Michigan's two largest regulated utilities, DTE Energy and Consumers Energy, filed a lawsuit in federal court on Thursday, November 5, asking a judge to block Proposal 2 — the 'Money Out of Politics' measure that Michigan voters had approved by an overwhelming margin only two days earlier — before it takes effect, according to WCMU Public Media and other Michigan reporting.
Source: WCMU Public Media, Nov. 5, 2026
Voters approved the amendment to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act on Tuesday, November 3, with 81 per cent of the vote in unofficial results — 81.14 per cent in the count reported by the Associated Press. The measure, backed by the group Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, would ban regulated utilities including DTE Energy and Consumers Energy from making campaign contributions to the governor, the attorney general, state senators and state representatives, or to candidates for those offices.
Source: WCMU Public Media, Nov. 5, 2026; Associated Press via The Answer Orlando, Nov. 5, 2026
What the measure would ban
Under Proposal 2, regulated electric and gas utilities would be barred from direct or indirect campaign contributions, and the ban would also reach people and organisations with substantial connections to those utilities. WCMU reported that employees of the utilities and relatives of employees would also not be permitted to make the contributions covered by the measure. A separate set of restrictions applies to companies and organisations holding state or local government contracts worth more than $250,000 a year — a provision a Detroit News review cited in reporting said could affect more than 900 businesses and nonprofits, based on fiscal year 2025 state contractor data. The measure also covers contributions connected to members of the Michigan Public Service Commission, the body that regulates the utilities.
The utilities' argument: a First Amendment case
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, argues that Proposal 2 violates the plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The complaint says the measure 'is not directed toward preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance and is not closely drawn to that interest,' and argues that the campaign behind it offered 'only slogans and generic references' to corruption, pay-to-play politics and corporate influence rather than evidence. 'The First Amendment does not permit one side of a policy dispute to legislate the other side out of the debate,' the complaint says, according to the CS Bugle's report of the filing. The companies also argue that the ban unfairly singles out utilities while leaving labour unions and other industries free to contribute, and that terms such as 'affiliated' and 'agent' are too vague.
Source: Federal complaint as reported by WCMU Public Media and CS Bugle, Nov. 5, 2026
Consumers Energy's director of media relations, Katie Carey, said in a statement: 'This proposal unfairly targets a Michigan business, its Michigan employees and their family members from exercising their constitutionally protected rights to participate in the political process, while allowing out of state special interest groups and billionaires to continue flooding Michigan with political spending. Michiganders should not lose their First Amendment rights because of where they work.' Carey also said the proposal would allow out-of-state groups to flood Michigan with political spending while Michigan utility employees are silenced.
Source: Consumers Energy statement via WCMU Public Media, Nov. 5, 2026
Supporters answer: voters spoke, and they expected this suit
Maura Cowley, campaign manager for Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, said in a statement: 'This lawsuit is no surprise. The corporations bankrolling our opposition have been gearing up for this lawsuit since Proposal 2 first qualified for the ballot, if not before. On Tuesday, Michiganders spoke loud and clear, voting to pass Proposal 2 with an overwhelming majority and delivering a resounding mandate to end pay-to-play politics and put power back where it belongs — with the people. The bottom line is that we are confident Proposal 2 will withstand legal scrutiny, and we were fully expecting and are prepared to take on this challenge.' Supporters say the restrictions are needed to curb utilities' outsized influence over the state government that sets their rates and rules.
Source: Michiganders for Money Out of Politics statement via WCMU Public Media, Nov. 5, 2026
The utilities' case is the second federal challenge to Proposal 2 filed this week. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a conservative think tank based in Midland, sued on election night — in WCMU's reporting, a day before the utilities filed — challenging parts of the proposal. Its case argues the measure infringes free speech and donor privacy. Both cases are in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
Who is being sued, and what the utilities want
The utilities' lawsuit names as defendants Jonathan Brater, director of the Michigan Bureau of Elections, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson or her successor in office. WCMU noted that Benson is now governor-elect and Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist is secretary of state-elect after Tuesday's elections. The plaintiffs — which in fuller reporting include CMS Energy, Consumers Energy, DTE Energy, DTE Electric and DTE Gas, along with associated political action committees and two individuals connected to utility executives — ask the court to declare that the measure violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and for a preliminary and permanent injunction barring the state from investigating violations of the measure or assessing fines under it. The utilities' lawsuit does not challenge the measure's separate restrictions on government contractors.
Source: WCMU Public Media, Nov. 5, 2026; Dispatch Times summary, Nov. 7, 2026
Why this fight matters in Michigan
Proposal 2 changes Michigan's campaign finance statute rather than the state constitution, and it needed only a simple majority to pass — it received more than four-fifths of the vote. The fight is therefore not about whether voters backed the idea; it is about whether a state may single out one regulated industry, and people connected to it, for a contribution ban because of the industry's relationship with the officials who regulate it. Utilities are unlike most companies in Michigan: their prices and major projects are approved by state regulators, and they have long been among the state's most organised political donors. That is the influence supporters say they voted to end, and the participation the companies say the Constitution protects. For households across Michigan — including the state's Punjabi and other immigrant communities in metro Detroit and beyond — the outcome will shape who may spend money in the elections that decide energy policy, even though the case itself is about campaign contributions, not electricity or gas rates, which the lawsuit does not change.
Source: WCMU Public Media and Political.org reporting, Nov. 5-7, 2026
What happens next
Under Michigan election law, Proposal 2 is scheduled to take effect by December 3, 2026 — about ten days after the official declaration of the election result — unless a court blocks it first. The immediate question for the Western District court is whether to grant the preliminary injunction the utilities are seeking, which would pause enforcement while the constitutional challenge is argued. The Mackinac Center case will proceed in the same court. No hearing date or ruling had been announced in the reporting available when the lawsuits were filed, and the state defendants had not yet filed their responses in the reports cited here. Awaaz Punjab will update this story when the court sets a schedule or the state answers the complaints.