Two of Michigan's biggest utilities and a free-market think tank have asked a federal court to stop Proposal 2, the campaign finance measure voters approved Tuesday, arguing it tramples First Amendment rights.
The measure, pushed by a campaign called Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, won 81% of the vote in unofficial results. Under state election law, it takes effect by Dec. 3, 2026, unless a judge blocks it.
It bars campaign spending by regulated electric and gas utilities, by contractors holding more than $250,000 a year in government contracts, and by people and organizations with substantial ties to either. Utilities could not give to candidates for governor, attorney general or the Legislature, and the ban extends to their employees and employees' relatives.
CMS Energy, Consumers Energy and DTE filed suit Thursday in the Western District of Michigan. They argue the law is speaker-based viewpoint discrimination aimed at utilities and their workers, and that it fails the legal test for limiting contributions because it is not directed at preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.
The companies' lawyers wrote that Michigan's utilities have produced no scandal and no exchange of official acts for money. They said the campaign relied on slogans and buzzwords rather than evidence, and that the groups behind it have regularly opposed the utilities on policy.
The suit names Jonathan Brater, director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections; Attorney General Dana Nessel; and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson or her successor. Benson is governor-elect, and Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist is secretary of state-elect. The utilities want the measure declared a violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and seek preliminary and permanent injunctions against state investigations and fines.
Katie Carey, Consumers' director of media relations, said the proposal singles out a Michigan business, its workers and their families while leaving out-of-state special interest groups and billionaires free to keep spending.
Michiganders should not lose their First Amendment rights because of where they work.
Katie Carey, Consumers Energy director of media relations
A narrower challenge
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed its own suit in the same federal court a day earlier. It targets only parts of the law, the provisions on electioneering communications and campaign expenditures, which it says define too broadly which organizations must report their donors and contributions.
The think tank argues it cannot tell which of its public statements would count as supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot question. That leaves it a choice between silence and political-committee reporting rules that impose heavy costs and expose its supporters to harassment, the suit says.
Patrick J. Wright, vice president of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, said the rules endanger information voters rely on and the privacy of donors, and could hand partisans a tool to criminally punish opponents for speaking out.
Backers expect to prevail
Samuel Bagenstos, a University of Michigan law professor representing the measure, said he expects a strong defense. He noted that new campaign finance laws routinely draw lawsuits and that the proposal was written with existing court decisions in mind.
Maura Cowley, the campaign's manager, called the litigation no surprise, saying the corporations funding the opposition had been preparing for it since Proposal 2 qualified for the ballot. She said the campaign is ready for this and any other challenge.
