Financial disclosures proposed for Michigan politicians are ‘pretty weak,’ advocates say – MLive.com

A bipartisan group of lawmakers Tuesday introduced a long-awaited package of legislation that details what state government elected officials must include in Michigan’s first-ever financial disclosures.

“I have been dismayed by the evolving corruption scandals in and around state government, which must compel us to further strengthen Michigan’s ethics laws,” Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield, said in a statement, casting the bills as a starting point for further reforms. He called it “a huge step forward to holding our elected officials accountable to the citizens they represent.”

The legislation, while bringing specificity to some areas 2022′s Proposal 1 left vague, also leaves significant gaps in reporting wide open, exempting public officials from having to disclose some of the very financial benefits that roiled state government in those scandals.

From May: Will Michigan’s financial disclosure law reveal politicians’ long-hidden perks? It’s up to them.

Nicholas Pigeon, executive director of the nonprofit watchdog Michigan Campaign Finance Network, called the bills “a mixed bag … that is pretty weak compared to the rest of the country.”

Pigeon is particularly concerned by what he saw as a lack of enforcement mechanisms. While elected officials may have to report sources of earned and unearned income and descriptions of assets, they don’t have to tie amounts to any of those items, he noted.

Politicians’ spouses, meanwhile, don’t have to report anything at all beyond their occupation.

Last November, two-thirds of Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring Michigan’s state elected officials to disclose information about their personal finances for the first time. Legislation implementing the proposal has to pass this year under the language of the proposal. If it doesn’t, the legislature opens itself up to a lawsuit.

Republicans had seized on Democrats’ lack of movement on the issue to introduce transparency bills of their own, but with Democrats holding narrow majorities in the legislature, their proposals never moved.

“It’s embarrassing this is the best they could come up with in nearly a year,” Rep. Tom Kunse, R-Clare, said in a social media post.

The legislation would expand the filing requirement to candidates running for office, while the original proposal had only required politicians to file disclosures once they were elected.

“These bills do not single-handedly address the entirety of ethics improvements necessary for our state, but that should not undercut the historic nature of this moment,” Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, said. “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

Pigeon noted the legislation only required legislators to disclose free travel and gifts as defined by Michigan’s lobbying law. Those definitions have resulted in almost none of the lavish trips politicians receive being reported in recent years, Secretary of State of Jocelyn Benson has previously told MLive that law was “maddeningly weak.”

Presents from lobbyists exceeding $72 a month, how that law defines a “gift,” are already illegal, but gifts not required to be reported by a lobbyist don’t have to be disclosed under the legislation.

Former House Speaker Lee Chatfield became the poster child for Lansing excess after a dark money account connected to him spent $454,337 on food, dining, travel and entertainment in 2020. Reporting has chronicled undisclosed sponsored trips Chatfield took to New Orleans, Hawaii, Atlanta and the PGA Tour headquarters. None of it was reported under Michigan’s lobbying law and Chatfield remains under investigation for operating a suspected “criminal enterprise.”

Democrats held press conferences calling for investigations into the spending. The payments from the account, registered as a nonprofit “social welfare” organization, fall outside the legislation’s reporting requirements.

“I think that’s very troubling and other states do require that,” Pigeon said of the lack of robust gift and travel disclosure requirements.

Benson also had previously told a state House panel in June that she’d like to see members of the Michigan Supreme Court and State Board of Education included in disclosure requirements. They were not listed in the legislation.

Benson had also emphasized to the panel the “importance of enforcement and real penalties for failure to comply. All that we could build would risk becoming ineffective if we don’t have actual enforcement mechanisms.”

The worst punishment a candidate or election official could receive for lying or leaving something off a disclosure would be a $1,000 fine under the legislation. By contrast, doing the same in Congress could result in a fine of up to $50,000 or up to five years in prison.

Like Michigan’s campaign finance system, the legislation allows state officials review disclosures for “apparent violations.” It’s identical to the state’s ability to review campaign finance violations, but with limited funding, officials are limited to waiting for the public to submit complaints to investigate all but the most obvious violations.

The Senate Oversight Committee will be taking up the legislation in a committee hearing at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, less than 24 hours after it was introduced.

Benson will be testifying support of the legislation Wednesday morning, Michigan department of state spokesperson Angela Benander told MLive.

“She anticipates continuing the ongoing conversations with lawmakers to make sure the reforms are funded at the appropriate levels,” Benander said.