Money Out of Politics group is "very confident" that their proposal will overcome foreseeable challenges

This is Mishmash, a weekly conversation where we try to unjumble an important and sometimes under the radar statewide story that affects you. I'm Zach Gorshout. And I'm Alethea Kasman. A battle over how the state's regulated utilities and other companies with large state contracts can spend for state-level political candidates is starting to take shape in Lansing. Last week, the group Michiganers for money out of politics submitted more than 560,000 signatures in an effort to get its proposal before voters in November. So this proposal would do three very big things. Stay with me. We'll take them one at a time. Number one, it would ban the state's regulated utilities, that's DTE energy and consumers energy. along with other companies that hold contracts with the state of Michigan government or local government worth more than $250,000 from contributing to state-level political candidates. Number two. Those utilities would no longer be able to use organizations affiliated with them to say good or bad things about candidates, even if those commercials do not expressly urge a vote for or against a candidate. And finally, number three, it would also require state-level campaign finance disclosures for groups spending on ads that mention candidates in any way ahead of the primary or general elections. Currently, if a group does not expressly advocate for or against a candidate, they do not have to file those disclosures. Thank you for that rundown, Zach. It's a lot of big changes. Now that Michiganers for money out of politics has turned in its signatures, the Bureau of Elections will determine if they have the 356,958 required. If they do, and they turned in well more than necessary, and if the issue survives any legal battles that are likely to come up after the signatures are verified, it will go before the legislature. Lawmakers have 40 days to adopt a proposal, which would make it law and keep it off the ballot, set up a competing proposal for voters to consider alongside it, or take no action and allow it to go to the ballot in November. I think the expectation right now is it gets to the ballot, but we will see. And this is setting up a really interesting fight in Lansing. DTE, consumers, and other major corporations in the state are opposing it. They argue the proposal would infringe on First Amendment rights and lock them out of the political process. But it seems to have broad voter support. You know, this is like a populist proposal at a time where, you know, voters are frustrated with big corporations. Organizers say it polls at 80 percent, and it has the backing from some of the most conservative and liberal lawmakers in Lansing.

So this is why I mentioned potential legal battles earlier. If this is on the ballot, it seems very likely to pass. So it is almost certain that the groups opposing this effort will attempt to keep it off the ballot altogether. They could take their First Amendment claims to court, argue there was some screw-up in signature collecting, or that the organizers simply didn't collect enough signatures. So far, the supporters of this proposal have expressed confidence that everything is above board and they will survive legal challenges, but there is still a long road. ahead before this goes to the next step and we know where it will land. And typically with ballot proposals, if there's questions about whether the language matches constitutional requirements, the proposal has to pass first before a court will take the case. So that could be something that plays out if this passes in the upcoming years. DTE and Consumers, the Monopoly Utilities, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, which holds a large state contract and is the state's biggest insurer, are key organizations that would be affected by the proposal. They contribute heavily to lawmakers, whether that's through political campaigns or nonprofit funds the lawmakers control. Nearly every member of the legislature has received contributions from those three groups. Those groups also contribute to other state level candidates. And these organizations argue they're affected by state policy and the initiative would limit their voice in Lansing. It is an interesting argument that it's unlikely, I think, to get a lot of sympathy from the general voting public. They also feel like they are not heard and they don't have huge amounts of money to be heard. It was quite the image last week to have organizers in Lansing turning in signatures while executives from DTE, consumers, and Blue Cross were on Mackinac Island for the Detroit Regional Chamber Policy Conference, which, technically, that is a working event, but we also know it is a party, there's free food, there's free drink, and they're complaining about this proposal. limiting their voice with lawmakers who they are on the island with. So this proposal gets at more than just the direct contributions to candidates. And those are contributions that are regulated. They have to be disclosed to the Secretary of State. And they're limited in how much can be contributed. This would prevent DTE and consumers from using entities affiliated with them. to pay for commercials saying the candidates the utilities like are amazing people and the candidates the utilities don't like are terrible in recent years organizations with ties to the utilities have spent a fortune on these informational advertisements which often have nothing to do with energy policy and the donations to them do not have to be disclosed We have seen them air ads for Republican candidates in Republican primaries about how their favorite candidate embodies Christian values. We've seen them air ads for Democratic candidates in those primaries that they support the Federal Affordable Care Act. Candidates out of favor will get attacked for everything under the sun, energy policy, or not. Supporters of the proposal have said this is going to be one of those David and Goliath fights in Lansing, but Consumers Energy, DTE, and Blue Cross. do not want to be called the Goliath here. And they have pointed to the organizers of this proposal accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars from out-of-state groups that wait for it, don't have to disclose their donors, which seems like the other side of the same coin when it comes to political spending. In response, the leaders of Michiganers for money out of politics said they are following the current rules and will take money from any entity that wants to help them.

Take on the big corporations. In the weeks ahead, we will be waiting for the Bureau of Elections to do its work, watching for any challenges, and then asking legislative leaders their plans for the proposal that makes it to them. We're going to dive really deep into this issue, which is one of the biggest in state government right now. After this short break, Alethe is going to talk to the co-chairs of Michiganers for money out of politics. Stick around. Welcome back to Mishmash. We are joined now by the co-chairs of Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, Sean McBrary and Christy McGillivray. Sean and Christy, thanks so much for joining me today. Thank you, Alethea. Yeah, thanks so much for having us. So the proposal that you want to put before voters would significantly limit political spending from major corporations in the state. So I want to start with just why do you think this needs to happen? I think that anyone who has paid attention to state politics in the past 40 years understands exactly why this needs to happen. Really popular bipartisan policies go nowhere because they cut into corporate profits. So two that spring to mind for me immediately are polluter pay and community solar. These have always had both Democrats and Republicans sponsoring them and they haven't gone anywhere. And that's fundamentally because elected officials respond to their campaign donors, their mega donors, instead of their voters. And I'm sure that Sean has something to say about this too. Yeah, you know, when folks ask about why we're doing this, I like to really level set by, you know, making sure that we're all aware of the fact that Michigan has ranked near or at the bottom of the state on government ethics and transparency for a long time. We have one former Speaker of the House serving a prison sentence on financial corruption issues. We have another former Speaker of the House on trial for financial corruption issues. We've caught other speakers taking hundreds of thousands of dollars into their 501C4s from the very companies that we're working to stop spending money in politics while things about those companies were being debated in the legislature. And I think Michigan voters know that the voices of voters in this state are being consistently overpowered by big corporations like DTE, Consumers Energy, Blue Cross Blue Shield, other health insurers, and these huge government contractors who are able to buy their way in Lansing. And so what our ballot initiative says, is that if you are a regulated utility or a government contractor with contracts worth over $250,000 a year, you can no longer use your relationship to the government in order to keep buying more influence, getting more contracts, and gaining more power. And so this puts the people of Michigan back in the driver's seat. And what we've seen with, you know, the incredible feat of... our volunteers out there collecting signatures through the winter, we turned in over 561,000 signatures. And what we're seeing with that is the people in Michigan taking back their power from these corporations who have, you know, bought the political system here for far too long. You know, I'm curious, consumers, DTE, and Blue Cross, you know, they're heavily regulated by the state. And, you know, their leaders are saying, like, look, we.

are heavily regulated by the state. They are directly affecting, you know, how we do business, and this proposal would limit us in having our voices heard in the legislature. I'm curious what your response to that argument is. Yeah, I think it's a pretty nonsensical argument, frankly. In 2022, the last time our whole legislature was up for election, out of 148 state legislators, 138 of them got contributions from DTE. What we are trying to do is limit the influence of these corporations because they've had this toxic and corrosive influence on our political process where their voices are far louder than the voices of regular people. And if I was at DTE or consumers especially where I was guaranteed a 10% return on my investment every single year, I wouldn't complain. Go ahead, Sean. Go ahead, Christy. Well, you know, I think that Mr. Hofmeister from Consumers said it best. He said that money buys you access, and that's just how it works, right? What we're going to do is make sure that voters are going to have the same access as utility executives. Utility executives will, of course, still be able to talk to legislators. Of course they will. They won't be able to use money to shut the door. on everyone else who wants to have a conversation with their elected officials. That's what this does. So it's pretty disingenuous for utility executives to both cop to the fact that money gives them more access than everyone else and then insist that they should continue to have more access than regular voters. It's a little laugh. Yeah, and I mean, they'll still get to play a role in the political process. The utility executives will be welcome to go out in Canvas for any, you know, any lawmakers who they support. Do you think it's fair though? Let's give an example. You know, let's say there's a Republican who supports electric deregulation and the utilities, you know, oppose that. You know, supporters of deregulation under your proposal would be able to provide unlimited informational support to that Republican while the utilities, you know, wouldn't be able to campaign to actively oppose them. Is that? a fair situation. The utilities could provide lots of informational support as well. They just couldn't buy them. Well, so another component of this proposal would require some campaign finance disclosure from groups that are not currently required to report political spending. Can you explain more about what that part of your initiative would require? Yeah, Michigan is often referred to as the Wild Wild West of campaign finance spending because we have an issue ad loophole that allows unlimited dark money to pay for ads in a little window of time and not actually disclose who's paying for those ads. This is out of step with the rest of the country. This is actually not how most other states operate and it leads to extra confusion in Michigan politics as we get closer and closer to election day. So this is going to level the playing field again. And make dark money donors actually confess as to who is putting money behind the ads that we see all over our YouTube feeds and TV stations every election cycle. So, Sean, I don't know if you want to add anything to that, but it's pretty basic. I think you about covered it. Yeah, and that piece of it, you know, applies to everybody who's spending money in our elections. Would it require donors to be revealed or it just require information about the group as a whole?

The group as a whole, and then folks are welcome to look into those organizations and dig deeper. Okay. So you've turned in more than 560,000 signatures, which is, of course, a solid cushion over the more than 350,000 that you'll need to qualify to move forward. What are you expecting in terms of challenges to the signatures? It really, you know, challenges to the signatures is one step, but also I think we'll see any type of challenge to try to avoid this moving forward. What are you preparing for? Yeah, we have really done some exhaustive due diligence on the signatures that we turned in here. We're really proud of the work we've been able to put together. We do anticipate that the other side, you know, is going to challenge our signatures. That happens in just about any ballot initiative. But we are very confident that we're going to overcome those challenges. Yeah, we spent almost a solid month reviewing absolutely every signature that we could before we turned it in. We did our own matching to the voter file in Michigan. We are incredibly confident that we have the signatures that we need. And the expectation is that we are going to hear from Republicans that are. This initiative just benefits Democrats. We're going to hear from Democrats that this just benefits Republicans. We're going to hear complaints about free speech. We're going to hear everything under the sun to justify the status quo. What Michigan voters know is that the status quo is not working and we need to change it. So we are going to be leaning hard into conversations with regular voters because it's the voters that have been ignored for far too long. So while the lawyers are fabricating a bunch of lawfare and drumming up reasons why they want to keep us off the ballot, we're going to be talking to millions of people in Michigan to make sure that voters know the opportunity they're going to have in front of them this November. And I'd just like to share as well on top of that. There's been... So much excitement in building this coalition. You know, I don't know how many spaces exist in the polarized world that we have right now where you have everything from members of Democratic Socialists of America to Republican Party chairs out there hitting the pavement and getting signatures together. It's really something to see the regular voters across Michigan coming together to support this initiative. So Sean, I know that you touched on this when you guys submitted your signatures last week, but this proposal will, of course, go to the legislature first before it would go to the ballot. Do you want to see the legislature adopt this proposal? You know, I think that the people have put this on the ballot because they want the opportunity to vote on it. And this, you know, in fact, When we were drafting this ballot initiative, we drafted this initiative based on bills that had been introduced, both during the Democratic trifecta and during the current legislature. They've had two sessions to take action on these bills.

And these bills have sat in the Government Operations Committee for two sessions. And so I think that the people of Michigan are really excited to see this on the ballot and to vote for it. And so that's, you know, what we want to see happen here. The, you know, I think that anything else would just wreak of political opportunism other than letting the people actually have their voices heard. And Christy, did you want to add anything? Honestly, I'd just like to share a story from an experience I had collecting signatures. The morning of the Republican nominating convention that was over in Novi, I spent the entire morning collecting signatures for this ballot initiative with rep Jim Desana, who's always been a strong supporter of this. And we had overwhelming support. We got signatures from 18 different counties that I haven't even been to yet. Really enthusiastic folks. coming up to talk with us about the issues. We recruited 11 different microcirculators that took petitions and went into the convention and collected their own signatures and then took them back to counties and collected them. And then I went directly from there to the No Kings three rallies. And Aletia, I had the same conversations. I was saying the same thing that I was saying to voters going into the Republican nominating convention as I was to folks that were voters that were attending the No Kings rallies that same day. I think that when this kind of issue is in front of voters, voters really deserve an opportunity to weigh in and demonstrate the overwhelming political will to make this happen. And that's going to happen when they get a chance to vote on it in November. So do you feel like this will hold up in court? So I think, you know, if this passes in November, you know, we'll see lawsuits from particularly the... biggest groups that it affects right and you know they're already arguing you know this is locking us out of the process this violates first amendment rights you know we knew we know the u.s supreme court has a conservative majority we know what the citizens united precedent is does this hold up in the face of all of that Well, you know, the people making those claims ought to really read up on the First Amendment and what's also been upheld already. So we went through a very exhaustive drafting process for this legislation, including both state and federal legal experts who reviewed this and put it through a very rigorous process. The precepts in our ballot initiative are based on things that have already been done both in other states and in some cases at the federal level and things that have already been upheld in U.S. Courts of Appeals. during the John Roberts era that the Supreme Court refused to take up. So we are very confident that this initiative will withstand legal tests, including the Citizens United Test. You have received some criticism for accepting contributions from out-of-state groups that don't have to disclose their donors. I'm curious if you think that's hypocritical for this kind of...

this kind of initiative to take money from from so-called dark money organization. I think it's, you know, I think it's really hypocritical to acknowledge that dark money coming into elections and political spending is corrupting and then insist that we can't change it. We are following the law and we are clearly dedicated to transparency. And I welcome everyone who is upset about political spending and lack of transparency to join us in changing the rules. Sean. Yeah, we have, of course, yeah, we have some, you know, we have a lot of. pro-democracy funders and folks who want to see government function better. This is not the same thing as the big corporations making money off the state government and then spending money to continue their reign running the state government. And as Chris Christie said, we are playing by the rules as they exist. We'll take money from anybody to stop DTE from going forward the way they are. And really, we're using all of the money that we are raising in this initiative, regardless of its source, to cast a light on the dark money that has bought our political system in Michigan for way too long. And so, as we go forward, you know, And another thing, we've not asked any, it's been encouraging to see the trend of lawmakers in both parties refusing to take corporate PAC contributions and taking similar steps. But we haven't asked anybody to do that. We've asked them to play by the rules as they are, as they're required to, and we're working together to change the rules. All right. Sean and Christy, thank you so much for joining me today. Thanks, Alicia. Yeah, thank you, Olivia. We want to note that MishMash reached out to Consumers Energy and DTE Energy, as well as Protect My Free Speech, the committee opposing this ballot proposal to share their views about it, but we're unable to schedule an interview with them. We will continue to cover this issue and hope to have them on the show for a later episode. Thanks again to our guest, Sean McBriardy and Christy McGilvray, co-chairs of Michiganders for Money Out of Politics. Mishmash is produced by WDET, Detroit's NPR station, in collaboration with Gongwer News Service and State Affairs. Mishmash is hosted and produced by Shana Roth, Alethea Kasben, and me, Zach Orchow. Additional production and editing by Hearns the Gare Jr. Mixing, mastering, and music by Samboean. Teresa Cardone handles our digital assets. Our news director is Jerome Vaughn. As always, if you listen to this podcast and want to support it, you can do so by leaving us a review or comment wherever you listen. You can subscribe or follow us on Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Mishmash is a great opportunity to get your message out to state and local policymakers to learn more about sponsorship. Contact info at g-o-n-g-w-E-R.com.

Remember, we're produced by a public radio station, which means we are listener supported. So if you really like this podcast, you can support WDET by going to wdet.org slash give. We'll talk to you next week.