Guy Gordon (00:00.577)
Hello, and welcome once again to another Facts Matter podcast, courtesy of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan. I’m Guy Gordon, joined today by Carly Abramson, who’s one of our research associates, who has been diving into a ballot question that you’re going to be asked about November 3rd. We’ve taken a an exhaustive look at the proposal one, the issue about constitutional conventions. This is one that’s gotten an awful lot of attention, and that is the money out of politics, Carly.

What exactly does Prop two do? Because this is not a constitutional revision or amendment. This basically amends the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.

Karley Abramson (00:37.9)
Correct, right. And so this is a ballot initiative that would amend various sections of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. there’s, you know, kind of pieces that operate independently, and this this proposal kind of would address various pieces of this. big picture, it it c closes some, you know, some loopholes, cleans up s some particular pieces about disclosure requirements. So there’s there’s that piece, and then there’s

Guy Gordon (01:03.031)
Right.

Also acknowledges that we have an internet now, that all the ads are coming at us not just from T V radio and and and print.

Karley Abramson (01:08.6)
Correct, yes. Correct, yes, that we have exactly that we, you know, that that the kind of the breadth of of of ads, just to make sure that the intent of what those disclosure disclosure requirements were supposed to apply to, just making sure the language is cleaned up to be able to encompass the things that you see on the internet. And then there’s also the this disclosure piece when it comes to particular types of issue ads. On top of the disclosure piece.

Guy Gordon (01:30.029)
Yeah.

Karley Abramson (01:38.316)
there’s contribution limits on particular entities, the government contractors, and the utilities. So big picture, it it encompasses all of all of these pieces. And then there’s kind of details within each one that specifically outline what those limitations are.

Guy Gordon (01:54.805)
And and what some fe feel are shortcomings in the current campaign finance act. So, I mean, the the the element of this that’s gotten the the lion’s share of attention has been the one regarding the utilities. It’s because there’s a lot of frustration about there with both reliability and and higher rates and escalating costs, which are not not necessarily political. They can be a variety of different things under cost pressures that our utilities are facing. I want to hold that off.

Because people have heard about that, but there’s an that’s only a maybe a a third to a quarter of what this really does. And I think there’s a lot of a did you know factor to this. So let’s start with the disclosure piece of it. Because so often these ads are thrown at us and in tiny little print at the bottom it’s paid for by the loyal people that want to change the world, make the world a better place. Or some some contrived

Karley Abramson (02:37.208)
Sure.

Guy Gordon (02:54.49)
name of the committee. Wha how will this change the disclosure mandates that are already embedded in the Michigan law?

Karley Abramson (03:01.934)
Sure. So first, like we were talking about, it is the language is going to change from right now. I think it it includes says something about applying to ads in like radio or TV. It’s going to expand that to audio and video simply to make sure that it covers it internet ads, so that all of those disclosure requirements that apply to those radio and TV ads are now going to be extended just to kind of close that loop. So that’s that’s one piece of it that’s pretty straightforward.

The other piece is what’s referred to as non-express advocacy ads and trying to make sure that anything that kind of walks and talks like a campaign ad, but isn’t necessarily technically a campaign ad is still treated as if it should require the disclosure that those campaign ads

Guy Gordon (03:52.585)
Right, because until now it’s basically been as long as you don’t say vote for this, as long as it’s not a call to action, then it’s viewed as an issue ad and is exempt from the disclosure mandate.

Karley Abramson (03:59.961)
Correct.

Karley Abramson (04:09.74)
That’s right. And this would change that. It it changes, it does that by changing one, the the definition of what you know that non-express advocacy ad is. The language goes from if there is a identified candidate to an identifiable candidate. So basically, if you you know you show a picture of somebody, but you aren’t directly saying that it’s it’s about this person, and it also says, you know, you don’t have to say

Vote against, or you don’t have to use those magic words for it to trigger that disclosure requirement. So it’s trying to make sure.

Guy Gordon (04:46.496)
Right. And they get around it by saying instead of vote against, they say, Let so and so know in Washington how you feel about this. And

Karley Abramson (04:54.198)
Right. And they they changed they brought in the window for how close to the election these types of ads have to be for it to trigger that disclosure requirement. So from s now it’s a hundred yeah, a hundred days.

Guy Gordon (05:04.018)
Used to be sixty days, right? Now the election period, if you will, becomes a hundred days.

Karley Abramson (05:10.03)
Correct. So trying to broaden basically all of that kind of in line with the original intent of the disclosure requirements and just making sure that if it, you know, if it sounds and walks and talks and acts like it’s a campaign ad that is intending to persuade a voter to take an action to vote for for X, Y, or Z, that it has to follow the same disclosure requirements that the other ads that do the same thing, you know, but just do it directly have to do.

Guy Gordon (05:38.994)
Out outside of this one hundred day window by establishing this broader, are they somewhat weakening the express advocacy limitations?

Karley Abramson (05:51.565)
Well, it won’t it won’t touch the I mean y yeah, so those those non express like the actual issue adds, it won’t it doesn’t affect. But do you mean weakening in in that in what way, in what sense?

Guy Gordon (06:00.147)
Right.

Guy Gordon (06:08.425)
I’m trying to recall something from your paper that I don’t have in front of me at the moment. So that that’s where I’m getting caught. Yeah.

Karley Abramson (06:12.11)
that there might be like a drafting error. Yeah, that’s I I mean, it put potentially, but that’s more because of how they wrote it. it it’s a it’s a little bit technical, but because they kind of removed a section that had previously established that window. And but that’s something that is kind of small that could actually easily be fixed. I don’t think it was an intentional. I think it’s just in how they drafted it. It

Guy Gordon (06:30.708)
Right.

Karley Abramson (06:41.728)
It i it w it would a thing it would be a thing that technically needs to be fixed, but it’s not, you know.

Guy Gordon (06:47.07)
Okay. So I think most people would agree in most circumstances more transparency, more disclosure is a good thing. Sunshine is the great disinfectant, et cetera, et cetera. But in this case, how meaningful or impactful is it s is it going to be if the group producing the ad is b hiding behind a contrived name, operates out of a post box?

Karley Abramson (06:58.616)
Mm-hmm.

Guy Gordon (07:14.332)
And doesn’t have to give up their donor list until after the election. Am I really gonna learn that much more about who’s behind any particular effort?

Karley Abramson (07:23.724)
Yeah, there’s it’s an unknown question. We don’t have a lot of of evidence to suggest that this has a huge impact on voter behavior or that it changes election outcomes. like you said, people generally like the idea of more transparency and things being more direct. They like to have more information. The actual nexus between that and and election outcomes and voter behavior is a little more tenuous, partly, you know, because of of things that that you said, but also

Guy Gordon (07:37.59)
Right.

Karley Abramson (07:53.239)
you know, it it is unclear what that information, even if you can get it, even if they weren’t hiding behind a name or or you had more information or you had access, there’s only so much that that that piece of information adds to your existing knowledge about how to vote. There’s all these other signals and ways to indicate to a person to persuade them how to vote one way or the other, that that extra information about donors and who paid for the ad,

doesn’t necessarily add a lot of information that changes any sort of outcome. so, you know, and other impacts, it you know, potentially could lead to more of those kind of independent those committees that don’t currently have to register as as PACs because they only run these issue ads. if they have to do the disclosure requirements anyway, they might register. potentially this could

Guy Gordon (08:27.081)
Okay.

Karley Abramson (08:51.212)
deter some people from contributing to ads if they know that their name is gonna be disclosed. If they do think you know, I it was

Guy Gordon (08:57.022)
It could have a chilling effect on that on that e that free speech piece.

Karley Abramson (09:01.398)
Right, right. So if the if there’s some there there might be some consequence in you know, but again, there’s not much evidence for that. and so i it’s a little bit unclear how much of a an impact, mainly because the impact generally of disclosure requirements isn’t well known. it’s it’s it’s not very clear that what disclosure does to begin with, but people do support it and generally like transparency.

Guy Gordon (09:30.519)
So let’s take the second element here that a lot of people probably haven’t heard of. And and this relates to state contracting. We know that when a contract is let by the state of Michigan, it can be very lucrative. a vendor agreement can be, you know, in many cases a a huge deal. and you want it to be open, you want it to be fair, and you want to make sure that nobody has their thumb on the scale because they gave to someone.

So this piece of of proposal two will basically if you’re a state contractor, you may not give to the candidate of your choice or to the movement of your choice.

Karley Abramson (10:11.244)
Yeah. So the the the underlying concern motivating this is this idea, this kind of pay-to-play idea that government officials are favoring certain contractors or granting bids to organizations, entities that donated and then potentially you know, changing how much oversight these contracts have, right? So this idea of there being favorable treatment.

That you can kind of buy your way into a government contract through campaign donations. That that is the the the concern that this is trying to address. And it is targeting government contracts over $250,000, which is a very wide net. It encompasses a lot, thousands and thousands of contracts with different entities. And it includes you know, the principals, their families.

affiliates, w you know, entities controlled by them. So so the the net that is cast on who is restricted is pretty wide, in the attempt to kind of curtail the potential for this pay for play dynamic that can happen.

Guy Gordon (11:24.436)
Right. And I think everybody is, you know, we’ve seen so many pay to play scandals over the past few years that that is a legitimate concern. But it’s the idea that elected officials are the ones who are steering this. When in most cases in in the state contracting process, it isn’t an elected official, though they may try to weigh in. It’s a it’s a career civil servant.

Karley Abramson (11:48.674)
Mm-hmm.

Guy Gordon (11:51.616)
who serves a maybe a variety of of administrations coming from a variety of parties.

Karley Abramson (11:57.517)
Right. A lot of times it’s not that it’s impossible for an elected official to use a contract as a way to kind of grant you know, they an elected official if they wanted to get involved in this, could, but usually they are very far removed from how most of these contracts actually manifest and take place. They usually don’t have their hands in because two hundred and fifty thousand dollars is relatively small in terms of

the you know, the types of vendors and contracts that would put that this would potentially apply to are often very removed from that elected official. And so that the the nexus again between kind of that potential for corruption, in some cases, it could be very clear for those very big contracts that, you know, but the the the the net is very wide and as, you know, we will

talk more about the constitutional issues, one of the things that that, you know, these types of restrictions have to be is closely drawn. So to try to not restrict more, you know, speech than is necessary. And so

Guy Gordon (13:07.37)
Well, and here’s the thing, if if let’s say my father is i is the principal of a business doing business with the state, does that mean that I now have to forfeit my right to get to the candidate of my choosing?

Karley Abramson (13:19.732)
Yeah, I right. And that that’s the theoret the the question of your where your values are as a voter that’s gonna come into play when you know, depending on how much you value each each particular thing. So those those this is this is the area where the free speech concerns and the wanting to curtail the amount of financial influence in our elections, where those two things kind of come come into

tension with each other.

Guy Gordon (13:50.251)
And we should also point out that there is state contracting. And then there the the the skullduggery that we’ve seen over the past decade or so hasn’t been so much there, but late night backroom deals to send state grants or single bid contracts for a project that is funded or appropriated money in a lame duck session in the eleventh hour.

the earmark scenario is totally different than the state contracting scenario. And most of the corruption we’ve seen has been in the former, not the latter. That we know of.

Karley Abramson (14:23.149)
Vine.

Karley Abramson (14:27.488)
Right. And that’s one of the pieces, I think one of the takeaways of of this is even if when you can make a a a logical nexus between how this might potentially curtail some corruption, there are so many other avenues for money and for money to influence politics outside of campaigns and elections. And it the so there there’s only so much that this particular piece can do because

the way that a lot of times these things that we’re trying to avoid, these the, you know, corruption scandals that take place, often ha, you know, can happen through other avenues and other means. And this will not do anything to to stop those.

Guy Gordon (15:10.444)
Can have have the supporters of proposal two made a cause and effect argument that quid pro quo in state contracting is a big problem?

Karley Abramson (15:19.532)
Yeah, and that is it it’s one of the areas where it has been upheld by other courts. You know, there are somewhat similar provisions in other states that restrict government contractors because it you can a little bit more clearly make that quid pro quo case of that direct tr you know, trade of I am giving you this so that you will grant me a government contract. Because it’s it’s the risk of

quid pro quo or the the appearance of that risk, right? And so that case has been, you know, there’s a little bit more meat to that, that there might be potential, but the, but even with that, the amount the problem is much broader. The the the problem and the rhetoric around money out of politics

Guy Gordon (16:00.319)
Uh-huh.

Karley Abramson (16:15.69)
is much broader. There’s multiple avenues. and this is only one small piece that even if you can draw the connection that yes, this might this will reduce a potential for corruption, it’s still, you know, it’s a small piece of it. And for some people, doing that at the expense of the free speech restrictions is is not worth it. So

Guy Gordon (16:18.898)
Mm-hmm. Right.

Guy Gordon (16:37.93)
All right, let’s let’s go to the the the final piece of this, which is the one that’s getting it s it seems to be an outsized portion of the rhetoric and media attention, and that is how it will restrict the political activities of utilities, public utilities, and those that are associated with them. We should point out that this would affect DTE, consumers’ power. It would not affect co ops, it would not affect municipal

Karley Abramson (16:58.04)
Right.

Guy Gordon (17:07.848)
lighting and power companies that are that are locally based. This these are the regulated publicly traded monopolies.

Karley Abramson (17:12.386)
Right. So this is

Karley Abramson (17:17.868)
Right. And so the concern when it comes to utilities, there’s you know, there’s general dialogue and conversation about discontentment with utility performance and cost. and the particular risk that they are talking about trying to curtail is how these rates are determined. and so it’s a little bit of kind of a complicated

Guy Gordon (17:42.528)
Mm-hmm.

Karley Abramson (17:46.393)
process, but there’s the MPS MPSC Michigan Public Service Commission, which is not made of this is made of appointed members by the governor. It’s a three-member body that approves through you know a pretty rigorous process what these potential rates can be that that these utilities can charge consumers. And so the the concern is that the

the the utilities are able to kind of take advantage and kind of overstate their their rates to be approved by potentially a favorable MPSC member to grant them, you know, a number that would ultimately give them higher profits where they could overcharge and underserve. So that lot that’s the kind of logical nexus they’re trying to articulate.

Guy Gordon (18:44.224)
But is there a connection between that money? If you t you know follow the money that we’re we’re you know we’re taught to do, do we ever see money exchange hands between donors and those appointed, not elected, but appointed members of the Michigan Public Service Commission?

Karley Abramson (18:48.791)
Right.

Karley Abramson (19:00.066)
Yeah, it’s a pretty tenuous connection because you again, because they’re appointed, you would have to argue that your contribution to an elected official who isn’t, right, the MPSC member who, you know, that that roundabout way would then have to get back to you. It’s just a it’s a little bit of a less direct connection of of how how you contribute to an elected official ends up serving your interests in that

kind of tangible quid pro quo way. It’s a little bit more unclear. And generally the Supreme Court has been very clear that general like favoritism, general favorable treatment to your interests does not constitute a quid pro quo. And so there’s you know these concerns that the that legislators when it comes to environmental regulations are very pro-utility.

But again, that is not something that would constitute a quid pro quo that would allow for the restriction of free speech. That is a general you try to get people into office who are going to represent your interests and right and who are going to benefit you in some way. So again, drawing that direct quid pro quo is even harder for the for the utilities. And as far as I was able to find, there’s no other state that has successfully

manage this in a constitutional way.

Guy Gordon (20:30.944)
Well, and and the other part of it is if you look at this that that money talks and that is a result of that that the utilities have a louder voice, we have a situation here in Michigan where if you followed rate payer, you know, rate cases, you in some cases have the attorney general weighing in on behalf of Michigan rate payers. You have activist organizations that are weighing in on behalf of ratepayers or environmental groups that want to see these utilities take a you know

a a particular course and how they generate their power, either through coal or natural gas or solar renewables. So in terms of voice, the the people and their advocates have a considerable comment ability here too.

Karley Abramson (21:02.147)
Right.

Karley Abramson (21:15.854)
True, yeah. And there’s, you know, there’s an argument about a regulated you know, a regulated monopoly having a special status that some people argue requires, you know, that that would justify these restrictions. But the flip side of it is that being a regulated monopoly also, you know, potentially makes you vulnerable to caps and limits that, you know, other industries don’t have. And so it they kind of can cut both ways.

whether or not that, like you said, there’s already a process, there are already things about being a regulated monopoly that work for and against you in some ways. And it’s kind of balancing those out. So again, constitutionally being able to draw that direct quid pro quo case is just more tenuous. It’s it’s not that they’re it could couldn’t it not impossible.

But with the way we know the this current court is and what the precedent says, it it it it see it would be very difficult to to make that case.

Guy Gordon (22:21.696)
We should also point out that just because you move out what you know, take away what you feel is the corrosive or corrupting influence of money in the utility arena doesn’t mean that you’re going to remove the complaints that you feel that the public service commissioners are too deferential towards the utilities.

Karley Abramson (22:37.836)
Right. And they’re and right. And and again, that doesn’t show a you know, a that quid pro quo. and and people being you know, that regulatory capture by the legislature is a is a broader thing. It’s kind of outside the scope of of what this can actually do, because while this does push the constitutional bounds, it is still acting within those limits. And so that’s why it addresses

Guy Gordon (23:04.385)
Right.

Karley Abramson (23:05.996)
the disclosure piece, which you know, and we we already have caps on contributions, depending on the elected office and the the entity, you know, the corporations having to spend contributions through a segregated fund. We we we do what we can under the existing framework, but the existing framework allows for a lot of things that people are generally unhappy with. And

This particular initiative can’t do that much, even if it survived constitutional challenges, to limit the actual influence of money on politics.

Guy Gordon (23:46.699)
Yeah, it’s a little bit of I mean you could argue that there’s a little bit of overpromising when you title it Get Money Out of Politics as far as we possibly can under current constitutional guidelines is handed down by the Supreme Court. it doesn’t have the same ring to it. so th the the other thing that I wanted to just get at before we leave the utility piece and wrap this up is similar to with state contractors, it says utilities and their associated

Karley Abramson (23:56.845)
Yeah.

Yeah.

Guy Gordon (24:16.616)
Entities. I think that’s the language in it. Affiliates, I mean, how far does that net go?

Karley Abramson (24:18.794)
Mm-hmm. Yeah, I affiliates, yeah.

Karley Abramson (24:26.69)
I mean it says it it lists in the language I don’t remember but like you know established controlled by there there’s particular language that defines what those entities are, but the reach, you know, for utilities it’s a little smaller generally just because there’s fewer companies because it’s government contractors is very, very broad because of the number of you know vendors and entities that that that could apply to. but yeah, it’s

Guy Gordon (24:44.756)
Right.

Guy Gordon (24:56.032)
But for instance, the transmission company that partners sometimes with consumers that’s part of the grid, are they going to be subject to this because they’re in the the utility sphere? what about the vendors to consumers power and DTE? or do they have to be under the corporate umbrella?

Karley Abramson (25:03.03)
Hmm.

Potentially. Yeah. I I yeah, it’s a little it’s yeah.

Karley Abramson (25:11.574)
Yeah, if I mean if they’re operated, yeah, operated, established, controlled, if you can make the argument that they fit, you know, into the the words and you know, the language of it that they would apply. And so, you know, those some of those are a little bit unanswerable and might be a case by case if something is challenged. but but the takeaway for voters is that it is broad.

Guy Gordon (25:29.61)
Right.

Karley Abramson (25:37.994)
Even the government contractor piece, which has been upheld, is broader than what other states have done. and so it’s important to know that regardless of how you feel about it, it it is likely to face some sort of constitutional challenge.

Guy Gordon (25:50.985)
Right. And we should point out two states have this utility portion, this this ban on political contributions by utilities. I believe it’s Georgia and Alabama, but their regulators are elected. So there is a more direct tie to those contributions and the actual regulators that sit in the seats and pass judgment on rate cases.

Karley Abramson (26:06.282)
Right, yeah. I have to Yeah, r yeah.

Karley Abramson (26:14.74)
Right. It’s a di a different kind of system and and structure. So it it’s, you know, applying this to how this actually manifests in Michigan and what the actual risk of corruption is in Michigan is little bit different. You have to consider how our system actually works. and that’s, you know, sometimes beyond the detail that that people want to hear or talk about. but but knowing

how it all ac how where the money goes and how it all actually flows is an important factor when you are competing against a fundamental right free speech issue. And so it matters again because of the what you are weighing on the other side and because it is so broad, restricting free speech is you know a big deal. And so that is why

it is it is important to get into the details of what is the actual risk and is it worth it.

Guy Gordon (27:15.146)
Yeah. It sounds like that this could end up being, and maybe that’s one of the ulterior motives here, a test case to challenge some of the elements of the citizens united ruling and try to perhaps weaken it.

Karley Abramson (27:28.268)
Potentially. I mean it it it definitely brings up a lot of those issues. and you know, under a different a theoretical Supreme Court under, you know, that was a different makeup, might have different theories about what constitutes a compelling government interest. Because right now, you know, in order to restrict free speech has to be a compelling government interest, the only one that they have re they have recognized.

Guy Gordon (27:49.078)
Right.

Karley Abramson (27:56.619)
is that quid pro quo exchange. there there was a you know another case that originated in Michigan at Austin that was overturned, but did try to outline a compelling interest about the cons the consolidation of wealth and that being an important compelling government interest that would bring you know would justify a closely drawn restriction. But right now, you know, under the current court and the court has moved even farther,

since you know, it th it ha last spoke on it. it is it is unlikely to imagine this court, you know

Guy Gordon (28:28.342)
Mm.

Karley Abramson (28:37.314)
I it it is I it’s it’s hard to imagine a challenge using this to challenge the existing framework on free speech. It’s hard to imagine that being successful under the current makeup of the Supreme Court.

Guy Gordon (28:52.52)
all right. Any final thoughts, Carly?

Karley Abramson (28:56.268)
No, it just, you know, there’s it’s a lot of detail. and so reading, you know, if you really want to get into the the the details of what everything says and the, you know, getting into kind of what the current law says and how this would change it, the report is pretty detailed. It’s hard to cover it all just in in a podcast. one thing we didn’t mention, I just want to make sure is clear is that the the difference between expenditures and contributions. So this government contractor and utility piece.

targets the contributions, does nothing to curtail expenditures, which is just speech. Right. And so even e Yeah.

Guy Gordon (29:35.776)
Tell me, contributions, expenditures, what’s the difference? If I’m writing a check, how do we redefine that?

Karley Abramson (29:41.049)
So uncoordinated, so yeah, so there’s contributions to particular candidates, but then there are independent expenditures that you can just spend on ads. So if you aren’t officially coordinating with a candidate, an independent corporation who isn’t doesn’t have any sort of like I’m not doing this officially on your behalf, can spend on ads.

As much that part is not restricted. So that’s why there’s only so much

Guy Gordon (30:10.87)
Now does it matter where the money’s coming from, whether it’s coming from the general treasury of the corporation or whether it’s money in a separate pot?

Karley Abramson (30:15.916)
Yeah. So Michig Michigan yeah. So Michigan, about I think fifteen I fifteen or so states require it to come from a s a segregated fund, which just means that it can’t come from their general treasury. They have to kind of create a separate fund that people can vol that you know, people can voluntarily contribute to, but that then it’s unlimited how how much that you can use that fund to to use on expenditures.

as long as they are uncoordinated. So those right, so there’s even if you

Guy Gordon (30:50.784)
Sounds like they deliberately muddied it at the st from the g from jump street. ‘Cause to a to a layman, that’s that’s a difficult distinction to make.

Karley Abramson (30:55.37)
We it just

Karley Abramson (30:59.106)
Well, yeah, because and that’s why it’s important to recognize that even the with these contribution limits, even if they go as far as they can, can only do so much because this doesn’t touch expenditures, independent expenditures. So the amount of money that can be thrown into this is still enormous because at the end of the day, they could just choose to redistribute this money. Anyone who was using the a a pot of money to contribute directly to a candidate can now instead take that money.

And just use it on ads. And there’s n this does nothing to to stop that. So just overall, there’s there’s a lot of pieces about money in politics that are unaddressed by this, even if this goes as far as it can possibly go.

Guy Gordon (31:36.78)
All right.

Guy Gordon (31:46.91)
And even then it could be challenged and eroded to to to no longer resemble what it was you thought you were voting for in the first place. Not that that is necessarily a reason not to try.

Karley Abramson (31:48.622)
Correct, correct.

Karley Abramson (31:53.922)
Right. Yeah.

No, some and and and s some people might say, you know what, it’s all we can do, but that but I wanna do it. Some people might say this doesn’t even do much and I value the free speech part of this too much to to to to to think it’s fair to restrict, you know, free speech in that way. Those are kind of the things that voters are gonna be keeping in mind when they bring their own values to this decision.

Guy Gordon (32:09.26)
Right.

Guy Gordon (32:21.076)
And based on some of the feedback I’m getting, some of it may just be it’s a protest vote.

Karley Abramson (32:27.372)
Yeah, I mean and it some of it might just be it’s that we we we want to make a statement about you know, it it potentially could be that.

Guy Gordon (32:35.552)
Yeah. All right. Carly Abramson always interesting. Great work on this. And we’ll find out where it goes on November third. But in the meantime, we know our friends that subscribe to the CRC podcast and go to CRCMish dot org. they’ve got a place where they can find objective information on what the ins and outs of and and that goes beyond just the language that they will see on the ballot. Thanks so much, Carly.

Karley Abramson (33:01.368)
Thanks.

Guy Gordon (33:02.859)
And again, thank you for joining us. If you’ve already had the discussion over coffee or at the water cooler about this, let your friends know that this podcast is available either through YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcast, or by linking up at CRCmish.org. Until next time, I’m Guy Gordon. Take care.