Proposal to Limit Political Influence of Utility Companies is in Front of Voters for Consideration in November

As far as ballot proposals go, one of two statewide proposals in front of voters on the November 2 election is fairly straightforward and is focused on an issue that appeals to residents with a wide range of political beliefs.

If passed, proposal 2026-02 would initiate a state law prohibiting campaign contributions from some major utility companies (like DTE and Consumers Energy) and government contractors and would also make disclosure rules for funders behind certain types of political ads more strict, particularly for online ads.

The proposal reached the ballot after volunteers, organized through Michigan United, submitted to the Michigan Bureau for Elections more than 560,000 signatures in support of putting the measure in front of voters. Organizers needed to submit 356,958 valid signatures (8% of the votes cast for governor in 2022) to get it on the ballot. According to Michigan Advance, the group cleared that threshold by around 11,000 signatures once those submitted were validated.

Michigan United is a grassroots, statewide network of community organizations that seeks to build power through people-centered organizing in support of voting rights and access, immigration system reform, ending mass incarceration, healthcare access, greater civic engagement, and protecting the environment, among others. Their campaign to get this proposal on the ballot was referred to as ‘MOP (Money Out of Politics) Up Michigan’ 

“We have a network of volunteers across the state, anchored by dozens of organizations that get it,” said Ken Whittaker, executive director of Michigan United/Michigan United Action. “We put our staff and our volunteers to work getting this in front of the people who will vote on it in November. Michigan United has been at this for five years. It started as Defend Black Voters, a corporate accountability campaign targeting the corporations bankrolling legislators who were pushing 39 voter suppression bills. We asked those corporations to stop cutting checks to those legislators. They laughed at us. Then we moved to a legislative campaign, Taking Back Our Power, and narrowed in on utility accountability. Same idea. We asked legislators to stop taking money from DTE and the other monopolies. They laughed at us too. They let the bills sit in committee until they died. So we took it to a ballot initiative, Michiganders for Money Out of Politics. We asked the corporations to stop. They laughed. We asked the legislators to stop. They laughed. Now we are going to the voters, and they get the last laugh.”

How campaigns and political candidates are funded has long been shadowy and controversial, particularly from large-monied organizations like utility companies. In Michigan, where many residents have dealt with power outages, slow restoration times, and other frustrations while energy costs from major utility companies also increase exponentially, this proposal’s intent is to make elected officials more responsive to constituent needs rather than to utility lobbyists and other monied influencers who advocate for limiting regulation. Supporters of the proposal say those experiences cross party lines, which is why so many people signed on in support.

“This proposal cuts across party lines, regional lines, and every ideology, because it hits people where they live,” Whittaker said. “Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, you are still writing a check to DTE every month. You are paying some of the highest bills in the region for service that’s among the country’s most unreliable. And the price keeps going up. People understand common sense. The people who are supposed to hold these companies accountable are the same people taking their money.”

The Republican-controlled Michigan House of Representatives passed a bill that mirrors the proposal language earlier this year. If it passed in the Senate, it could’ve become law before the election, but the Democrat-controlled Michigan Senate didn’t take the bill up, instead advocating for voters to get their say at the polls. According to Michigan, organizers of the ballot measure were supportive of the Senate not taking up that bill – if the law is passed through the legislative process rather than through a ballot measure, it becomes easier for the legislature to change or alter that law later.

The proposal was also recently endorsed by the United Auto Workers (UAW). 

Organizers are still looking for people who want to be involved in the push to get the proposal approved by voters in November. Information about the campaign and volunteering or other ways to get involved is available on the Mop Up Michigan website.

Critics of the proposal point out that the ballot measure passing alone won’t fix all aspects of our election funding and campaign finance systems. Bridge Michigan notes that although it would put restrictions on utility companies and large government contractors, it wouldn’t prevent out-of-state organizations, dark money nonprofit organizations, and major unions from influencing elected officials through spending. Supporters, though, say that it is a start toward  larger campaign finance reforms.

“In the short term, we are sending a clear message: Michigan voters will not accept utilities buying access to the people who are supposed to regulate them,” Whittaker said. “Over the long term, you will see a shift in who elected officials answer to. When you take big money off the table, they have room to make decisions based on what is right for their constituents instead of what protects a donor. That shift takes time. It starts the day this passes. At Michigan United, we believe power is built over time, so of course we have a long game. This is the first step, not the finish line. When voters pass this, it will be clear to the rest of the state that people want transparency in how money moves through politics. We will take that as a mandate to keep pushing for stronger disclosure rules and real accountability. Utilities are where the problem is most obvious, but the principle applies everywhere. Voters deserve to know who is funding the people who represent them.”

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to catch up on all of our headlines every Tuesday.