Michigan ballot measure · November 3, 2026
Michigan Proposal 2, explained
Campaign contributions from regulated utilities and government contractors. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.
The official wording
A PROPOSED INITIATED LAW TO PROHIBIT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CERTAIN REGULATED UTILITIES 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
This is what appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.
What it actually means
Michigan's electric and gas utilities are regulated by a commission whose members are appointed by the governor, and they, along with large state contractors, can currently give to the campaigns of the officials who oversee them. Proposal 2 would bar those contributions, extend them to people closely tied to those companies, and tighten disclosure rules for political advertising — including online ads and messages made with artificial intelligence.
If you vote YES
- Electric and gas utilities regulated by the Michigan Public Service Commission, entities affiliated with them, and state and local government contractors with more than $250,000 in government contracts in a calendar year could not make direct or indirect contributions to candidates for governor, attorney general, secretary of state, the Legislature and certain other offices, or to party and certain political committees.
- The ban would extend to closely connected individuals: majority owners, board members, executives, presidents, chief executives, treasurers, officers with similar responsibilities, lobbyists and lobbyist agents, immediate family members, and certain current and former executive or managerial staff within the previous two years.
- A utility breaking the rule could be fined up to 10 times the prohibited contribution. A contractor that knowingly did so could have contracts cancelled and be barred from government contracts for 12 months after the election concerned.
- Disclosure rules would reach communications that promote, support or oppose a candidate or ballot question even without express advocacy, and would expressly cover internet political advertising; disclaimers would have to name who paid.
- The independent expenditure reporting threshold would drop from $1,000 a year to more than $500, and electioneering communications over $5,000 a year would require reports. Prerecorded phone messages created with artificial intelligence would have to say so.
If you vote NO
- Regulated utilities and large government contractors could continue to contribute to the campaigns of the officials who set their rates and award their contracts, as they can now.
- Disclosure would continue to apply only to advertising that expressly advocates for or against a candidate or measure, leaving ads that identify a candidate without express advocacy outside the rules.
- Reporting thresholds would stay where they are — $1,000 a year for independent expenditures — and there would be no specific rule for internet political communications or for AI-generated prerecorded calls.
- Any change would have to come from the Legislature instead.
Why supporters say YES
"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. These are the same companies who are not checked when they raise our utility bills, when they raise our health care premiums, because they are the ones funding the politicians who are supposed to be representing us."
— Christy McGillivray, co-chair of the Michiganders for Money out of Politics campaign
"80% of our Legislature took money from utility companies, and that means they have way too much influence over what happened in Lansing. That is why today we are here to say on behalf of the hundreds of thousands who signed a petition that it's time to start holding DTE, Consumers Energy and Blue Cross Blue Shield accountable."
— Elouise Sirleaf, community organiser, Michigan United
Why opponents say NO
"What's clear is that this measure raises serious concerns and sets a dangerous precedent by limiting public discourse and free speech. We believe Michigan's political and legislative process should welcome all voices and encourage fair, open and transparent debate."
— Wendy Block, senior vice president of business advocacy, Michigan Chamber of Commerce
What’s genuinely uncertain
- The reach of the ban on "people and organizations with substantial connections" is broad — covering immediate family members and former managerial staff for two years — and how it would be enforced in practice is untested.
- Whether the contribution ban and the expanded disclosure rules survive First Amendment challenge is not settled; the opposing campaign frames the measure as a speech restriction, and the measure already survived a challenge to keep it off the ballot at the Michigan Supreme Court.
- Spending is lopsided. Through July 20, 2026 the supporting campaign, Michiganders for Money out of Politics, reported $8.6 million in contributions — top donors All Hands on Deck Network ($3.1 million), Pro-Democracy Campaign ($750,000) and Sixteen Thirty Fund ($700,000) — while Protect MI Free Speech reported $579,000, with MITA Inc ($125,000), Michigan Citizens for Better Health ($75,000) and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan ($65,000) among its top donors.
- Because it is an initiated law rather than a constitutional amendment, the Legislature could amend it afterwards.
- No state fiscal note for the measure was located.
The bottom line
Whether the companies whose rates and contracts the state controls should be barred from funding the officials who control them, and whether disclosure rules should reach online and AI-made political messages; supporters call the current arrangement a conflict of interest, the state chamber of commerce calls the restrictions a limit on political speech.
One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.
Checking it against the official text
The Michigan Secretary of State publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.
Confirm this with the official source
Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at Michigan Secretary of State.
Other measures on the Michigan ballot
Candidates on the same ballot
- U.S. Senate election in Michigan
- Michigan governor's race
- Michigan's 1st congressional district
- Michigan's 2nd congressional district
- Michigan's 3rd congressional district
- Michigan's 4th congressional district
- Michigan's 5th congressional district
- Michigan's 6th congressional district