Michigan Senate bill targets paid political posts on social media

A Michigan Senate bill seeks to require people and organizations that publish certain paid political social media posts to disclose who funded them. It includes specific requirements for videos, graphics and audio but exempts certain media.

Senate Bill 1199, introduced Oct. 1 by Democrat Sens. Jeremy Moss of Bloomfield, Rosemary Bayer of Keego Harbor, Erika Geiss of Taylor, Sue Shink of Northville, Mallory McMorrow of Royal Oak, and Paul Wojno of Warren, would amend Michigan’s Campaign Finance Act. The change would establish disclosure requirements for social media communications that support or oppose candidates or ballot questions. SB 1199 is a narrower version of an upcoming ballot proposal that Michigan voters will see on Nov. 3.

The legislation, if enacted into law, would be triggered by payments by a committee, directly or through an intermediary, to an individual or organization posting political social media as subject to campaign law.

Social media is defined to include electronic platforms that allow individuals or organizations to create, share and view user-generated content. Under the bill, a person, committee or other entity that creates, originally publishes or originally distributes an eligible post would have to include a “clear and conspicuous” statement identifying the committee, agent, and independent contractor funding it.

For example, under current law a political committee pays a consulting firm to oppose a ballot proposal. The firm then pays a social media influencer to post a video urging voters to reject the proposal. The committee then reports its payment to the consulting firm, but the influencer’s name and street address are not necessarily disclosed.

If Senate Bill 1199 were to become law, the political committee would pay the consulting firm, and then the firm would pay the influencer to post the video, as it happens now. But the consulting firm would have to provide the influencer’s full name and street address to the committee. The committee would then need to file a campaign finance statement disclosing that information.

The bill also would require a disclaimer on the social media content, to say that the author was paid by the identified committee, agent or independent contractor. Graphics in the relevant communications would have to feature the disclosure in lettering at least as large as most of the text in the graphic and in the same language.

Audio communications would have to include a clearly audible and intelligible disclosure at the beginning or end of the message, lasting at least three seconds, and be in the same language as the communication.

Videos containing audio would have to display the disclosure for at least four seconds. It would have to be in lettering the same size as text communication, and it must include a spoken disclosure lasting at least three seconds at the beginning or end of the message.

A person or entity that violates the requirements could face a civil fine of up to $250 for a first violation and up to $1,000 for each subsequent violation. Each separate post distributed or item aired to the public that violates the law would count as a separate offense. The bill carves an exception for media platforms — including websites, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications — that routinely carry news and commentary of general interest.

The bill was introduced after state officials approved adding the Mop Up Michigan Proposal 2026-2 to the November ballot. That proposal, if voters give it a majority vote, would expand requirements for perceived political messaging during elections with carveouts only for unions, but not for newspapers, nonprofits, or other entities that advance viewpoints.

Any communication that involves a candidate for elected office would likely be considered to be a campaign-related one if it appears 100 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary election. It would not matter whether the communication makes a positive or negative statement about the candidate, or any evaluation at all.

Under current law, by contrast, a media report that mentions a state representative and her latest legislative proposal does not subject the media organization to campaign reporting requirements.

If Proposal 2 passed, under the same scenario, the media may be required to report the communication as campaign-related, subjecting the organization to reporting requirements.

The proposal is written in a vague manner and is open to interpretation, according to an analysis by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. The proposal, according to the analysis, would expand the definition of campaign expenditure so that more communications and messages become subject to the law. It would also restrict certain campaign contributions made by people affiliated with some public utility companies and government contractors.

The Secretary of State would be responsible for clarifying the law.

The sponsors of Senate Bill 1199 did not respond to an email seeking comment.