Do politicians truly have our best interests at heart when they approve millions of dollars to renovate baseball parks?

Patrick Wright, vice president for legal affairs at the Mackinac Center, sat down with colleague James Hohman on the Overton Window Podcast to discuss the organization's latest legal effort: a lawsuit challenging Michigan’s growing use of special district projects, often referred to as “pork projects” or “earmarks.”

Most of these projects are local or private appropriations buried in the state budget for approval.

At the center of the legal challenge is Article IV, Section 30 of the Michigan Constitution, a clause that has existed in every state constitution since 1850. This section requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Michigan Legislature to approve appropriations for local or private purposes. But in recent years, Wright points out, this constitutional safeguard has been largely ignored in the budgeting process.

The lawsuit is filed against the Michigan Department of Labor and calls into question the constitutionality of special projects approved by less than the two-thirds requirement.

“Not surprisingly, politicians are myopic. They live in two-year election cycles,” Wright remarks. Lawmakers often prioritize their districts to ensure reelection. “There’s a ton of pressure to do earmarks. You’re trying to make sure that — come election cycle — you've done something.”

In recent years, spending has grown increasingly more egregious.

“The amount of earmarks requested has gone through the roof,” Wright says.

One case involved a $20 million earmark to a charity that didn’t even exist when it received the funds. “That one has been repealed,” Wright confirms. Others include questionable grants such as proposed spaceports in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

These kinds of deals have exploded in Michigan’s budget. In the 2024 cycle, the state approved nearly $2 billion in pork projects, 90% of which went directly to lawmakers’ home districts.

“The next year, it was $1B again,” Wright adds, noting the recurring trend. “That includes two baseball projects that we decided to look at.” The Mackinac Center chose these two examples to challenge both the private and local purpose clauses of Article IV, Section 30 — one project benefiting a private entity, the other run by a government organization.

“This would get us a shot at hitting both of the two clauses that are within the constitutional provision,” Wright says.

The high approval of earmarks has created an uneven playing field, where legislative leaders secure disproportionate funding for their districts. “If you’re the chairman, you’re going to get way more grants than back-bencher Bob who doesn’t have the same political pull,” Wright jokes.

This current case, filed in Michigan’s Court of Claims, seeks a preliminary injunction to halt the distribution of earmarked funds until the constitutional issues are resolved. If successful, the case could travel from the Court of Claims to the Michigan Court of Appeals and ultimately be decided by the Michigan Supreme Court.

As the case winds its way through Michigan’s courts, it could set a precedent for reining in pork-barrel spending and restoring constitutional checks that have long been ignored.

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.