Michiganders for Money Out of Politics organizers seek to intervene in lawsuits challenging measure

Three groups that supported and organized the “Michiganders for Money Out of Politics” ballot measure that passed on Nov. 3, as well as a recently elected state representative, have filed a motion to intervene in two First Amendment lawsuits filed against the measure.

Individuals representing the Michiganders for Money Out of Politics ballot committee, Clean Water Action and Voters Not Politicians, as well as state Rep.-elect Joanna Whaley, argued in their brief that the current defendants — Attorney General Dana Nessel, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and, in the suit from the utilities, Director of Elections Jonathan Brater — “represent the public at large” and as such, have different considerations in defending the lawsuit.

“These include Defendants’ obligations to take account of enforcement priorities and resource limits and their interest in preserving enforcement discretion,” the brief argues. “These interests may lead Defendants to concede the invalidity of certain applications of Proposal 2 or agree to narrowing constructions to it, or even to enter into a settlement of the case. Proposed Intervenors, by contrast, have a direct stake in every provision of Proposal 2.”

Because of this, the groups argue that they should be included as defendants in the lawsuit in order to defend the interests of those who drafted and advocated for the proposal. All three organizations were involved in the creation of the ballot measure and collection of signatures on its petition, and each advocated for its passage.

For Whaley, the motion states that during her 2026 campaign, she “faced advertisements, supported by outside spending, that did not use the ‘magic words’ of ‘vote for’ or ‘vote against’ and thus would not trigger disclosures under the law prior to Proposal 2 but that would trigger disclosures under Proposal 2. She intends to run for re-election and expects to confront similar outside spending in her reelection campaign.”

In support of their motion, the groups also argue that in the past, courts “have repeatedly granted permissive intervention to the sponsors of ballot initiatives in cases challenging the adoption or implementation of those initiatives.”

Both lawsuits — one brought by the right-leaning policy think tank Mackinac Center and the other brought by utility companies — were filed in the days after the election. The proposal to ban campaign spending from regulated electric and gas utilities and from major government contractors passed with over 80% support. 

In a press release from the Michiganders for Money Out of Politics campaign, longtime federal litigator Samuel Bagenstos says that the group is “fully confident in the legality of Proposal 2 and look forward to seeing this out in court.”

Bagenstos, who is representing the proposed intervenor-defendants along with Stephanie Command and Tracey Wigglesworth of The Political Law Group, added, “The language of Proposal 2 was carefully crafted with constitutionality in mind, and we are well prepared for this expected legal challenge. We intend to vigorously defend the will of Michiganders who overwhelmingly approved this measure just one week ago.”