On November 3rd, every Michigan voter will decide two statewide ballot proposals alongside the candidate races, and both would make lasting, significant changes to how the state is governed if passed.
Proposal 1 – A Constitutional Convention (“Con-Con”)
Summary
Article XII Section 3 of Michigan’s 1963 Constitution mandates that voters be asked every 16 years whether to hold a general revision of the state Constitution, called a Constitutional Convention (shortened to Con-Con). A “yes” vote is not a targeted fix to any single provision of the state Constitution. Every article, provision, and word of the Constitution would be open to complete revision. If approved, one delegate would be elected on a partisan ballot from each of Michigan’s 110 House districts and 38 Senate districts (148 total), and those delegates would convene in Lansing in 2027 with near‑limitless authority to rewrite the state’s governing document from the ground up.
The automatic trigger exists as a regular “check‑in” with voters. Since the current Constitution was adopted in 1963, voters have faced the question three times, in 1978, 1994, and 2010, and rejected it each time by wide margins. Supporters argue a convention could streamline convoluted parts of state government or revisit recent amendments, while opponents argue the laws governing a convention allow the officials to choose their own officers, set their own rules, and eventually submit a product to voters with no time limit, no spending cap, and no external oversight or transparency requirements.
SBAM Position
SBAM’s Legislative Action Council convened to weigh the implications and risks of a constitutional convention and voted unanimously to oppose Proposal 1. SBAM has joined Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests, a broad, bipartisan coalition opposing the proposal.
Michigan’s small businesses depend on a stable, predictable framework of law and governance to promote business growth. In today’s highly polarized climate, a runaway convention could reach everything from tax structure to property rights at once. Delegate races would be run as partisan elections with no clear disclosure or contribution limits and would be natural magnets for out‑of‑state money. Delegates would be unconstrained by budgets or time limits. There is no mechanism to protect the provisions of the Constitution that function well while others are debated, and no meaningful check on the special‑interest and out‑of‑state spending that unregulated delegate races would invite. Now is not the time to open Pandora’s box with our state’s primary governing document.
Proposal 2 – “Money Out of Politics” (MMOP)
Summary
Proposal 2 is a citizen‑initiated law that would amend the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. Its backers, Michiganders for Money Out of Politics (“MMOP,” also styled “Mop Up Michigan”), submitted requisite signatures and the measure was certified for the November ballot. Supporters say the measure targets “pay‑to‑play” politics and the influence of monopoly utilities and dark money. The measure makes three core changes:
- Creates a new class of banned contributors to the electoral process. Regulated electric and gas utilities and any business or organization holding more than $250,000 annually in government contracts, plus the people and organizations with “substantial connections” (as well as their immediate family members) would be barred from giving to:
- Candidates for governor, attorney general, state senator, or state representative; a state or local political party committee; a committee that makes contributions to a candidate; and any member of the Michigan Public Service Commission.
- Extends donor‑disclosure and reporting rules would extend to communications that merely identify a candidate or ballot question, even when they do not expressly urge a vote for or against.
- Expressly applies “paid for by” disclosure requirements to online political communications.
Because Proposal 2 would write these rules into the Campaign Finance Act by initiated law, amending or correcting them later would require a legislative supermajority – a high bar that makes any drafting flaw difficult to fix.
SBAM Position
SBAM opposes Proposal 2. While this is a reform aimed at utilities, the measure in practice reaches deep into Michigan’s broader business community and the people connected to it, and creates legal uncertainty with vague language.
- The $250,000 contractor threshold includes far more entities than utilities, effectively silencing a wide range of employers and, through the “connected individual” provisions, the principals and families behind them.
- “Substantial connections” is left undefined. Businesses and the professionals who serve them would face uncertainty and legal risk simply for participating in the political process.
- The measure would not restrain other major sources of political spending, including unions that are not state contractors, out‑of‑state groups without qualifying contracts, or independent‑expenditure super PACs. The measure does not get money out of politics; it just gets certain money out of politics.
Improving transparency in government is a worthy goal, but this measure is broad and vague, and would bar many small businesses from the political process.