Question 1): Before multi-millionaire businessman Perry Johnson was defeated Aug. 4 in his bid for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, he announced his support for the Michiganders for Money Out of Politics (MMOP) ballot proposal, declaring that Michigan’s elected officials “must be accountable to the voters, not the powerful special interests flooding campaigns and legislative districts with money.”
The proposal would prohibit regulated electric and gas utilities and major government contractors from making direct or indirect political contributions to officeholders and candidates whose decisions could affect their financial interests. It would also expand disclosure requirements for political advertising, helping voters identify who is paying to influence their elections.
Johnson, who self-funded his own campaign, claimed that nearly $290,000 in advertising had been unleashed in the 36th state House District against State Rep. Steve Carra (R-Three Rivers) by organizations tied to Consumers Energy. Carra won handily, anyway, but Johnson said that ‘Big Foot’ attempts to defeat him demonstrate exactly why immediate reform is necessary.
It’s still not certain whether MMOP will ultimately qualify for the ballot. Yes, wording was approved unanimously by the Board of State Canvassers this past week, and the Legislature’s 40-day window to enact the proposal began when canvassers certified the petitions July 24. If lawmakers don’t act by Sept. 4, the initiative should go before voters in November. If the Legislature doesn’t do anything with the MMOP citizen-initiated legislation by Sept. 4, the 100-word summary would be what is used when the ballots are sent out on Sept. 24 for the general election.
However, there is a legal challenge filed by the opposition Protect MI Free Speech (PMFS) pending before the state Supreme Court, which could gum up the works with a decision that might allow PMFS to run out the clock and keep MMOP off the ballot. PMFS contends the Secretary of State’s elections division screwed up counting petition signatures and that MMOP doesn’t have enough of them to qualify for the ballot.
But if MMOP does qualify, it will almost certainly appear as Proposal 2. Here’s how it would read:
A PROPOSED INITIATED LAW TO PROHIBIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CERTAIN REGULATED UTILITIES AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS AND APPLY CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS AND REGULATIONS TO ADDITIONAL TYPES OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATIONS
The proposal would:
• Prohibit regulated electric and gas utilities, contractors with over $250,000 annually in government contracts, and people and organizations with substantial connections to these utilities/contractors from making direct or indirect campaign contributions to those who run for or hold offices that impact them.
• Expand laws regulating spending on political communications, including those requiring disclosing donor information, to apply to communications clearly identifying candidates or ballot questions, even if they do not expressly advocate voting for/against them.
• Expressly apply the law requiring disclosure of who paid for political communications to internet political communications.
Should this proposal be adopted?
[ ] YES [ ] NO
The question is, will voters approve it? Are we feeling a different sentiment against Michigan’s utility companies today than we did, say, a decade ago?
Answer 1): Yes, there seems to be a different vibe about this issue nowadays, although it may be unfair. The utilities are facing the same pressures families are. They have higher employee costs, health care costs, fuel costs for their vehicles. They are legally obligated to produce a certain rate of return for their investors. They are not the sole cause of the cost pressures, but they get blamed for energy costing more. The state can take nearly a year to approve a rate increase, dragging it out as long as possible, and by then the utilities have to turn in another one. People are lashing out at the utilities because they’re a convenient target.
Besides, to their credit, utility companies have been investing in more green energy and grid reliability than ever before, which is something that might have earned them praise from customers in a different era. However, we’re in a time when there’s growing concern about corporate influence on society. Combine that with rising cost pressures and a monthly reminder of those rising costs via customer utility bills, and it’s not surprising that utilities are in the spotlight at the moment.
Indeed, people are waiting days, if not weeks, to get their service reconnected after storms, yet rates keep rising despite what the public thinks is declining service. The emergence of AI and data centers doesn’t help, either, leading to a lot of pushback and resentment against the utilities. The world is changing and people are feeling it in their pocketbooks. It’s creating resentment, and intolerance is approaching its peak.
MMOP Co-Chair Christy McGILLIVRAY has applauded the Board of State Canvassers’ votes this way: “Michiganders are ready to finally rein in pay-to-play politics and out-of-control political spending in Lansing this November. Our campaign is continuing to build momentum in every corner of our state and making sure voters turn out to vote yes on this game-changing initiative.”
Bottom line: If MMOP gets on the Nov. 3 ballot as Proposal 2, it may well pass, but it’s sure to face a challenge in the state and even federal courts as to whether it’s unconstitutional on First Amendment (free speech) grounds. That could be the ultimate verdict on what happens in the end.
**************************************************
I applaud MMOP and Perry Johnson for their efforts on this important proposal. It is a step in the right direction.
Abdul El-Sayed’s U.S. Senate victory was largely predicated on the argument that the voting public has lost influence and control over government due to the vast influence of corporate PAC funding and other special interest PACs. He should know as those interests unsuccessfully targeted him for defeat.
I met Perry Johnson this election cycle while he campaigned and feel he was the candidate best aligned with the interests of the middle class. He met with vast support with the anti-tax movement in Michigan.
I doubt the Michigan Supreme Court would not give a timely decision so that ballot access could be impeded.
If this ballot initiative is placed before the voters in November – I expect it to pass – and pass easily.
It would pass easily, and the GOP operatives on SCOTUS would declare it unconstitutional.
What operatives?
Just more of the loose accusations against any person or company that has now been designated as this election’s punching bag.
Sad that everyone needs some boogeyman to attack. I hope all the state pensioners, UAW retirees, Teamsters pension funds and IRA investors find some avenue to put their money into. Certainly folks who receive dividends and appreciation from what used to be known as retiree safe havens won’t enjoy these exclusive ballot attacks.
Jack is referring to the Citizens United SCOTUS opinion that has been beneficial to corporate political interests by placing businesses on the same legal footing as individuals for purposes of political campaign donations.
By example DTE has spent $1.8 million to a campaign committee it formed to oppose a ballot initiative in the City of Ann Arbor to place electric utilities under local control and oust DTE’s jurisdiction as the electricity provider.
Should DTE be permitted to engage in such campaign activity? How does this promote pension fund retirees?
I suppose if we want a free for all of rates,exploration, refining and generation it wi be ok. Those retirees make money off their stock investments like everyone else does, that’s why they like those DTE dividends
Public utility MONOPOLIES pay millions in executive bonuses. Sorry, but running a MONOPOLY is not that complex. No marketing, no revenue to protect, pass costs on, no risk of losing a customer due to poor service, pricing or anything.
So until the MONOPLY utilities have real competition NO bonuses should be paid
Related, how is a MONOPLY allowed to spend ratepayer money (it is all they have) to influence electeds? How? Make it make sense.
Utilities do not spend ratepayer money on direct contributions. Take a look at their PACs, you can see where the money is coming from.
Also, corporations have the same first amendment right that you and I have. You can buy ads, tv time, to discuss issues of importance.
Utilities spend a lot of dark money every election cycle- they should not be able to buy legislators and this proposal will insure they don’t .
There is a ballot proposal in Ann Arbor requesting an amendment to the City Charter permitting the creation of a “Municipal Electric Utility Board” that would be the first step for creating a city-owned utility – and replace DTE.
The group that launched the initiative, “Ann Arbor For Public Power”, had its petitions certified as sufficient by the Ann Arbor City Clerk and will be on the ballot absent court intervention.
However, a DTE-funded group, the Ann Arbor Responsible Energy Coalition, is suing the City of Ann Arbor and the City Clerk to invalidate the petitions and ballot initiative and prevent the proposal from being voted on by Ann Arbor citizens.
The DTE-funded group and its lawsuit have concerned local residents as many want to see electrical power placed under local control and fell DTE is a pernicious influence.
It seems to me that the solution is for the Public Service Commission to seriously regulate the utility companies like they’re supposed to do. What a novel thought.
One thing is we do not have the energy flexibility to attract new industry. One of the major complaints about Data Centers, including those that house “the cloud” where way too much of our electronic stuff is stored, are energy hogs and if they suck it up, we will pay more.
Now for something some may consider a form of economic or political heresy, or even apostasy. A public utility has a government sanctioned monopoly. In exchange for this monopoly, the company
effectively gives up something. Among these, in my opinion, is the seemingly excessive concern over dividends. The company is basically guaranteed a specific amount of profit so it can develop new energy sources and distribution systems. It used to work much better when I was younger and Frank Kelley would certainly have kept these folks in his sights, if not crosshairs.
The execs must realize they will NOT be paid at the same rate as those execs in companies that do not have de facto, if not de jure, monopolies. Now this is where the former chief steward in me would expose those executives of the glories and benefits of the Equitable Classification Plan, Michigan’s version of the general schedule. And those of us who toiled under the ECP, bonuses mostly come in the form of the longevity check – which has bothered Bill Ballenger for some time now – at the end of the year.
As for trying to fund political campaigns, maybe the PSC can reduce the companies rate hikes by the amount of campaign donations paid out by the utility.
As for the green energy stuff, that was to accommodate the demands of the Whitmer administration. Whether it is sound or not, time will tell.
As for the Peoples’ Republic, aka SUNY Ann Arbor, they may find that running a utility that has to bend its policies to the whims of leftist ideologues is a wee bit harder than they think and that DTE may not have been as bad as they thought. Or not.
I agree with all the comments regarding limiting the campaign contributions from utilities
I am a Deputy Clerk in Southwest lower Michigan-Berrien County. I would like to hear about your view on moving the August Primary Elections to May. Should this topic be of interest to you or any of your followers. Views on this would help to understand the stalling and resistance to the change.