Michigan ballot initiative aims to reveal ‘dark money’ donors behind political ads

• Potential Michigan ballot proposal would force state-level ‘dark money’ advertisers near elections to disclose their donors
• The proposal also seeks to block utilities and large state government contractors from making political contributions
• Business groups have vowed to fight what they call ‘selective censorship’ of their members

LANSING — A potential ballot proposal to change Michigan’s campaign finance law could upend political giving and advertising in the state, hamstringing prolific political donors and revealing major sources of “dark money” spending. 

A coalition of interest groups has formed Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, a committee seeking to put a proposal on the 2026 ballot that would ban regulated utilities and state government contractors — along with their senior employees — from making contributions to state candidates and a broad array of other political spending.

But the proposal would also go further, requiring any outside spending group making even tangential reference to a candidate or ballot issue to report their spending totals and donors to the state in the months leading up to an election. 

At least 11 other states require donor transparency for so-called issue advertisements that have evaded disclosure rules in other parts of the country, but Michigan would be the first political battleground to do so. 

“We're doing everything we can to close those loopholes,” Sean McBrearty, the Michigan state director of Clean Water Action, said in an interview. “I think that this will be a major step towards building a better and more transparent government in Michigan.”

McBrearty has so far acted as a spokesperson for the coalition backing the ballot initiative, which also includes Voters Not Politicians, Michigan Economic Justice Coalitions, Progress Michigan and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

Organizers will need to collect valid signatures from 356,958 registered voters within 180 days to qualify for the 2026 ballot. If they do, the proposal is expected to face significant and organized opposition. 

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce, one of the state’s most powerful business interest groups, has blasted the new initiative — including the proposed bans on utility and contractor donations — as a broad attack on free speech rights.

“Efforts to restrict free speech have repeatedly been deemed unacceptable — and this is no different,” the Chamber said in a statement. 

RELATED STORIES: 

• Michigan petition summer: What to know about voting, tax, wage proposals before you sign
• Utilities gave big to Michigan lawmakers now weighing reforms, records show
• Michigan transparency plans die again, keeping public in the dark

“Michiganders deserve fair, open debate on issues that impact every community, every business and every worker in our state, not selective censorship that shuts out the voices of those who create jobs, drive economic growth and invest in our communities.”

The issue of issue ads

Political advertising traditionally falls into one of two categories: “Express advocacy” that contains words like “vote for,” “elect” or “defeat,” and “issue advocacy” that avoids those terms but can still call candidates “wrong for Michigan” or gush they’re “standing up for Michiganders.”

Unlike express advocacy, groups that pay for issue ads don’t have to report their donors and have no restrictions on where the money comes from, making the approach a primary route for so-called “dark money” to enter elections. 

The potential ballot proposal would require donor disclosure for issue ads that run close to an election by broadening the scope of Michigan’s campaign finance law to cover ads that promote, support, attack or oppose a “clearly identifiable candidate” or ballot initiative. 

There have been attempts to reform what transparency advocates call the “issue ad loophole” in the past. 

In 2013, then-Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, issued a ruling to broaden the definition of ads requiring donor disclosure in Michigan. But within hours, lawmakers in the GOP-majority Senate amended and advanced a bill to write federal standards into Michigan law —preventing donor disclosure. 

Gov. Rick Snyder, who as a candidate had vowed to close what he had called a "enormous campaign finance loophole," signed the legislation into law after what he called an “evolution” of thinking on the matter. The bill also doubled campaign contribution limits.

Johnson, now a state senator from Groveland Township, told Bridge in an interview that she doesn’t “think anyone should be able to run issue ads when they're plainly campaign ads,” calling the practice “deceptive” and “wrong.”

“Money in politics is a bipartisan problem, and who loses are the voters, if you don't know who's giving (their elected officials) money,” Johnson added. “It really is just about transparency.”

More than a decade after Johnson tried to require donor disclosure for issue ads, some 2026 gubernatorial candidates are signaling support for the kind of campaign finance reform now proposed by Michiganders for Money Out of Politics.

“I think it’s important for us to expand the definition of campaign speech, which this particular proposal would do,” Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat who is running for governor, said last week. “I welcome more transparency, more sunlight on the process.”

Under the proposal, sponsors would only have to disclose donors for issue ad spending within 100 days of a general election or 30 days before a primary. 

That could still leave the public in the dark about ads that urge elected officials to support or oppose a particular policy outside the heat of election season, when most policymaking gets done.

And with Michigan absentee ballots sent out 40 days before primary elections, issue advertisers would still have a small window where they could work to influence voters with ballots in hand without having to disclose donors. 

Utility, contractor contributions

The other fork of the potential ballot proposal seeks to ban DTE Energy, Consumers Energy and many state government contractors from donating to political candidates.

Beyond banning campaign contributions, it’d also ban those companies and senior leaders from giving to organizations that reimburse lawmakers and other officials for travel, meals and conference fees — a popular but largely hidden practice by state politicians. 

“We get power outages, other people get campaign contributions,” McBrearty said Tuesday in Lansing, where about 30 prospective volunteers had gathered to hear a presentation from the coalition backing the ballot initiative.

Consumers and DTE — utilities that provide energy to a majority of homes and businesses in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula — have spent millions of dollars in Michigan elections to boost candidates they favor, largely through nonprofits that don’t have to disclose their donors but can spend and give unlimited sums. 

A Consumers-funded nonprofit called “Citizens for Energizing Michigan’s Economy" has run social media and television ads touting their preferred candidates — both Democrats and Republicans alike on unrelated issues like climate change action and fiscal conservatism. 

In the last election year with disclosures available, 2022, the organization reported spending nearly $4.6 million. Michigan Energy First, a nonprofit linked to DTE, spent close to $4.9 million that same year.

The companies have so far defended their political giving in the face of the prospective ballot initiative. 

"We participate in the legislative and political processes with a focus on compliance and transparency, and no customer funds are used for any political contributions,” Consumers spokesperson Katie Carey told Bridge last month. 

The proposal would also prohibit political contributions by companies with more than $250,000 in contracts with the state government. 

McBrearty said that would apply to companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, a major provider of state employee healthcare plans. The company’s PAC gave close to $10.8 million to candidates and political action committees between 2002 and 2024, according to state campaign finance records. They were the fourth largest donor to legislative candidates’ campaigns in that time period.

PACs representing employees of DTE Energy and Consumers Energy gave nearly $6.1 million and $3.5 million over that same period, respectively. 

All of them, McBrearty said, would be banned from making political contributions under the proposal. 

Independent gubernatorial candidate Mike Duggan said last week he “would be in favor” of the proposal, telling Bridge Michigan that “this campaign fundraising system has gotten out of control, but the reality is today that this is the way campaigns are run.” 

Duggan added that he is “appreciative of the support” he’s receiving, a potential nod to the nonprofit Put Progress First that has spent substantially to boost his profile with billboards around the state. He wouldn’t call on the organization, which can’t formally coordinate with his campaign, to name its donors.

“I'm not going to tell anybody how to run their organizations,” Duggan said. “They should all be complying with the law.”