Michigan think tank sues over Proposal 2 rules that could require nonprofits to report donors for speech naming candidates
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed a federal suit Nov. 3, the day voters approved the campaign finance measure. It challenges new reporting for communications that mention candidates before elections and a broader test for when groups must register as committees.
Grand Rapids. A Michigan nonprofit research group has asked a federal court to block parts of Proposal 2, the campaign finance measure voters approved on Nov. 3, arguing that they would make issue groups report donors for speech that mentions officeholders. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Midland institute exempt under section 501(c)(3), sued the same day in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, naming Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Attorney General Dana Nessel. The Institute for Free Speech represents it.
Proposal 2, a citizen initiative, bars campaign contributions from regulated utilities and from contractors with more than $250,000 a year in state contracts, and expands disclosure for political advertising. According to the complaint, it takes effect 10 days after the state certifies the vote, no later than Dec. 3.
The two provisions
The first covers "electioneering communications": any general public communication that refers to a clearly identifiable candidate within 100 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary or special election and is aimed at that candidate's voters. A group that spends $5,000 or more a year on them must report, within 10 days, each communication, its cost, vendors and the candidates named, plus the name, address, occupation and employer of anyone who gave more than $100 "for making electioneering communications." Failing to report is a misdemeanor.
The second widens what counts as an election expenditure to any public communication that "promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes" a candidate or ballot question, even without urging a vote. Under existing state law, an organization that spends more than $500 a year in that way to influence voters is a committee: it must register, appoint a treasurer and report its contributors. Michigan law treats most sitting officeholders as candidates.
What the center asks
The center says it endorses no candidates, but that its legislative voting database, a scorecard rating lawmakers on business subsidies, its magazine, radio program and news service could fall under the rules. The complaint says most of its donors give more than $100 a year and that it has received threats over its work. It argues that the electioneering rule fails the First Amendment and is too vague to follow, and that the committee rules are unconstitutional as applied to the center.
“No nonprofit should have to choose between speaking about policy issues and protecting the privacy of its supporters.”
The suit asks the court to declare the electioneering rule unconstitutional and to bar the state from enforcing it, and the committee rules, against the center. The case, Mackinac Center v. Benson, is at its start: the complaint is the only filing the institute has posted.
About this story
501c3.help wrote this story from the sources listed with it, not from material an organization sent. Our editors approved it on Nov. 11, 2026. Stories in The Nonprofit Herald are free, and nothing is asked in return. Editorial rules.
Found an error? Write to [email protected] and we will correct it.