🗳Understanding Michigan Proposal 2: The “Money Out of Politics” Initiative

Michigan voters will consider two statewide proposals in the November 3, 2026, general election. Proposal 2026-2, commonly known as the “Money Out of Politics” proposal, would amend the Michigan Campaign Finance Act by restricting certain campaign contributions and expanding disclosure requirements for political communications.

This overview is intended to provide factual, nonpartisan information. It does not constitute an endorsement of or opposition to the proposal.

What Would Proposal 2 Do?

Proposal 2 is an initiated law rather than a constitutional amendment. If approved, it would make three principal changes to Michigan’s campaign finance laws.

Restrict Contributions From Certain Organizations

The proposal would prohibit regulated electric and gas utilities and government contractors receiving more than $250,000 annually in state or local government contracts from making certain direct or indirect campaign contributions.

The restrictions would also extend to specified people and organizations associated with covered utilities and contractors. Depending on the circumstances, this could include majority owners, board members, executives, certain officers, lobbyists, lobbyist agents, immediate family members and some current or former managerial employees and professional service providers (Ballotpedia, 2026).

For government contractors, the restrictions would generally apply to contributions involving public officials or candidates who oversee, award or otherwise influence the applicable government contracts. The proposal contains separate provisions addressing regulated electric and gas utilities.

Michigan law already prohibits corporations and labor organizations from contributing directly from their treasury funds to candidate committees. Proposal 2 would add restrictions involving political action committees, individuals and other entities connected with covered utilities and government contractors (Hermani, 2026).

Expand Disclosure of Election-Related Communications

Proposal 2 would broaden the types of political communications subject to Michigan’s campaign finance disclosure requirements.

Under current law, disclosure requirements generally focus on communications that expressly advocate for or against a candidate or ballot question. Proposal 2 would extend certain requirements to communications that clearly identify a candidate or ballot question, even when the communication does not explicitly tell people how to vote.

The proposal would establish reporting requirements for qualifying electioneering communications when spending exceeds specified thresholds. It would also require covered communications to identify the person or organization paying for them.

Apply Disclosure Rules to Digital Communications

The proposal would expressly apply Michigan’s sponsorship disclosure requirements to paid political communications distributed through the internet and digital platforms.

It would also require prerecorded telephone communications created with artificial intelligence to disclose that artificial intelligence was used (Ballotpedia, 2026).

What Proposal 2 Would Not Do

Despite its commonly used “Money Out of Politics” name, the proposal would not prohibit all private money from being used in Michigan elections.

The proposal would not generally restrict contributions or independent political spending by individuals, corporations, unions or organizations that are not covered utilities, qualifying government contractors or affiliated with those entities. It also would not prohibit spending by nonprofit organizations that do not publicly disclose all their donors. However, qualifying election-related communications sponsored by those organizations could become subject to additional reporting and disclosure requirements (Hermani, 2026).

The proposal applies to Michigan elections and campaign finance activity. It would not change federal campaign finance laws or contributions involving federal candidates.

Arguments Presented by Supporters and Opponents

Supporters argue that organizations receiving substantial government contracts or operating as regulated utilities should not be able to financially support the public officials responsible for overseeing their contracts, rates or regulatory environment. They contend that the proposal would reduce the appearance or possibility of “pay-to-play” relationships and provide voters with more information about who is financing election-related communications.

Opponents argue that the proposal would restrict political participation by selected companies and people associated with them while leaving other organizations and interests largely unaffected. They have also raised concerns about free-speech protections, the breadth of the affiliation provisions and potential compliance challenges created by the expanded definitions and reporting requirements.

These are arguments advanced by the respective campaigns. Voters should distinguish campaign claims from the actual provisions contained in the proposed law.

Why Associations Should Pay Attention

The proposal does not identify trade or professional associations as a separate category of regulated organization. Nevertheless, associations should understand its potential implications.

An association could have members that are regulated utilities, government contractors or organizations affiliated with covered entities. Associations also regularly publish digital advocacy communications, candidate information, legislative alerts and ballot-issue materials. Depending on the content, timing, spending and distribution of a paid communication, expanded disclosure requirements could become relevant.

If Proposal 2 is approved, organizations engaged in Michigan campaign activity should obtain guidance on how the final law applies to their specific PACs, communications, members and governance structures. General educational information should not be treated as legal advice.

Learn More

Readers can review the following sources for additional information:

• Michigan Department of State: Official Proposal 2026-2 ballot language

• Michigan Department of State: Full petition language

• Citizens Research Council of Michigan: Nonpartisan Proposal 2 briefing

• Ballotpedia: Proposal 2 overview, measure details and campaign information

• Bridge Michigan: Independent review of the proposal’s scope and limitations

• Michiganders for Money Out of Politics: Supporting campaign

• Michigan Chamber of Commerce: Information reflecting opposition concerns

References

Ballotpedia. (2026). Michigan utility and government contractor campaign finance regulations initiative (2026). https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Utility_and_Government_Contractor_Campaign_Finance_Regulations_Initiative_%282026%29

Citizens Research Council of Michigan. (2026, August 31). Proposal 26-2: Money out of politics. https://crcmich.org/webinars/understanding-and-evaluating-proposal-26-2-money-out-of-politics

Hermani, J. (2026, September 4). Fact check: Would “money out of politics” proposal live up to its name? Bridge Michigan. https://bridgemi.com/michigan-government/fact-check-would-money-out-of-politics-proposal-live-up-to-its-name/

Michigan Department of State. (2026). Ballot summary language: Proposal 2026-2. https://www.michigan.gov/sos/-/media/Project/Websites/sos/BSC-Announcements/2026/Ballot-Summary-Language-MMOP-and-ConCon.pdf

Michigan Department of State. (2026). Michiganders for Money Out of Politics initiative petition. https://www.michigan.gov/sos/-/media/Project/Websites/sos/BSC-Announcements/Michiganders-for-Money-out-of-Politics.pdf