Bill Would Limit Michigan’s Local Governments, Schools From Sharing Pre-Election Factual Info

Local government groups in Michigan are urging Gov. Rick Snyder to reject a bill state lawmakers there hastily reworked as this year’s legislative session wrapped up before Christmas, arguing that the legislation threatens to stifle the ability of local officials to share factual information about ballot measures with residents.

The provision in the bill that is drawing fire from the groups calls for penalties if local government entities, or local officials, use public funds or resources to communicate information about local ballot questions via television, radio, “mass mailing,” or prerecorded telephone messages, any time during the 60-day period before a question appears on a ballot.

In order for this sort of communication to violate the provision, it would also have to be “targeted to the relevant electorate” where the measure is up for a vote.

“It’s a train wreck of drafting,” Chris Hackbarth, director of state affairs for the Michigan Municipal League, said by phone on Monday.

“We don’t disagree that public dollars should not be used to advocate for or against a ballot question,” he explained. But Hackbarth added: “It’s already against the law, so this language isn’t necessary and it’s overly broad and poorly written.”

Gov. Snyder, a Republican, has yet to voice his thoughts on the ballot question provision in the legislation, or whether he plans to veto the bill. The governor was presented with the legislation on Monday morning, according to online legislative records.

“As with any bill, he intends to give it a thorough review before determining whether he’ll sign it into law,” Snyder’s press secretary, David Murray, wrote in an email on Monday. In a follow up call, Murray said he could not offer any additional details about Snyder’s position on the bill.

‘People Across Michigan Are Baffled’

The legislation—Senate Bill 571—emerged earlier this year as a routine campaign finance bill. But, on the night of Dec. 16, as the year’s legislative session neared its end, House lawmakers adopted a substitute for it, fattening a bill that was 12 pages when initially passed by the state Senate in November, to 53 pages. The Senate subsequently approved the broadened legislation around 11 p.m. that night, according to the chamber’s journal.

Groups like the Municipal League and the Michigan Association of School Administrators say they never had a chance to weigh in on the final version of the bill.

Under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act of 1976 it is currently illegal to contribute or spend public money to support or oppose ballot measures. But there is some nuance to the law.

For instance, elected and appointed officials with policymaking responsibilities are allowed to express their views on ballot questions, even though they receive publicly funded salaries. And there is leeway for public entities to produce and disseminate “factual information” about issues tied to ballot measures.

One criticism the Municipal League has made of the newly approved bill is that it does not take the existing allowance for speech by elected and appointed officials into account—possibly jeopardizing the officials’ rights to free speech.

Another concern the group raises is that when local-government-funded public access channels air city council meetings, political debates, or voter forums, they run the risk of violating the provisions in the bill if a ballot question gets referenced during those broadcasts.

According to the Municipal League, publicly funded community newsletters, or election day reminders mailed to residents, could also end up banned due to the legislation.

Writing on behalf of over 520 cities, villages and townships, Dan Gilmartin, executive director and CEO of the Municipal League, sent Snyder a letter on Dec. 23, urging the governor to reject the language in the bill related to ballot questions.

“There are many educational communications allowed under existing law that are extremely relevant in the time period near an election to ensure that voters are informed on the decision before them,” Gilmartin wrote. “Residents across the state rely on communication tools like the newsletters sent out by Mount Pleasant and the video forums produced by the mayors of Warren and Grand Rapids to understand the critical issues facing their communities.”

Last week, Christopher A. Wigent, executive director of the Michigan Association of School Administrators, penned an op-ed in The Detroit News, which calls on Snyder to veto the bill.

He wrote: “many people across Michigan are baffled by the Michigan Legislature’s desire to prevent school districts and other public bodies from distributing factual and unbiased information about ballot proposals within 60 days of the election.”

“Gov. Rick Snyder should stand for more information and transparency, not less, and veto Senate Bill 571,” Wigent added.

The legislation passed the House 58-48. In the Senate, the vote in favor was 25-12. Republicans have majorities in both chambers of the Michigan Legislature.

Also included in the approved version of the bill was a provision that eliminates February quarterly reporting requirements for political action committees and so-called “super PACs,” according to the The Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a nonprofit group that researches money in the state’s political system. The bill did, however, re-establish an annual reporting requirement for the time period covering Oct. 21 through Dec. 31.

The Campaign Finance Network knocked the legislation because it failed to address what the group called “one of the major anomalies” in Michigan campaign finance reporting. During regularly scheduled elections, Super PACs can make donations after the last pre-election financial disclosure report, which do not have to be disclosed until after voters have cast their ballots.

State Sen. Coleman A. Young II, a Democrat who represents a district that includes part of Detroit, was among those who spoke out against Senate Bill 571 on the night it passed.

His statement was printed in the Senate’s journal.

“No one read this bill, and no one knows what is in it,” Young said. “It might as well be Peggy Bundy’s mystery meat,” he continued, making an apparent reference to “Married With Children,” a sitcom that aired in the 1980s and 1990s. “I just think it is ridiculous,” Young added.

‘I’d Like To Ask For Your Support’

Attempts to reach Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate on Monday to get their views on the legislation were unsuccessful.

When it comes to why the legislation was altered to include the controversial provisions, Hackbarth said: “No one has communicated back with us over the last two weeks over what the motivation was.”

Hackbarth did point to a recent article about the bill in Michigan Capitol Confidential, a publication that describes itself as a “news source for Michigan residents who want an alternative to ‘bigger government’ remedies in policy debates.”

The article cites instances of “taxpayer-funded, almost-electioneering newsletters, bulletins, phone calls and broadcasts in the weeks before a local property tax or ballot measure.”

In other words, communications efforts that edge up to the line of advocacy.

Among the examples the article mentions is a flier a road commission in Muskegon County sent out in advance of a February ballot measure calling for a tax increase. According to the article, the flier stated: “Repairing our roads is costly, but if everybody pitches in to help with this 1.5 mill proposal, it’s not much at all.”

When it came time to vote, Muskegon County residents strongly rejected the tax measure.

The Capitol Confidential article also noted a high school that posted a video on its website with a school official saying, “I’d like to ask for your support for our upcoming bond extension.”

Hackbarth said that Senate Bill 571 has the potential to quash the distribution of information about not only tax-related ballot questions, but also those concerning more banal issues, such as decisions about whether to sell city properties.

“There are a whole host of reasons why a community would want to talk to their residents, and provide context,” he said. “It’s all being shut down.”

Penalties for individuals violating the provisions in the legislation include fines up to $1,000, and up to one year of jail time. If the violator is not an individual, fines could total up to $20,000, or an amount equal to the “improper contribution or expenditure.”

In recent days, Hackbarth said the Municipal League had heard from lawmakers, including about a half-dozen Republicans, some of whom had indicated that they had not fully realized the scope of the ballot question language that ended up in the bill.

“There’s a lot of backpedalling going on,” he said.