Michigan voters will decide in November whether to ban political donations from major utilities and large state contractors while requiring new donor disclosures for election ads. The measure would not restrict union or most out-of-state spending
Michigan's upcoming general election will put a high-profile campaign finance proposal directly in the hands of voters, with supporters promising to curb the influence of big utilities and state contractors in Lansing. But the measure's actual reach-and its omissions-are drawing sharp criticism from opponents and scrutiny from election watchers.
If approved, Proposal 2 would ban DTE Energy, Consumers Energy, and any company holding more than $250,000 in state contracts from making direct or indirect contributions to Michigan candidates or elected officials. The prohibition would also extend to company executives, board members, major shareholders, and their immediate families, closing off a common route for corporate influence in state politics.
Limits and Loopholes
Despite its sweeping title, the proposal would not block all outside money from Michigan elections. Out-of-state donors without state contracts could continue to spend freely, and unions-longtime political players in Michigan-would remain largely unaffected unless they themselves become state contractors. The measure also stops short of banning so-called dark money, instead requiring new disclosures for groups running issue ads close to election dates.
According to state campaign finance records, Mop Up Michigan, the group behind the proposal, has itself accepted millions from out-of-state dark money organizations, including $5.4 million from All Hands on Deck Network Inc. of Massachusetts and $1.4 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund in Washington, DC. Critics, including representatives from Consumers Energy and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, have called this approach hypocritical, arguing that the proposal shifts influence rather than eliminating it.
Disclosure Rules for Election Ads
One of the most significant changes under Proposal 2 would be a new requirement for donor transparency. Any group-regardless of location-that runs an issue advertisement mentioning a candidate or ballot measure within 100 days of a general election or 30 days before a primary would have to disclose its donors and spending to the state. This would apply even if the ad does not explicitly urge a vote for or against a candidate.
Michigan would become the first battleground state to impose such a rule, joining at least 11 other states with similar transparency requirements. Supporters say this would close major loopholes in Michigan's campaign finance system, making it harder for anonymous donors to shape elections from the shadows. However, the proposal does not require disclosure for all political spending, and groups could still spend money outside the specified windows without revealing their backers.
Union and PAC Spending Remain Untouched
Unions, which have historically supported Democratic candidates in Michigan, would not face new restrictions under the proposal unless they hold large state contracts. Like corporations, unions are already barred from making direct contributions to candidates, but they can spend through political action committees (PACs) and independent expenditures. For example, the United Auto Workers' PAC spent nearly $800,000 between April and July 2026, including $24,000 to a state Senate candidate in a closely watched special election.
The proposal's language does not mention unions, and organizers have confirmed that union and individual union member contributions would not be affected unless a union becomes a state contractor. This carveout has fueled criticism from business groups, who argue the measure unfairly targets some political actors while leaving others untouched.
What Voters Need to Know
Proposal 2 would not eliminate all money from Michigan politics. It would ban political donations from major utilities and large state contractors, require new donor disclosures for certain election ads, and extend restrictions to company insiders and their families. But it would not stop most out-of-state spending, union activity, or all forms of dark money.
Voters will decide the fate of Proposal 2 on November 3. The measure's supporters argue it is a meaningful first step toward a more transparent and accountable campaign finance system, while critics see it as a selective fix that leaves major sources of political money untouched. The reality is that Michigan's campaign finance landscape will remain complex, and the proposal's passage would mark only a partial shift in how money flows through state elections.
Michigan's campaign finance laws already prohibit direct corporate and union contributions to candidates, but allow significant spending through PACs and independent groups. The Secretary of State oversees enforcement and disclosure requirements. If Proposal 2 passes, the state would need to update its regulations and reporting systems to accommodate the new rules, and future reforms may be needed to address remaining gaps in transparency and influence.
