Advocacy News – Sept. 25, 2026
What’s happening: Michigan voters will decide two statewide ballot proposals this November – one asking whether to call a convention to rewrite the state Constitution and another that would significantly change Michigan’s campaign finance laws.
The Michigan Chamber opposes both.
Proposal 1: Should MI rewrite its Constitution?
What’s happening: Every 16 years, Michigan voters are automatically asked whether to call a constitutional convention – or “con-con.” If Proposal 1 passes, 148 delegates would be elected and empowered to change the Constitution. Any new constitution they propose would ultimately go back to voters for approval.
Why it matters: A constitutional convention isn’t limited to one issue or section of the Constitution. It could put major questions involving taxation, education, individual rights and the structure of state government back on the table.
Our concern: Michigan needs greater certainty and stability to attract investment, grow jobs and compete – not years of uncertainty over the state’s foundational governing document.
“It inserts uncertainty at a time when Michigan businesses and Michigan families are already facing significant economic challenges and uncertainty,” the Chamber’s Wendy Block recently told reporters.
The Chamber is part of a broad coalition – Protect MI Constitution from Special Interests – of business, labor, education, healthcare and civic organizations opposing Proposal 1.
Worth watching: Voters rejected a constitutional convention in 1978, 1994 and 2010. But this year’s question warrants attention: a recent Detroit News/WDIV-TV poll found 47% supporting Proposal 1, 31% opposed and 22% undecided.
Proposal 2: Who gets a voice in Michigan politics?
What’s happening: Proposal 2, advanced by Michiganders for Money Out of Politics (MiMOP), would impose new restrictions on political contributions involving regulated utilities, government contractors receiving more than $250,000 annually, and certain people and organizations connected to them.
Why it matters: Supporters say the measure would combat “pay-to-play” politics and reduce the influence of money in government. The Michigan Chamber and others argue it instead singles out certain employers and individuals for restrictions while leaving other politically active interests unaffected.
Our concern Political speech shouldn’t depend on who employs you or does business with government. Michigan should promote transparency and accountability while applying the rules fairly and protecting the ability of individuals and organizations to participate in the political process.
That’s why the Chamber has joined Protect MI Free Speech, a coalition opposing Proposal 2.
Worth watching: These concerns was echoed this week by The Detroit News Editorial Board, which opposes Proposal 2:
“It wouldn’t keep money out of politics – just money from select donors.”
The editorial points specifically to the proposal’s treatment of utility executives, board members and others affiliated with affected businesses while noting that other participants in the political process would not face the same restrictions.
The bottom line: Two proposals. Two very different issues. Both carry long-term implications for Michigan.
- The Chamber opposes Proposal 1 because of the gridlock and uncertainty that could come with reopening the state’s Constitution – and Proposal 2 because of concerns over free speech and unequal treatment in Michigan’s political process.
What you can do: Learn more about both proposals, share the information and make an informed decision before casting your ballot.