to Michigan candidates while also including company officials, board members and people with “substantial” ownership interests in the companies targeted by the ballot measure.
They’re barred from funding candidates for governor, attorney general or the state Legislature, members of the Michigan Public Service Commission, state or local political party committees and certain committees that contribute to candidates.
The new law also eliminates some avenues through which corporations pay for politicians’ travel and meals.
What’s left out
Proposal 2 does not stop dark money spending by corporations through 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations, which generally do not have to disclose their donors.
However, 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.
What they’re saying
Proponents have described the initiative as a first step toward tamping down on corporate influence in politics, while contending further action is needed.
“There will need to be more reforms after we pass this ballot initiative,” Proposal 2 organizer Sean McBrearty previously told Bridge Michigan. “But this ballot initiative, we designed to take out the biggest chunk that we can.”
But opponents contend the law’s incomplete reach would put Michigan corporations at a disadvantage in the quest to influence policy, because money could still flow from unions and out-of-state donors who aren’t state contractors.
“This egregious proposal appears to silence the voices of job providers and limit free speech for some while giving others, like labor unions, a free pass,” the Michigan Chamber of Commerce previously said.
The Mackinac Center’s lawsuit challenges two aspects of the law: its 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 that promotes, supports, attacks or opposes a candidate or ballot question.
The group contends those provisions could inappropriately force a wide variety of organizations and media outlets to disclose their donors.
“Michiganders shouldn’t face fines or jail just so that they can discuss politicians, policy, or elections,” said Patrick J. Wright, vice president of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation. “These rules threaten access to information voters rely on and violate the privacy of people who support organizations they believe in.”
