Proposal 2State law · Citizen initiative
Limit utility and contractor campaign money
Explain it like I'm 5
This would stop certain power utilities and large government contractors from giving campaign money to some officials who affect them. It would also make more political messages say who paid for them, like labeling who paid for an advertisement.
Yes vote
Certain regulated utilities, large government contractors, and closely connected people and organizations would face new contribution bans and broader disclosure requirements.
No vote
These new contribution bans and expanded disclosure requirements would not take effect.
The question to ask yourself
Is reducing possible conflicts of interest worth broader restrictions on political contributions and communications?
The case for
- It could reduce pay-to-play concerns when regulated companies or contractors fund officials who oversee them.
- Broader disclosure could help voters see who pays for political messages, including some online communications.
- The restrictions focus on entities with major financial interests in government decisions.
Backed by: Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, Voters Not Politicians Ballot Committee, Michigan League of Conservation Voters
The case against
- The restrictions could burden political speech and association, especially for connected people and organizations.
- The measure could produce constitutional challenges and legal costs.
- Affected donors might redirect money through other channels without reducing political influence overall.
Opposed by: Protect MI Free Speech, DTE Energy, Consumers Energy, People United for Privacy Foundation
- Money
- The measure has no stated direct tax change, and implementation costs were not estimated in the sources reviewed.
- Don't be misled
- It does not ban all corporate or political spending, because it targets specified utilities, large contractors, connected entities, and specified communications.