Public Comment

A proposed “Money Out of Politics” constitutional amendment cleared a major ballot-access step on July 28, 2026. The proposal targets political spending by certain regulated utilities and large government contractors. Supporters argue that companies financially dependent on government decisions should not help elect the officials controlling contracts or rates. Opponents question the proposal’s constitutionality and warn that selective restrictions could burden protected political speech. A pay-to-play restriction limits political contributions or spending by businesses seeking or holding government contracts or regulatory benefits. A utility with captive customers or a contractor seeking public money has a different conflict from an ordinary business expressing an opinion. The rule should target that conflict without becoming a tool for silencing opponents.

Which companies should Michigan bar from financing state political campaigns?

Overall results

1
63% support · excluded by 5%
7

Officials benefiting from significant covered spending should be required to disclose the relationship and step aside from directly affected decisions.

7

Disclosure and recusal address corruption risk without giving the government broad authority to decide which organizations may speak.

2
55% support · excluded by 5%
7

The state can define covered contracts, regulatory proceedings, spending windows, and affiliated entities to focus on genuine financial conflicts.

7

Ratepayers and taxpayers should not indirectly finance campaigns supporting officials who later approve utility charges or contract awards.

3
48% support · excluded by 2%
7

Government cannot suppress political advocacy merely because a speaker conducts regulated business or contracts with the state.

4
34% support · excluded by 7%

About the author