Proposal 2, commonly called Mop Up Michigan, is a proposed statutory initiative to amend the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA).

If Proposal 2 is Adopted, the law would be amended to:

• Require “paid for by” disclosures on certain political ads distributed on the internet.
• Expand donor and spending disclosure for certain political ads.
• Restrict certain campaign contributions by regulated utilities and their principals and state and local government contractors and their principals.

The different aspects of the proposal operate independently and attempt to address different underlying concerns related to the influence of money in politics. Voters, however, will cast their vote for or against the entire proposal on the overall merits. Proposal 2 contains a severability clause, meaning that if any provisions are found to be unconstitutional, the unaffected provisions would remain in effect.

If Proposal 2 is Rejected, disclosure requirements would remain unchanged and the ability of regulated utilities and government contractors to contribute to political campaigns would remain unchanged. The legislature could choose to address any or all these issues at some point in the future.

Major Issues to Consider

• Michigan’s campaign finance law currently allows groups to run political ads without disclosing their donors or spending if the ads avoid using “express advocacy” language, even if the purpose of the ad is clearly to influence voters at an upcoming election. Proposal 2 would provide the public with more information about these ads and the organizations running them. It is not clear whether these disclosure requirements will impact the volume of these ads or voter behavior.
• Regulated utilities and some government contractors make significant campaign contributions in Michigan. Supporters of Proposal 2 argue that these contributions lead government officials to take favorable regulatory action and award/oversee contracts based on political influence, resulting in worse outcomes for the public. It is not clear how much impact placing restrictions on campaign contributions would have on these issues, given other methods of political influence and the regulatory complexity of the targeted industries.
• Laws restricting political spending must clear a high constitutional bar under existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent. It is likely the provisions restricting utility and contractor campaign contributions would be challenged as failing to meet a sufficiently important governmental interest and/or as restricting more speech than is necessary, even if that governmental interest is upheld.