State canvassers approve 100‑word summary for Michiganders for Money Out of Politics after hours of debate

The Michigan State Board of Canvassers on Aug. 22 approved a 100‑word summary for a citizen initiative sponsored by Michiganders for Money Out of Politics that would expand the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, prohibit certain regulated utilities and government contractors from making some campaign contributions, and require disclosure rules to apply explicitly to Internet political communications.

Supporters told the board the summary is a concise, lawful description of the measure’s main effects; opponents argued the language understates the breadth of people and communications it would cover and risks misinforming petition signers. After public comment and lawyer presentations that ran for several hours, the board adopted an edited summary with small word changes and a final readback before the vote.

Why it matters: The initiative, if it reaches the ballot and voters approve it, would change who must report political spending, broaden which communications are treated as regulated campaign activity and block certain contributions by regulated electric and gas utilities and by contractors who hold more than $250,000 in annual government contracts. Opponents warned the measure could sweep in affiliates, agents, municipal utilities and ordinary small‑business principals and trigger broader disclosure of donors for many online and other communications.

What the measure would do Director Bridal, who presented the proposed text, described three principal changes in the petition. First, the initiative would expand the definition of regulated election communications so that the Campaign Finance Act applies to communications that “clearly identify” a candidate or ballot issue even when they do not use traditional words of express advocacy such as “vote for” or “vote against.” Second, the petition would bar regulated electric and gas utilities and government contractors with more than $250,000 in annual contracts from making certain direct or indirect contributions to some candidates, committees or officeholders who affect them. Third, it would make explicit that laws requiring disclosure of who paid for campaign advertising apply to Internet political communications, including social media and web ads.

Proponents: Michael Brady, attorney for Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, told the board that the director’s draft summary is "true and impartial" and suggested limited, word‑saving edits — such as inserting the word “campaign” before “ads” in one clause and rearranging sentence order to improve clarity. Brady also noted the petition raises the independent‑expenditure reporting threshold from $100 to $500, which he said narrows the number of small transactions that must be reported compared to current law.

Opponents: Attorneys for Protect My Free Speech, Eric Doster and Steve LeDle, urged the board to rewrite the summary. They argued the director’s draft contains factual errors and ambiguities and understates the initiative’s reach. Doster and LeDle warned that the initiative would sweep beyond “campaign ads” to capture many forms of public communications — including mass mailings, charitable event invitations and social‑media posts — and could require public disclosure of donors who give as little as $100 in pooled arrangements. They said the proposed prohibitions apply not only to utilities and contractors but also to affiliates, agents, officers, majority owners and "immediate family" of principals, and would cover rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities regulated by the Michigan Public Service Commission.

Public comment: Dozens of citizens and representatives testified. Nicholas Pigeon, a Lansing resident and former director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, said he believes the petition’s language is lawful and urged the board to allow the measure to proceed. Wendy Block of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce urged the board to tighten the draft summary to avoid suggesting the petition imposes unconstitutional limits on free speech; Mariah Bryant of Voters Not Politicians said the director’s draft met the statutory duty to be true and impartial and recommended approval.

Board changes and final wording Board members asked detailed questions about scope and unintended consequences — for example, whether local clerks’ mailings, charity mailings, meter readers or small subcontractors could be swept into the proposal’s disclosure or prohibition rules. Director Bridal and counsel for the proponents repeatedly distinguished between (a) an expansion of which communications are regulated and disclosed, and (b) separate, discrete prohibitions on contributions by certain regulated utilities and contractors. Brady also emphasized the proposal increases the reporting threshold for independent expenditures from $100 to $500.

After discussion the board approved a revised 100‑word summary that Director Bridal read aloud before the vote; the final text added a qualifier indicating the measure applies to "regulated electric and gas utilities," and replaced a phrase that had read "offices that regulate them" with wording that the offices "impact them" (the board said the change clarified the intended scope without becoming legally technical). The director said the adopted version met the statutory requirement for a concise, true and impartial statement within the 100‑word limit.

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes for July 31, 2025 meeting — Motion to approve, outcome: approved by voice vote. - Approval of 100‑word summary for Michiganders for Money Out of Politics — Motion to approve the director‑drafted summary as revised, outcome: approved by voice vote. - Approval of the petition form (with the approved summary swapped in) — Motion to approve conditioned on inserting the board‑approved summary, outcome: approved by voice vote.

What wasn’t decided Several opponents urged the board to include in the summary stronger notice that the initiative imposes new restrictions on political speech and could expand disclosure requirements to many types of communications; the board chose a narrower factual summary rather than an explicit constitutional framing, saying questions of constitutionality are for the courts to decide. The board also did not change the petition text itself — only the 100‑word description that appears on the petition.

Next steps Staff will replace the previously posted summary on petition forms with the version the board adopted and will publish the updated materials. If proponents gather the required number of signer affidavits, the initiative would move toward ballot qualification; any legal challenge to the initiative’s provisions would be decided by the courts.