Statewide proposal
New limits on campaign money?
A citizen-initiated state law that would bar campaign contributions from regulated gas and electric utilities and large government contractors, and require more disclosure about who pays for political ads.
The contribution bans and expanded disclosure rules become state law. Changing them later would take a ¾ vote in both chambers of the Legislature.
Current campaign finance law stays the same. Utilities, large contractors and people connected to them can keep contributing under existing rules.
What it would do
- Bans certain contributions. Regulated electric and gas utilities, contractors with more than $250,000 a year in government contracts, and people and organizations with "substantial connections" to them (such as executives, major owners, board members, lobbyists and immediate family) could not contribute, directly or indirectly, to candidates or officeholders whose offices affect them.
- Expands disclosure to "issue ads." Ads that clearly name a candidate or ballot question, even without saying "vote for" or "vote against," would fall under campaign finance rules, including donor disclosure.
- Covers online ads explicitly. The "paid for by" disclosure requirement would expressly apply to internet political ads.
What it doesn't cover (per Bridge Michigan's fact-check): unions (unless they're also large state contractors), out-of-state donors who aren't contractors, and most nonprofit "dark money" groups, unless they run the newly covered issue ads.
The exact ballot language
A proposed initiated law to prohibit campaign contributions from certain regulated utilities and government contractors and apply campaign finance laws and regulations to additional types of political communications
The proposal would:
- Prohibit regulated electric and gas utilities, contractors with over $250,000 annually in government contracts, and people and organizations with substantial connections to these utilities/contractors from making direct or indirect campaign contributions to those who run for or hold offices that impact them.
- Expand laws regulating spending on political communications, including those requiring disclosing donor information, to apply to communications clearly identifying candidates or ballot questions, even if they do not expressly advocate voting for/against them.
- Expressly apply the law requiring disclosure of who paid for political communications to internet political communications.
Should this proposal be adopted?
Key numbers
Hear both sides
The main arguments each side makes, side by side. This is a summary, not an endorsement.
The case for
End pay-to-play. Companies whose rates or contracts depend on public officials shouldn't fund those officials' campaigns.
Protect ratepayers. Supporters say utility money buys outsized influence in Lansing.
More sunlight. Ads naming candidates or ballot questions near an election would have to disclose who paid, online too.
Built to last. If a court strikes one part, the rest stands. Changing it takes a three-fourths vote of lawmakers.
Who's for it: Michiganders for Money Out of Politics (the petition sponsor) and Clean Water Action. Largest reported funders: All Hands on Deck Network ($5.4M) and the Sixteen Thirty Fund ($1.4M).
The case against
Free speech. Courts treat political giving as protected speech. Lawsuits are expected, and parts may not survive.
Uneven rules. Opponents say it targets some players but leaves unions and most dark-money groups untouched.
Out-of-state backing. National groups fund the campaign, including $5.4M from All Hands on Deck Network and $1.4M from the Sixteen Thirty Fund.
A wide net. Executives' and owners' families are covered too. Opponents say voters aren't told everyone it would affect.
Who's against it: Protect MI Free Speech, a business-backed committee, and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Reported funders include DTE (through Michigan Energy First), CMS Energy (Consumers Energy) and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.
Fundraising totals are from filings reported in mid-August 2026 and have likely changed. See the Michigan Campaign Finance search at michigan.gov/sos for current numbers.
Questions
Is "Money Out of Politics" what's on my ballot?
No. That's the sponsoring committee's name. Your ballot shows the official title above.
Does this change the Michigan Constitution?
No. It's an initiated law that amends the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. Because voters would approve it directly, the Legislature would need a ¾ vote in each chamber to change it.
Could it be challenged in court?
The nonpartisan Citizens Research Council expects legal challenges if it passes. U.S. Supreme Court precedent generally requires contribution limits to target corruption or its appearance, not influence in general. The measure includes a severability clause, so if one part is struck down, the rest can stand.
Has it already been challenged?
Yes. Opponents challenged the petition signatures, and on Sept. 3, 2026 the Michigan Supreme Court declined to remove it from the ballot.
Sources
- Michigan Bureau of Elections, 2026 November ballot questions (wording certified Aug. 17, 2026)
- MSU Today, Ask the expert: Proposal 2 (Oct. 6, 2026)
- Bridge Michigan, Fact check: would the proposal live up to its name? (Sept. 4, 2026)
- Planet Detroit, DTE, Consumers donations and the ballot proposal (Aug. 20, 2026)
- Michigan Public, Election board allows initiative to move forward (July 24, 2026)
- Michigan Public, Petition taken up in the House (Aug. 25, 2026)
- Michigan Public, Research council predicts legal challenges (Sept. 29, 2026)
- Detroit Free Press, Proposal survives legal challenge (Sept. 4, 2026)
- Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Two ballot proposals (Sept. 25, 2026)