Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. Benson, et. al
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, represented by the Institute for Free Speech, filed a federal lawsuit challenging Michigan’s Proposal 2 of 2026. The lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Attorney General Dana Nessel as defendants, targets provisions that chill free speech and strip privacy from people who support organizations that discuss public affairs.
The lawsuit argues that two campaign finance provisions violate the First Amendment. They treat policy discussion as campaigning and force disclosures that could expose financial supporters to harassment or threats.
At stake is Michiganders’ right to discuss government, public policy and elections without being treated as political operatives by our government. The provisions could punish a multitude of organizations, journalists, and individuals who publish research, report on lawmakers or discuss candidates — even when they never tell anyone how to vote.
The lawsuit challenges two provisions:
Electioneering communications: Individuals and organizations spending more than $5,000 in a year on communications that so much as mention a candidate would face reporting requirements. Those requirements include handing the state certain financial supporters’ names, addresses, occupations and employers. The provision covers communications directed to a relevant audience within 100 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.
Campaign expenditures: Communications that “promote, support, attack, or oppose” a candidate or ballot initiative could trigger campaign finance rules year-round. An organization that spends just $500 in a year on these communications could be forced to register as a political committee and submit to ongoing reporting and donor-disclosure requirements.
Violating these regulations can carry criminal penalties. Faced with vague rules and the threat of prosecution, speakers may decide that discussing public officials is not worth the risk. Voters lose when reporting, research, and debate give way to silence.
The disclosure requirements also put supporters’ privacy and safety at risk. People who support a qualifying organization’s work could have their personal information turned over to the state, leaving them open to threats and harassment.
The provisions could restrict MichiganVotes.org legislative voting records, Michigan Capitol Confidential news reporting, ballot proposal research, radio programs, interviews, and public-policy forums. Openly discussing politicians and their decisions should not automatically turn a speaker into a political campaigner.
“The First Amendment guarantees people the freedom to praise and criticize the elected officials who govern us,” said Institute for Free Speech senior attorney Brett Nolan, the lead litigator on the case. “But there’s nothing free about a system that requires you to register with the government if you dare speak about those elected officials in public. Proposal 2 is an expansive and dangerous assault on the right and ability of people to hold their government accountable.”
“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. We’re bringing this lawsuit to protect free speech and open debate and to prevent giving partisans a nasty tool that can be used to criminally punish their opponents for daring to speak their minds.”
The Mackinac Center filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division on
