Education
|
Energy
|
Environment
|
Labor
|
Transparency
|
Healthcare
|
Fiscal
|
Criminal Justice
|
America 250
Michigan voters passed Proposal 2 on November 3, 2026. The proposal vastly expands Michigan’s campaign finance law, significantly broadening the kinds of speech the government may regulate. It would cover policy discussion, news coverage, and other communications—even when they do not tell anyone how to vote. Its challenged provisions could require organizations and individuals to report spending and disclose personal information, including names, addresses, occupations, and employers, to the state and
It significantly expands the scope of the law. A large amount of content that today would not be considered political would be defined as regulated campaign speech and subject to the law’s reporting and disclosure requirements.
Organizations and non-profits that comment on elected officials, ballot initiatives, election-related matters, policy, etc. This could include blogs, op-eds, interviews, social media posts, voters guides, etc.
Individuals who opine on politics on social media or other forms of communication.
Journalists and media outlets who simply report on election-related matters.
Names, addresses, occupation, employer name and address. It also includes “any other information the Secretary of State determines is necessary.”
Donor disclosure opens the door to harassment and intimidation and can turn donors into targets. Proposal 2 could require media outlets, journalists, podcasters, Substack writers, and anyone else to disclose the identities of their donors or subscribers. As a result, your names, address, employer, and occupation could be placed on a government list and made public.
The government can only limit speech in the rarest of circumstances and in extremely narrow ways. Prop 2 impacts far too much speech with far too little justification. This won’t just impact political campaigns and advertising – it affects everyday discussions about politics and policy. These discussions have been hallmarks of our democracy for two and a half centuries, and they ought to be protected. Supporters of this provision say it’s about transparency, but that justification shouldn’t be used to impact millions of Michiganders who just want to talk about the issues.
Penalties include fines, misdemeanor charges, up to 93 days in jail, late-filing fees, cancellation of government contracts, and a 12-month ban on new government contracts.
No. The proposal only restricts certain campaign contributions by certain utility companies and certain government contractors. If these restrictions result in fewer campaign contributions from these groups, other special interest groups will undoubtedly fill the void.
Public utility companies in Michigan have significant political influence. But restricting their campaign contributions isn’t going to fix that. These companies spend so much on politics because their profits depend on a state law that gives them a legal monopoly on energy services. If lawmakers want to reduce the utilities' influence, they should take away their privilege and open the energy market to healthy competition.
