Advocacy News – Aug. 5, 2026
What’s happening: Protect MI Free Speech (PMFS), the ballot question committee the Michigan Chamber is part of, filed a lawsuit this week asking the Michigan Supreme Court to overturn the Board of State Canvassers’ (BSC) decision certifying the Michiganders for Money Out of Politics (MMOP) petition for the November ballot.
- The filing asks the Court to rule by Aug. 20 because its decision will determine whether the initiative appears on the November ballot.
Why it matters: The case could determine whether one of Michigan’s highest-profile ballot proposals appears before voters this November. PMFS argues the canvassers certified the petition despite failing to follow its own signature verification methodology and unresolved questions about whether the campaign collected enough valid signatures.
The big picture: The lawsuit centers on whether the Board of State Canvassers properly applied its own statistical sampling procedures when certifying the petition.
- PMFS argues the Board failed to follow its own statistical sampling methodology, which requires a 90% confidence level and a 2.5% margin of error. Under that methodology, the lawsuit contends MMOP should have needed 661 valid signatures in the sample – not the 636-signature threshold used to recommend certification.
The lawsuit also argues: The BSC improperly counted signatures accompanied by nonexistent street addresses (ex. 123 Unicorn Way).
- PMFS’s filiing identifies 12 signatures where signers allegedly listed addresses that do not exist.
- Michigan law requires petition signers to provide a valid residential street address. PMFS argues invalidating those signatures would reduce the petition below even the Board’s 636-signature certification threshold.
What we’re saying: “The BSC certified a petition that failed to meet the threshold required under its own methodology. That’s not a judgment call,” said John Sellek, spokesperson for PMFS. “It’s sloppy math and a failure to follow the standards it adopted. Michigan voters deserve a process that applies the rules consistently. We are asking the Michigan Supreme Court to correct this error and prevent an improperly certified proposal from appearing on the ballot.”
Our position: The Michigan Chamber continues to strongly oppose the MMOP proposal because it would expand government regulation of political speech and association, creating new restrictions on constitutionally protected First Amendment activity.
The bottom line: The proposal would blur the line between issue advocacy and campaign activity, subjecting employers, nonprofits, local governments, community organizations and engaged citizens to additional campaign finance regulations and compliance requirements.
- The measure presents a striking contradiction: while proponents say it would eliminate “dark money” in politics, campaign finance reports show the initiative has been funded primarily by national progressive organizations and wealthy out-of-state donors, raising questions about transparency, consistency and the proposal’s true impact.