The Michigan Supreme Court on Thursday declined to overturn the Board of State Canvassers' decision to certify Proposal 2, the "Money Out of Politics" ballot initiative, sending the measure to the November 3 ballot with just one day left before the deadline to finalize the state's general election ballot.
The ruling ended a legal challenge filed by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the Protect MI Free Speech committee, which argued that the signature count collected by the proposal's proponents, Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, or MMOP, did not meet legal requirements. The court's order, issued September 3, came one day before the September 4 deadline for the state to lock in its November ballot.
What Proposal 2 Would Do
The initiative, known formally as the Michigan Utility and Government Contractor Campaign Finance Regulations Initiative, would ban DTE Energy, Consumers Energy, and any company holding more than $250,000 in state government contracts from making direct or indirect political contributions to Michigan candidates or elected officials. The ban would extend to company executives, board members, and their immediate families.
The proposal would also require any group running issue ads that mention a candidate or ballot measure within 100 days of a general election, or 30 days before a primary, to publicly report their donors and expenses. That requirement would make Michigan one of the first battleground states to mandate such transparency for issue ads, though at least 11 other states already have similar rules.
Legislative Journey
The measure was a voter-initiated indirect initiative, meaning it was first sent to the state Legislature for consideration. The Republican-controlled Michigan House of Representatives voted on August 25 to adopt the proposal, but the Democratic-controlled Senate did not take it up. Because both chambers failed to pass the measure by the September 4 deadline, it proceeds directly to a statewide vote.
If voters approve the measure, it becomes state law that would require a three-fourths legislative supermajority to amend. Had lawmakers adopted it, a simple majority would have been needed for future changes.
Opposition Pushes Back
Protect MI Free Speech spokesperson John Sellek blasted the court's decision in a statement. "The Court denied an opportunity to expose the Board's faulty math and failure to follow state law, but it can't deny that MMOP is using dark money," Sellek said.
Jim Holcomb, president and CEO of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, who joined the lawsuit, said the measure unfairly targets Michigan-based job providers while leaving other major sources of political money untouched.
Critics pointed to what they described as significant gaps in the proposal. The initiative would not block political spending by labor unions or most out-of-state donors. The word "union" does not appear in the petition language, and organizers confirmed that unions and their members are generally unaffected unless they hold large state contracts.
The UAW's political action committee, for instance, spent nearly $800,000 between April and July of 2026, with more than $1 million spent so far this year, according to campaign finance reports.
Campaign Finances Draw Scrutiny
Opponents also raised questions about who is funding the campaign for Proposal 2. State filings show the campaign, which operates under the name Mop Up Michigan, has received $5.4 million from All Hands on Deck Network Inc. of Massachusetts and $1.4 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based liberal group.
Mop Up Michigan's leaders defended their fundraising, saying they are operating under the same rules as all other campaign groups until the law changes.
MMOP Sees Excitement Ahead
Christy McGillivray, a leader with the MMOP campaign, said the organization plans to hold hundreds of events in the months ahead to engage voters on the initiative. "This kind of reform is so exciting that we know it's going to drive up turnout, and when our democracy has to answer to voters primarily first and when voters come out and vote because they're so excited to do so, we get better outcomes," McGillivray said.
The MMOP website frames the proposal as a defense of democratic access: "Our democracy should never be for sale, but right now, Lansing is up for grabs to the highest bidder."
Another Measure Falls Short
The same week brought a contrasting outcome for another proposed ballot measure. The Michigan Supreme Court also denied a request to place a proposed constitutional amendment requiring proof of citizenship and photo identification for voting on the November ballot. Americans for Citizen Voting, the group behind the measure, said it ran out of time to correct errors in its signature petition.
Chair Paul Jacob said the campaign will attempt to qualify again for the 2028 ballot. "We can argue all the fine points. But the bottom line is there were enough Michigan registered voters who signed this petition for it to appear on the ballot. We just didn't correct the errors that the Bureau of Elections made fast enough," Jacob said.
What's on the Ballot
Michigan voters will now decide on two statewide questions on November 3. Proposal 1 asks whether to convene a new state constitutional convention. Proposal 2 addresses the campaign finance restrictions described above. Both measures represent significant potential changes to how Michigan's government operates, and the outcome of the November election will shape the state's political landscape for years to come.