GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — A pair of lawsuits are challenging the constitutionality of Proposal 2.
On Tuesday, four out of five voters in Michigan cast their ballot in favor of the proposal, which restricts campaign contributions from companies like Consumers Energy and DTE Energy.
Hours after the race was called, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy — a conservative think tank in Midland County — filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, claiming the proposal violates the First Amendment.
On Thursday, Consumers Energy filed a separate suit in the same court on similar grounds.
Proposal 2
Proposal 2 bans certain entities and people — 1) state-regulated electric and gas utility companies, 2) businesses with large state or local government contracts, 3) and certain people affiliated with these entities, including presidents, board members, lobbyists, and the immediate family members of these people — from making political contributions in certain state and local elections.
Proposal 2 also subjects more forms of communication to campaign finance laws in the state.
First, people who spend $5,000 or more a year to publicly communicate about a candidate within 100 days of an election must now report to the state their election-related communications — a term referred to as electioneering — and disclose information about the donors who financially supported their communication.
Second, people who spend $500 or more a year on communications that attack or defend a candidate are also subject to campaign finance laws in the state and must similarly disclose donor information.
Previously, those who spent $100 or more a year on these types of communications — a term referred to as independent expenditures — were subject to campaign finance laws, but only if they expressly advocated for an election result.
America Votes
What is Proposal 2 in Michigan? FOX 17 is breaking down the proposal
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
"This law is not aimed at a very narrow portion of campaign finance. It's aimed at everybody," said Patrick Wright, vice president of legal affairs for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. "So, we call it a nasty tool, and I think that's a valid description."
Wright claims the language in Proposal 2, specifically as it relates to electioneering and independent expenditures, is "vague" and believes it could subject nonprofits, journalists and even private citizens to its campaign finance reform.
"If you spend $5,000, what does that mean?" Wright said. "What about somebody who writes an op-ed? What about somebody who talks on a Substack? What about somebody does a subscription newsletter?"
In its lawsuit, the Policy Center said its own communications "will likely fall under Proposal 2’s new definition of 'electioneering communications' or 'expenditures' thus triggering burdensome disclosure requirements and raising the risk that Mackinac and its supporters will face threats, harassment, and reprisal from those opposed to its advocacy."
Consumers Energy
While the lawsuit from the Mackinac Center does not challenge Proposal 2's restrictions on campaign contributions made by utility companies, the suit from Consumers Energy does take issue with this portion of proposal.
"This proposal unfairly targets a Michigan business, its Michigan employees and their family members from exercising their constitutionally protected rights to participate in the political process, while allowing out of state special interest groups and billionaires to continue flooding Michigan with political spending. Michiganders should not lose their First Amendment rights because of where they work," the utility company said in a statement to FOX 17.
Michiganders for Money out of Politics
Michiganders for Money out of Politics — the group that put Proposal 2 on the ballot — defended the measure to FOX 17 on Thursday.
"This is about Michiganders prioritizing a fair and transparent democracy where voters are the primary concern of their elected officials," said Christy McGillivray, co-chair for MMOP.
"I think it's totally predictable that the corporations that have benefited from pay-to-play politics, would prefer to keep the status quo," McGillivray said. "We are confident that we are as well prepared as we can be to prevail in court."
McGillivray also said the Mackinac Center was "grasping at straws" with its claims.
"They have to lie to people to make their case," she said. "What's going to happen with this is that voters will no longer see all sorts of dirty political ads on their screens that don't provide any disclosure about who's paying for them. That's what's going to happen."
