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 Proposal 2, set for the November 3 ballot, promises to curb political donations from the state's largest utilities and government contractors. But the measure's reach stops short of its bold name, leaving major sources of campaign cash untouched and sparking sharp criticism from business groups and political opponents.
If approved, the initiative would bar DTE Energy, Consumers Energy, and any company with more than $250,000 in state contracts from contributing directly or indirectly to Michigan candidates or elected officials. The ban would also extend to company executives, board members, and their immediate families, closing off a common route for corporate influence in Lansing.
Limits and Loopholes
Despite its sweeping title, Proposal 2 would not block political spending by unions or most out-of-state donors. Labor organizations, which have historically backed Democratic candidates in Michigan, would remain free to spend through political action committees and independent expenditures unless they themselves hold large state contracts. The word "union" does not appear in the petition language, and organizers have confirmed that unions and their members are generally unaffected unless they become state contractors.
Opponents, including the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and representatives from Consumers Energy, argue the measure unfairly targets job providers while leaving union and national special-interest money untouched. They contend the proposal would simply shift political influence away from Michigan-based companies and toward wealthy out-of-state donors and advocacy groups.
Dark Money and Donor Disclosure
Proposal 2 would not outlaw so-called "dark money" spending by nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. However, it would require any group running issue ads that mention a candidate or ballot measure within 100 days of a general election-or 30 days before a primary-to publicly report their donors and expenses. This would make Michigan the first battleground state to mandate such transparency for issue ads, a move organizers say is designed to close loopholes in the state's campaign finance system.
At least 11 other states have similar donor disclosure requirements for issue ads, but Michigan's proposal would apply these rules in a high-stakes political environment. Organizers acknowledge the measure does not address every aspect of campaign finance but argue it would make meaningful progress by shining a light on previously hidden sources of political spending.
Who Funds the Campaign?
Critics have called out Mop Up Michigan, the group behind Proposal 2, for accepting millions in contributions from out-of-state "dark money" organizations. State filings show the campaign has received $5.4 million from All Hands on Deck Network Inc. of Massachusetts and $1.4 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a Washington, DC-based liberal group. Mop Up Michigan's leaders defend their fundraising, saying they are operating under the same rules as everyone else until the law changes.
Union spending remains a major force in Michigan politics. According to July campaign finance reports, the United Auto Workers' political action committee spent nearly $800,000 between April and July 2026, with more than $1 million spent so far this year. These funds have supported candidates like state Sen. Chedrick Greene, whose recent special election win preserved Democratic control of the Michigan Senate.
What Voters Need to Know
Proposal 2 would not ban all outside money from Michigan elections. Out-of-state donors and advocacy groups without state contracts could continue to spend, as could unions not engaged in government contracting. The measure's main impact would be to block direct and indirect donations from large utilities and contractors, while requiring new transparency for groups running election-related ads.
Voters will decide the fate of Proposal 2 on November 3. The outcome will determine whether Michigan's campaign finance rules take a step toward greater transparency or leave the state's political money landscape largely unchanged.
For additional context on Michigan's election system, a recent reported earlier found the state's voter rolls to be overwhelmingly accurate ahead of the 2026 election.
Michigan's campaign finance laws already prohibit direct corporate and union donations to candidates, but allow both to spend through PACs and independent expenditures. Proposal 2 would add new restrictions for certain companies and require more disclosure for election ads, but leaves major sources of political spending untouched. The measure's selective approach reflects the realities of ballot initiative politics: targeting the most visible players while sidestepping entrenched interests. Voters expecting a full purge of money from Michigan politics will find this proposal falls short of its name, but it would force some of the state's biggest donors to play by new rules if it passes.
