Poll shows Proposal 2 support in Michigan

A new poll from Marketing Resource Group found that 63% of likely Michigan voters supported Proposal 2, while 16% opposed it and 22% were undecided. Voters will decide the fate of the ballot initiative on Nov. 3.

Proposal 2, known as Mop Up Michigan, has been aimed at politicians and utilities but will hit journalists and other nonprofits that post election content.

While the groups that support the proposal focus their messaging on getting “money out of politics” by targeting utility companies, the proposal would affect even nonprofits and media that rarely engage in public policy.

The poll surveyed 1,008 likely voters online from Oct. 9-14. It reported a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points at a 95% confidence level.

The polling group did not respond to a request for comment.

Michigan’s Proposal 2 could require news organizations and nonprofits to report spending and disclose donor information for communications that mention political candidates, even when the messages do not advocate for or against them.

The proposal would create a new category of regulated speech called electioneering communications, which covers a range of public communications, within 100 days of an election. Electioneering communication is defined to include broadcasts, cable and satellite communications, mass mailings, telephone calls and other forms of public communication. It also leaves the phrase “targeted to the relevant electorate” for the secretary of state to define.

The language could affect routine news coverage, voter surveys, and nonprofit publications, according to Michael Van Beek, vice president for research at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Under the proposal, according to Van Beek, people and organizations that spend $5,000 on electioneering communications would have to file a report with the state within 10 days of reaching that threshold.

The proposal also establishes disclosure requirements for contributors who give more than $100 toward the communications. It does not require a communication to explicitly urge voters to elect or defeat a candidate to qualify as electioneering communication. It also does not include an exemption for news stories, commentary or editorials.

“Such a loose definition would expand the reach of Michigan’s campaign finance law by treating any content that simply references a candidate as a type of political communications,” Van Beek wrote in a Mackinac Center blog post.

An exemption in current law protects media outlets from having their ordinary news coverage treated as campaign expenditures, Van Beek added.

But Proposal 2 creates a separate category of electioneering communications without carrying over the same exemption, according to the Mackinac Center’s analysis of the proposal.

Van Beek points to two recent gubernatorial debates as examples of broadcasts that could meet the proposal’s definition of electioneering communication.

WOOD-TV hosted a debate Oct. 6, and WDIV hosted another on Oct. 15. Both broadcasts featured candidates for governor within 100 days of the Nov. 3 general election.

Under the proposal’s language, a broadcast that references candidates and is targeted to the relevant electorate could qualify, even if its purpose is to inform voters rather than support a campaign.

News organizations also regularly publish candidate profiles, election analyses, polling results, and editorials. Van Beek argues that such material could fall within the proposal’s scope.

Nonprofits, including largely apolitical organizations, sometimes publish information about legislation, public officials and policies affecting the people they serve.

A nonprofit focused on housing, education, health care or environmental issues might discuss a bill or legislator sponsoring it.

If that communication meets the proposal’s other requirements, it could qualify as electioneering communication without an endorsement or a recommendation about how to vote.

Van Beek also points to voter guides published by the League of Women Voters of Michigan – a backer of Proposal 2.

The organization said it mailed 140,000 copies of its guide to libraries around the state. The guides identify candidates but do not necessarily advocate for a particular candidate.

This action could trigger the electioneering communications law if the ballot initiative passes.

The League of Women Voters did not respond to an email seeking comment.