Michigan Utilities Sue to Block Voter-Approved Ban on Their Campaign Donations; a DTE Officer's 86-Year-Old Mother Joins as a Plaintiff

Michigan's two big investor-owned utilities sued state election officials in federal court on Thursday, two days after voters approved a ballot measure that bars gas and electric utilities, their top officials and those officials' relatives from giving to most candidates for state office.

CMS Energy, its subsidiary Consumers Energy, and three DTE Energy companies filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, joined by the companies' two employee political action committees. They ask the court to declare the new law, Section 30a of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, unconstitutional and to block its enforcement.

The Digital Free Press reviewed the 39-page complaint. Two of the nine plaintiffs are individuals: Case Lancaster, the treasurer of DTE Energy, DTE Electric and DTE Gas, and his mother, Ayesha Lancaster. The complaint describes her as 86 years old and says she is covered by the ban as "immediate family" of a utility officer "even though she has no role at any utility."

What Section 30a Bans

According to the complaint, the measure went on the ballot as Proposal 2, backed by a coalition called Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, and was approved on Nov. 3. Unofficial returns showed it passing with about 81% of the vote, TDFP reported Wednesday.

The law bans any contribution, "directly or indirectly," by a gas or electric utility, any "principal" of a utility, or any entity "affiliated with" a utility, to most candidates for state office and to entities affiliated with those candidates, the filing says. As quoted in the complaint, principals include utility officers, their lobbyists and the "immediate family" of those people.

A utility that breaks the law faces "a civil fine of not more than 10 times the amount of the contribution or donation," according to the complaint. The Secretary of State investigates alleged violations, and the attorney general may sue to collect an unpaid fine.

The complaint says the official declaration of the vote is expected Nov. 23, so the law would take effect on or about Dec. 3. It says both PACs have given in November and December in past years and would likely do so again before the end of 2026.

The Utilities' Arguments

The companies bring four counts: speaker-based and viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment, an unconstitutional limit on contributions, vagueness, and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

"The First Amendment does not permit one side of a policy dispute to legislate the other side out of the debate," the complaint says. It alleges that the measure's sponsors "told voters that the Initiative was aimed at the Utility Plaintiffs because of policy disagreements over rates, reliability, profits, and energy policy."

The filing argues that the only interest that can justify a contribution limit is preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, and that Section 30a is not closely drawn to that interest. It says no other state, and not the federal government, imposes a comparable restriction, and that only three states have utility-specific limits, each tied to races for an elected utility commission.

On vagueness, the companies say they cannot know for certain whether a given 501(c)(4) or 527 group is "affiliated" with a covered official, and that the tenfold penalty, "for which there is no safe harbor and no cure," discourages them from giving to any such group.

The defendants are Jonathan Brater, director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections; Attorney General Dana Nessel; and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, all sued in their official capacities.

A Second Challenge to Proposal 2

The utilities' case is the second federal lawsuit against Proposal 2 this week. On Tuesday, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy sued in the same court over the measure's new disclosure rules. That suit does not challenge the ban on contributions from utilities, which is the focus of Thursday's complaint.

The utilities ask for preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the three officials from enforcing Section 30a against them, plus costs and attorneys' fees.

Sources: CMS Energy Corp. v. Brater, No. 1:26-cv-03168 (W.D. Mich.), complaint filed Nov. 5, 2026 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.miwd.123487/gov.uscourts.miwd.123487.1.0.pdf); court docket (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/75076184/cms-energy-corporation-v-brater/); The Digital Free Press, Nov. 4, 2026 (https://www.thedigitalfreepress.com/post/mackinac-center-sues-michigan-proposal-2-disclosure-rules-first-amendment).