Proposal 2: Utility and contractor donationsBan political donations from utilities and big state contractors
Read the full text of the measure: Bureau of Elections ballot questions (PDF)
In plain words
Michigan already bars companies from giving money straight to candidates. This proposal goes further for two groups: regulated gas and electric utilities (like DTE Energy and Consumers Energy) and companies with more than $250,000 a year in government contracts. They, their officials, and people who own a big share of them or sit on their boards could not give money, directly or indirectly, to people running for or holding offices that affect them. It also makes "issue ads" (ads that name a candidate or ballot question without saying "vote for" or "vote against") follow the donor-disclosure rules, and spells out that online political ads must say who paid for them. (bridgemi.com )
Before and after
| Question | Today | If it passes |
|---|---|---|
| Companies giving directly to candidates | Not allowed | Not allowed (same) |
| Utilities and big contractors giving indirectly (for example, through officials or groups tied to them) | Allowed | Banned for offices that affect them |
| Who counts as a big contractor | Not applicable | More than $250,000 a year in government contracts, based in Michigan or not |
| Ads that name a candidate or ballot question but don't say "vote for/against" | Donors don't have to be disclosed | Donor and spending disclosure required within 100 days of a general election or 30 days before a primary |
| Online political ads | Paid-for-by rule not spelled out | Must say who paid |
| Nonprofit "dark money" groups (501(c)(4)s) | Don't have to name donors | Not directly banned from spending |
Numbers from the official ballot title (ballot title ); also see (bridgemi.com )
Biggest change
- Bans direct or indirect contributions to Michigan politicians from DTE Energy, Consumers Energy and companies with more than $250,000 in state government contracts, and from their officials and people with substantial ownership or board seats. source: bridgemi.com
- Groups running issue ads within 100 days of a general election or 30 days before a primary would have to disclose donors and spending. source: bridgemi.com
- Covered officials and their family members could not give to groups tied to a candidate or official that pay for that person's travel, meals, conference fees or other costs. source: bridgemi.com
Who it affects most: DTE Energy, Consumers Energy and other regulated utilities; companies with large government contracts and their officials and big owners; groups that run political ads without saying who paid for them; and the candidates who get money from them.
Cost to the state: Unknown. No official cost estimate was found.
Our plain-words summary. Every line points to its source.
What your vote means
Regulated utilities and companies with over $250,000 a year in government contracts can't give to the politicians who oversee them, and more political ads must name who paid.
Campaign finance rules stay as they are: utilities' and contractors' officials and related groups can keep giving, and issue ads don't have to name donors.
Our one-line summary. Michigan does not publish an official "what your vote means" statement; the ballot title above is the official description.
Why people want it, and why others object
Why this is on the ballot
Voters put this on the ballot by signing a petition. It changes a state law, which lawmakers can later change. It passes with a majority of the votes cast on it.
- Citizens gathered petition signatures to put this law before the Legislature. It reached the ballot after surviving a last-minute challenge at the Michigan Supreme Court in early September 2026. source: michiganpublic.org
- Corporations and unions are already barred from giving directly to Michigan candidates; both can spend through PACs and independent spending. Unions would generally not be affected unless they hold state contracts. source: bridgemi.com
Why supporters want it
- Christy McGillivray, co-chair of Michiganders for Money Out of Politics: "If you are an out-of-state corporation that has that contract with the state of Michigan, then no, you can't give." source: bridgemi.com
- Sean McBrearty of Clean Water Action, an organizer, said the proposal "was never designed to fix every single part of our campaign finance system." source: bridgemi.com
Why opponents object
- Katie Carey, spokesperson for CMS Energy and Consumers Energy, said the approach "won't eliminate money in politics." Consumers Energy called it "hypocritical" for organizers to take out-of-state dark money while pushing the measure. source: bridgemi.com
- Michigan Chamber of Commerce: "This egregious proposal appears to silence the voices of job providers." source: bridgemi.com
- John Sellek, spokesperson for Protect MI Free Speech, said voters need to understand the pros and cons and that "nothing is as simple as it appears on the surface." source: michiganpublic.org
Who backs each side
- For: Michiganders for Money Out of Politics (also called Mop Up Michigan), with Clean Water Action among its organizers. State filings show $5.4 million from All Hands on Deck Network Inc. (Massachusetts) and $1.4 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund (Washington, D.C.). source: bridgemi.com
- Against: the campaign Protect MI Free Speech; Consumers Energy and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce have also spoken against it. No total for the opposing campaign's money was found. source: michiganpublic.org
In each side's own words where we could find them, quoted or summarized with a link to the source. We don't endorse either side.
What you will see on your ballot
Official ballot wording, word for word (tap to open)
The official ballot title, word for word from the Bureau of Elections' official ballot wording .
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?
Yes
No
Copied word for word from the Bureau of Elections' official ballot wording for Proposal 2026-2 (dated August 17, 2026).
Latest news
Recent reporting from a range of outlets, newest first. We link to it; we don't endorse it.
No articles collected yet for this measure.
Full text of the measure
Read it in the Bureau of Elections ballot questions (PDF) .
Read more
- Bureau of Elections: November 2026 statewide ballot questions (PDF)
- Bridge Michigan: fact check on Proposal 2
- Bridge Michigan: would Proposal 2 stifle free speech?
- Bureau of Elections: official ballot wording (PDF)
We link to analysis from several sources; we don't endorse it.