This article originally appeared in The Detroit News October 20, 2026.

If Proposal 2 passes, writing this column could be a crime.

Americans enjoy broad freedom to speak their minds about public issues and elections. But Prop 2 would regulate and criminalize commonplace speech.

The group sponsoring Prop 2 promotes it as a ban on political contributions by gas and electric utilities and some government contractors. The ban is a Trojan horse. The proposal's real force is a sweeping new set of restrictions on ordinary speech and activities.

Michigan already regulates political donations. Contributions to candidates are subject to limits and disclosure requirements. Spending that explicitly tells people how to vote is also regulated.

People and groups are free, however, to comment on candidates and ballot questions if they do so in an educational manner. I can praise John James, who pledged to opt Michigan into the Education Freedom Tax Credit program, or Jocelyn Benson, who pledged to open the governor’s office to the Freedom of Information Act. These are both good policy positions.

Under Prop 2, that all changes.

The measure amends the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, adding new definitions for regulated campaign speech. Prop 2 blurs the bright line of express advocacy, so a communication need not say “vote for” or “vote against” a candidate to be regulated. Communication that merely promotes, supports, attacks or opposes a candidate could be restricted.

My colleague Michael Van Beek notes that Prop 2 doesn’t define critical terms, forcing people to guess what the legal boundaries are.

For speech that falls inside Prop 2’s boundaries, speakers will face new rules about legal disclaimers, registration and donor disclosure. Some violations are misdemeanors, punishable with jail time.

What does this mean for everyday civic life? Consider five scenarios:

• A hospital holds a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new cancer wing and invites local politicians to help lead it. These officials happen to be running for reelection.

• A school district or PTA educates the public through social media and town halls about a local school millage.

• Local activists organize a "No Kings" protest, criticizing elected officials and urging people to get out and vote.

• A church in Detroit hosts a candidate at a service. The pastor welcomes the candidate, thanks them for their service and prays for them.

• An environmental group publishes a legislator scorecard and boosts the scorecard on Facebook.

Under Prop 2, these groups will need a good campaign-finance lawyer on speed dial.

The First Amendment protects more than speech. It also guarantees freedom of association, including the right to support causes privately. The Supreme Court affirmed the importance of donor privacy in 1958, when Alabama’s attorney general tried to force the NAACP to disclose its membership list. Prop 2 threatens that privacy. Your contributions to a private organization could be made public.

Alex Baiocco of People United for Privacy wrote an analysis of Prop 2. “All nonprofits, regardless of tax-exempt status, are vulnerable,” he wrote.

Prop 2’s new speech rules would apply to businesses, unions, churches, volunteer organizations, universities and trade associations, just to name a few. As written, Prop 2 could even affect newspapers: Media organizations are not exempt from the new definition of electioneering communication.

If Prop 2 passes and withstands legal challenges, groups that support important causes will be weaponized against. Elected officials will use it to harass their political opponents.

Michigan needs more people who get involved in their communities. Prop 2 would create a legal minefield and give people a reason to stay silent.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.