Michigan’s newly approved Proposal 2 is facing two federal lawsuits, with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and major energy companies challenging the campaign finance restrictions days after voters backed the measure by more than 80 per cent.
The first case was filed on 3 November, the night of the election, by the Mackinac Center in the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan. It argues that parts of the law are unconstitutionally broad and vague, particularly provisions covering political communications, donor disclosures and reporting requirements.
A second lawsuit was filed two days later by CMS Energy, Consumers Energy, DTE Energy, DTE Electric and DTE Gas, along with associated political action committees and two individuals connected to utility executives.
The utilities argue that Proposal 2 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by preventing them, their executives, certain relatives and affiliated organisations from making political contributions to a wide range of candidates, parties and campaign groups.
Michigan Proposal 2 faces immediate legal test
The measure, formally known as the Michiganders for Money Out of Politics initiative, also applies to some government contractors with annual contracts worth more than $250,000. It expands campaign finance rules to cover political communications that identify candidates or ballot questions, even when they do not expressly call for a vote.
The Mackinac Center says the wording could capture policy research, advocacy and other public discussion that is not traditional election campaigning. Its lawsuit claims the disclosure rules could force organisations to reveal donors’ names, addresses, occupations and employers, with criminal penalties potentially applying to violations.
Patrick Wright, an attorney for the centre, said the new requirements included “a lot of vague definitions of what’s covered and what isn’t”. He said the reporting obligations could discourage people from taking part in debates about politics, public policy and elections.
Oakland University political science professor Peter Trumbore said the Mackinac Center’s challenge could have a substantial chance of success, pointing to US Supreme Court rulings that have given corporations and other organisations broad protections for political spending.
The utilities’ case focuses on a provision that bars regulated electric and gas companies from contributing to candidates and officeholders whose roles affect them. The plaintiffs argue that the law singles out utilities and people linked to them while allowing other companies, unions and advocacy organisations to continue political spending.
DTE said its employees should retain the same ability as other Michigan residents to support candidates and causes. “Our company is made up of 10,000 Michiganders whose fundamental right to free speech is under attack,” the company said.
Both cases name Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Attorney General Dana Nessel as defendants. The utilities’ lawsuit also names Bureau of Elections director Jonathan Brater.
Proposal 2 was promoted as a way of limiting the political influence of powerful utilities and other major organisations. Supporters argued that years of concern over energy prices, power reliability and the companies’ influence in Lansing had created a need for tighter restrictions.
Under Michigan law, the measure is expected to take effect about 10 days after the official declaration of the election result, potentially around 3 December, unless a court intervenes. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctions to prevent enforcement while the constitutional challenges proceed.
