Michigan Voted 81% to Kick Utility Money Out of Politics. The Utilities Sued Before the Ink Was Dry.
Desk: Political & Government, Campaigns & Elections.
By Dakota Jones
Tuesday, November 10, 2026
Eighty-one percent is not a close call. It is a verdict. On Nov. 3, Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, a citizen-initiated amendment to the state’s Campaign Finance Act, by a margin that makes “the public has spoken” sound less like a slogan and more like a transcript.
Then the lawsuits arrived.
By Nov. 10, three federal lawsuits challenging the measure had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The voters delivered their instruction. The lawyers delivered theirs.
Here is your guide to what Proposal 2 changes, what the lawsuits argue, and why the coming weeks matter. For more state political coverage, visit LD3’s Political & Government news desk.
The vote was emphatic. The next steps are not.
Unofficial results reported by ClickOnDetroit show 3,549,434 votes for Proposal 2 and 805,411 against. The outlet’s results table lists the split as 82% to 18%. Other reporting described support as 81%. Call it a landslide with a rounding dispute.
The initiative reached the ballot after 368,762 valid signatures were verified through statistical sampling, according to the Michigan House Fiscal Agency’s official analysis. It is now approved by voters. It is not yet in effect.
What Proposal 2 changes
The amendment targets campaign contributions and political-ad disclosure. In plain English, it changes who can give, what spending must be reported, and what information political ads must show.
Regulated electric and gas utilities, along with their principals and affiliates, are barred from contributing to candidates for governor, attorney general, and the state legislature, as well as members of the Michigan Public Service Commission and certain related committees and entities.
Government contractors above the threshold face a contribution ban in the jurisdiction where they hold contracts totaling more than $250,000 in a calendar year. The restriction also applies to their principals and affiliates. This provision begins later than the rest of the law.
Some issue ads become reportable. Spending of $5,000 or more on communications that clearly identify a candidate within 100 days of an election can trigger reporting, even if the ad does not explicitly say “vote for” or “vote against.” Reports can include the names of donors who gave more than $100, along with their addresses, occupations, and employers. The measure also extends “Paid for by” requirements to internet and streaming ads.
The penalties are not decorative. Utilities can face civil fines of up to 10 times the contribution. A contractor that knowingly violates the ban can have a contract canceled and be barred from new contracts for 12 months. Knowing disclosure violations can bring a misdemeanor penalty of up to 93 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.
The implementation clock is running
Under Michigan’s initiative rules, a voter-approved measure takes effect 10 days after the official declaration of the vote. That puts Proposal 2’s enactment in early December. The House Fiscal Agency also says the initiative cannot be vetoed and can only be amended or repealed by a three-fourths vote in both legislative chambers.
The contractor contribution ban has a longer runway: it starts 18 months after the law takes effect. State agencies have that time to build enforcement processes before this part of the measure begins.
| Milestone | Timing |
|---|---|
| Voters approve Proposal 2 | Nov. 3, 2026 |
| Law takes effect after official declaration | 10 days later, expected in early December |
| Contractor contribution ban begins | 18 months after the law takes effect |
The key question is whether a court blocks any provisions before the law takes effect. A preliminary injunction could freeze enforcement while the litigation proceeds. That makes the next few weeks more than a procedural warm-up.
The lawsuits raise a real constitutional question
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed its case on election night, challenging disclosure provisions on First Amendment grounds. Its complaint argues the law sweeps in speech about public officials and policy that is not campaign advocacy, and that its reporting requirements burden speakers and donors. Institute for Free Speech senior attorney Brett Nolan, the lead litigator, said: “there’s nothing free about a system that requires you to register with the government if you dare speak about those elected officials in public.”
That argument deserves a fair hearing. A rule that reaches issue discussion, not just explicit campaign ads, can raise serious questions about where campaign-finance disclosure ends and protected speech begins. The law’s requirement to report donor information, including information about people who gave more than $100, is not a small detail.
DTE Energy and Consumers Energy filed a separate federal suit on Thursday, Nov. 5. The utilities argue the measure violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and seek preliminary and permanent injunctions. Their complaint says the proposal “is not directed toward preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance and is not closely drawn to that interest.”
Consumers spokesperson Katie Carey said the proposal “unfairly targets a Michigan business, its Michigan employees and their family members from exercising their constitutionally protected rights,” while “out of state special interest groups and billionaires” continue spending.
Supporters say the challenge was expected. Maura Cowley, campaign manager for Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, said corporations opposing the measure had been preparing to sue since it qualified for the ballot. She said the campaign is confident Proposal 2 “will withstand legal scrutiny.”
There are three federal suits in the tally as of Nov. 10. None has received a ruling.
The incoming administration is part of the case
The utilities’ lawsuit names Bureau of Elections director Jonathan Brater, Attorney General Dana Nessel, and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson “or her successor in office.” Benson is now governor-elect. Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist is secretary of state-elect.
That means the incoming administration is tied to defending a law it cannot veto. And the legislature cannot simply repeal it with a standard majority vote. This is democracy by initiative, followed by the part where the losing side asks a federal judge to intervene.
FAQ
Does Proposal 2 take effect immediately?
No. It takes effect 10 days after the official declaration of the vote, expected in early December.
When does the contractor donation ban begin?
Eighteen months after the law takes effect.
Has a judge blocked Proposal 2?
No. As of Nov. 10, the lawsuits had no rulings.
Is the First Amendment challenge just a delay tactic?
That is not established. The disclosure rules raise genuine questions about the scope of regulated political speech. The courts will decide whether the requirements are constitutional.
Final Thoughts
Michigan voters issued their instruction on Nov. 3. The utilities issued theirs on Nov. 5, in federal court. Both facts matter.
Proposal 2 is a substantial change to campaign-finance law, with real consequences for utilities, government contractors, advocacy groups, and people who fund political communications. Its supporters say it will curb pay-to-play influence and increase transparency. Its challengers say it burdens protected speech and association. The legal test is not whether either side can deliver a punchy line. It is whether the law survives constitutional review.
For Michigan voters, the practical lesson is clear: the ballot is step one. The courthouse is step two. And the 18-month runway before the contractor ban begins means money in Michigan politics is not going anywhere quietly.
Sources
Michigan House Fiscal Agency, “Ballot Proposal 2 of 2026”
https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/initiative/Ballot_Proposal_2_of_2026.pdfInstitute for Free Speech, Mackinac Center complaint
https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Mackinac-Complaint.pdfMackinac Center for Public Policy, Proposal 2 litigation page
https://www.mackinac.org/2026-prop-2Michigan Public, “Consumers and DTE sue to block 'Money out of Politics' proposal,” Nov. 5, 2026
https://www.michiganpublic.org/politics-government/2026-11-05/consumers-and-dte-sue-to-block-money-out-of-politics-proposalWXYZ Detroit, “Proposal 2 approved by Michigan voters. Here's what happens next,” Nov. 4, 2026
https://www.wxyz.com/news/proposal-2-approved-by-michigan-voters-heres-what-happens-nextClickOnDetroit (WDIV), “Michigan's Proposal 2 faces immediate legal challenge after majority of voters support it,” Nov. 4, 2026
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2026/11/04/michigans-proposal-2-faces-immediate-legal-challenge-after-majority-of-voters-support-it/