Mackinac Center Sues Over Michigan's Proposal 2, Saying Its New Disclosure Rules Would Cover Policy Speech That Names Elected Officials

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Midland-based free-market research group, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday asking a judge to block parts of Proposal 2, the campaign finance measure Michigan voters approved that day, arguing its new disclosure rules violate the First Amendment.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, names Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Attorney General Dana Nessel, who administer and enforce the state's campaign finance law. The Institute for Free Speech represents the Mackinac Center. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Paul L. Maloney.

Unofficial returns showed Proposal 2 passing with about 81% of the vote. The suit does not challenge the measure's ban on political contributions from regulated utilities and large state contractors. It targets two disclosure changes.

What Proposal 2 Requires

Under the measure, a person or group that is not a political committee and spends $5,000 or more in a year on “electioneering communications” must report each communication, the amounts spent, the candidates named, and donors who gave more than $100 “for making electioneering communications,” according to the complaint and the nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency.

An electioneering communication is a “general public communication” that refers to a “clearly identifiable candidate,” whether or not it urges a vote, within 100 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary, and that “is targeted to the relevant electorate,” a phrase the secretary of state is to define by rule. Under Michigan law, a sitting officeholder eligible for reelection counts as a candidate, the complaint notes.

The measure also expands what counts as a campaign “expenditure” to include any public communication that “promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes a candidate” or ballot question, even without express advocacy. The complaint says a group spending more than $500 a year on such communications could have to register as a political committee and report its donors. Failing to file required reports is a misdemeanor.

The complaint notes that the expenditure definition keeps an existing exception for a “news story, commentary, or editorial” by a newspaper, broadcaster or other periodical. The Mackinac Center, which publishes the news site Michigan Capitol Confidential, said that the rules could reach “news reporting” and require media outlets to disclose supporters, including subscribers.

The Lawsuit's Claims

The complaint brings four counts. Two argue the rules fail “exacting scrutiny,” the standard for disclosure laws, which requires a “substantial relation” to an important government interest and narrow tailoring. Two argue the rules are unconstitutionally vague, saying the law does not explain which costs count toward the $5,000 trigger, what “targeted to the relevant electorate” means, or which donations are “for making electioneering communications.”

The Mackinac Center says the reporting windows cover more than a quarter of the year, that as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit it does not endorse candidates, and that donors it is forced to name could face harassment.

It asks the court to block the electioneering-communication reporting rules, and the committee rules as applied to the group, and to declare them unconstitutional. According to the complaint, Proposal 2 takes effect no later than Dec. 3.

“The First Amendment guarantees people the freedom to praise and criticize the elected officials who govern us,” Brett Nolan, the Institute for Free Speech attorney leading the case, said in a statement.

Mackinac Center Responds

Patrick J. Wright, the Mackinac Center's vice president for legal affairs, told The Digital Free Press in an email that the group will seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.

Wright said Proposal 2 expands regulated speech in two ways. The media are exempt from the new definition of an expenditure, he said, but for electioneering communications, “no one is exempt from that (trigger is $5000).”

As a result, he wrote, “newspapers, radio shows, bloggers, substack authors, etc. will be forced to disclose their ‘donors’ and in order to comply will likely have to disclose their subscribers.”

“The law is overly broad in that what speech is regulated is vague and the law can be weaponized by partisan actors to punish opposing viewpoints or dissent,” Wright wrote. “All of that makes it violate the First Amendment.”

The Legal Backdrop and the Other Side

The complaint relies on Buckley v. Valeo (1976), in which the Supreme Court limited some federal disclosure rules to express advocacy, and cites Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021), which struck down California's requirement that charities give the state their major donors' names. In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the court upheld federal disclosure requirements for electioneering communications.

Supporters, led by Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, argued that the $5,000 reporting rule would “increase transparency and close the loophole” that lets groups run ads about candidates without naming donors, according to the nonpartisan Senate Fiscal Agency's summary. Opponents argued it would expand government regulation of speech and invite costly court challenges, the summary says.

The Digital Free Press reached out to the Michigan Department of State and the Michigan Department of Attorney General for comment.

Sources: Complaint, The Mackinac Center v. Benson, No. 1:26-cv-03154 (W.D. Mich.), filed Nov. 3, 2026 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.miwd.123455/gov.uscourts.miwd.123455.1.0_2.pdf); Court docket, The Mackinac Center v. Benson (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/75067968/mackinac-center-the-v-benson/); Michigan House Fiscal Agency, “Ballot Proposal 2 of 2026” (https://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/initiative/Ballot_Proposal_2_of_2026.pdf); Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency, “November 2026 - Ballot Proposal 26-2” (https://sfa.senate.michigan.gov/Publications/BallotProps/Proposal26-2.pdf); Mackinac Center press release, Nov. 3, 2026 (https://www.mackinac.org/pressroom/2026/mackinac-center-lawsuit-challenges-michigans-proposal-2-to-protect-free-speech); Email from Patrick J. Wright, Mackinac Center, Nov. 4, 2026. Cover photo: “Michigan State Capitol exterior 2025h” by Antony-22, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.