Q: What is the current state of campaign finance reform in Michigan?

SJ: Progress MI has made big attempts to restructure disclosure in the state, particularly from lobbyists and legislators, however there’s a lot left to do. Recently, contribution limits have gone up and a loophole was exploited that allowed a sitting governor to raise unlimited amounts when faced with the threat of a recall--of course the recall never happened, but the chatter was out there which allowed it to continue.

Q: Republicans had a tight hold on the legislature for over a generation. What is their legacy when it comes to campaign finance?

SJ: Republicans never made it “unfair” per se, but they did make it more accessible for those with money to give more. They made sure that contribution limits were increased “to match the times” (our salaries sure as f*&% haven’t increased “to match the times”) and they created the structure that allowed the Citizens United to be codified throughout our state campaign finance system. That decision, made by the US Supreme Court in 2010, ruled that corporations and unions have the same free speech rights as individuals, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns.

Republicans in Michigan introduced leadership PAC’s and 501(c)(3) accounts. These are commonly called “corporate accounts” because they allow corporations to contribute to a legislator’s “public welfare” non-profit. Leadership PACs are disgusting and are routinely abused in my opinon, but the state lacks oversight into them. Politicians aren’t going to change that.

Q: What’s going on with Senate Bill 296? Last year, Michigan People’s Campaign was part of an effort to hold DTE and other MI companies that do a lot of business with the state accountable for contributions to anti-democratic candidates and ballot initiatives.

SJ: Yeah - it’s sitting in Government OPs (the Government Operations Committee) right now - my guess is that the utilities have a vested interest in that not ever seeing the light of a hearing…aka why it’s in gov ops.

Q: Let’s dig into that. Do you think a BCBSM or DTE really pays attention to and understands that their money supports these efforts? Are they willingly giving to anti-democratic politicians? Or do you feel they think the politics are background noise in relation to lobbying?

Steve James (SJ): Having worked for a member who was the minority vice chair of the house energy policy committee during a huge overhaul of the state’s energy priorities, in my personal experience DTE cares about one thing: their bottom line. If a bill is going to cost them any amount of money to implement they are going to have an opinion on it. This is where they demonstrate their influence. They have a very good lobbyist who is extremely adept at getting things like"mandates" mysteriously transformed into "goals."