Michigan Proposal 26-2: Bar campaign gifts from regulated utilities and large government contractors
What it does. Proposal 26-2 would amend the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. It would prohibit electric and gas utilities regulated by the Michigan Public Service Commission, state and local government contractors with contracts over $250,000 in a calendar year, and certain people and organizations affiliated with them, from making direct or indirect campaign contributions to candidates and officeholders in the offices that affect them. A utility that violated the ban could face a civil fine of up to 10 times the contribution, and a contractor could lose its contract and be barred from new contracts for 12 months. It would also apply the law requiring disclosure of who paid for political communications to internet communications, and require reports of electioneering communications totaling $5,000 or more in a calendar year, including those that clearly identify a candidate or ballot question without expressly urging a vote. [1] [2]
Official ballot question. 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 [1] [2]
If you vote yes
A YES vote would adopt the proposed law. The Senate Fiscal Agency says that if a majority of electors vote “yes,” the Michigan Campaign Finance Act “would be amended accordingly.” [1] [2]
If you vote no
A NO vote would reject the proposed law and leave the current Michigan Campaign Finance Act in place. [1] [2]
What it would cost
The Senate Fiscal Agency says the proposal “would have a minor negative fiscal impact on the Department of the Attorney General” and “could have a minor negative fiscal impact on State district courts,” which hear misdemeanor violations. It says the proposal “could have a negative fiscal impact on the Department of State, depending on the number of investigations into potential violations that it conducted.” New fines would support local libraries, and the amount is indeterminate and would depend on the number of violations. The average annual cost of one additional full-time position is estimated at $145,700. [1]
Both sides
Strongest case for
Christy McGillivray, co-chair of the Michiganders for Money Out of Politics campaign, said “Voters in Michigan will get to vote this November to ban the corrupt campaign donations flowing from regulated utilities, like DTE and Consumers, and corporations with contracts with the state of Michigan, like Blue Cross Blue Shield.” [3]
The Senate Fiscal Agency reports that proponents believe expanding disclosure of electioneering spending “would increase transparency and close the loophole,” and notes that 38 states require sponsor disclosure on internet communications while Michigan does not. [1]
The agency says proponents also believe companies that benefit from state funds through government contracts should not be able to donate to campaigns, citing a study that “found that over 80% of State legislators accepted political spending from energy utility companies.” [1]
Strongest case against
Wendy Block of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce said “this measure raises serious concerns and sets a dangerous precedent by limiting public discourse and free speech,” and that Michigan’s process “should welcome all voices and encourage fair, open and transparent debate.” [3]
Katie Carey of Consumers Energy said the measure “will simply shift influence away from Michigan companies and toward wealthy national donors and special interests,” and that “local employers and their employees risk being sidelined.” [3]
The Senate Fiscal Agency reports that opponents say barring one industry from supporting candidates sets “a bad legal precedent by selectively limiting free speech for specific groups,” and fear “a series of potentially expensive court challenges.” [1]
What neither side is saying
Context that bears on what this measure does or who it affects but that the arguments above do not address. These are sourced facts, not arguments for or against the measure.
- When the bans would start. According to the Senate Fiscal Agency, the contribution prohibitions “would not be enforceable until 18 months after the proposal’s effective date, except in certain circumstances.” [1]
- What counts as a contract. The agency says “contract” would not include loans or loan guarantees, subsidies or grants allocated through the appropriations process, collective bargaining agreements, or agreements between political subdivisions of the state. A person would not violate the ban if a prohibited contribution were returned within 30 days of the recipient knowing or having reason to know its source. [1]
Editorial context, not the opinion of We Elect. Each point is a fact we found in a source we opened and read; where sources disagree or data are missing, we say so. How we choose these.
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Proposal 26-2. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised $10,379,342
Committees
- Michiganders for Money Out of Politics $10,139,229
- Voters Not Politicians Ballot Committee $240,113
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Michigan Proposal 26-1, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| All Hands on Deck Network Inc | $3,155,000 |
| Pro-Democracy Campaign | $900,000 |
| Sixteen Thirty Fund | $700,000 |
| Michigan United | $513,345 |
| Green Advocacy Project | $400,000 |
Opposing (No)
Total raised $579,000
Committee
- Protect MI Free Speech $579,000
Major donors
| MITA, Inc | $125,000 |
| Michigan Citizens for Better Health | $75,000 |
| Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan | $65,000 |
| CMS Energy Corporation | $65,000 |
| Comcast Financial Agency Corp | $65,000 |
Donors shown gave 68% of this side’s total.
Reported contributions through Oct. 18, 2026, as compiled by Ballotpedia from state filings; the source lists each side’s top donors, not every donor. Figures are reported contributions and may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: Michigan Bureau of Elections, committee search.
Sources
- November 2026 Ballot Proposal 26-2: An Overview — Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency (Official nonpartisan legislative analysis, 2026)
- November 2026 ballot questions: Proposal 2026-2 (approved ballot wording) — Michigan Department of State, Bureau of Elections (Official ballot wording, 2026-08-17)
- Michigan Proposal 2, Utility and Government Contractor Campaign Finance Regulations Initiative (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.