Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson violates Campaign Finance Act, Attorney General confirms
The Office of the Attorney General reports that this ruling was made in response to complaints alleging that Secretary Benson's use of the Richard H. Austin Building lobby to hold a press conference announcing her run for governor on January 22 violated the MCFA.
Section 15(9) of the requires the Attorney General to determine if a violation has occurred when a complaint is brought against the Secretary of State.
The letter sent to Secretary Benson includes an analysis of the Department of Attorney General's enforcement authority under section 15(9) of the MCFA.
The office reports that, under the statute, they have no authority to impose civil or criminal penalties for a violation by the Secretary of State.
Michigan GOP files campaign finance complaint against Secretary of State
In January, the Michigan Republican Party filed a complaint against Secretary Benson, alleging that her use of the lobby violated state election law.
The MIGOP said that this choice of venue violated Michigan law and submitted a complaint under of the MCFA.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
A summer of tension on the Virginia GOP ticket and more state headlines
The state Capitol. (Photo by Ned Oliver/Virginia Mercury) • ''Blackmail' accusations and awkward phone calls: A summer of tension on the Virginia GOP ticket.' — National Review • 'Progressive veterans group seeks to boost Spanberger in Virginia governor's race with $500,000 ad campaign.' — CNN • 'Officials defend Virginia's election system following Trump attacks on mail-in voting.' — WVTF • 'Virginia Beach emergency officials prepare for Erin.' — WAVY • 'Virginia's number of fatal crashes are 'headed in the wrong direction.'' — WFXR SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Solve the daily Crossword
Los Angeles Times
2 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California Republicans push Democrats on transparency, timeline for redistricting
SACRAMENTO — California's push to redraw the state's congressional districts to favor Democrats faced early opposition Tuesday during legislative hearings, a preview of the obstacles ahead for Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies as they try to convince voters to back the effort. California Democrats entered the redistricting fray after Republicans in Texas moved to reconfigure their political districts to increase by five the number of GOP members of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections, a move that could sway the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections. The proposed map of new districts in California that could go before voters in November could cost as many as five Golden State Republicans their seats in Congress. In Sacramento, Republicans criticized Democrats for trying to scrap the independent redistricting process approved by voters in 2010, a change designed to remove self-serving politics and partisan game-playing. GOP lawmakers argued that the public and legislators had little time to review the maps of the proposed congressional districts and questioned who crafted the new districts and bankrolled the effort. In an attempt to slow down the push by Democrats, California Republicans filed an emergency petition at the California Supreme Court, arguing that Democrats violated the state Constitution by rushing the bills through the legislature. The state Constitution requires lawmakers to introduce non-budget bills 30 days before they are voted on, unless the Legislature waives that rule by a three-fourths majority vote. The bills were introduced Monday through a common process known as 'gut and amend,' where lawmakers strip out the language from an older pending bill and replace it with a new proposal. The lawsuit said that without the Supreme Court's intervention, the state could enact 'significant new legislation that the public has only seen for, at most, a few days,' according to the lawsuit filed by GOP state Sens. Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach and Suzette Martinez Valladares of Acton and Assemblymembers Tri Ta of Westminster and Kathryn Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon. Democrats bristled at the questions about their actions, including grilling by reporters and Republicans about who had drawn the proposed congressional districts that the party wants to put before voters. 'When I go to a restaurant, I don't need to meet the chef,' said Assembly Elections Committee chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz). Democrats unveiled their campaign to suspend the independent redistricting commission's work Thursday, proposed maps of the redrawn districts were submitted to state legislative leaders Friday, and the three bills were introduced in the legislature Monday. If passed by a two-thirds vote in both bodies of the legislature and signed by Newsom this week, as expected, the measure will be on the ballot on Nov. 4. On Tuesday, lawmakers listened to hours of testimony and debate, frequently engaging in testy exchanges. After heated arguing and interrupting during an Assembly Elections Committee hearing, Pellerin admonished Assemblymembers Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park) and David Tangipa (R-Clovis). 'I would like you both to give me a little time and respect,' Pellerin said near the end of a hearing that lasted about five hours. Tangipa and the committee's vice chair, Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo (R-Tulare), repeatedly questioned witnesses about issues that the GOP is likely to continue to raise: the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through, the cost of the special election, the limited opportunity for public comment on the maps, who drew the proposed new districts and who is funding the effort. Tangipa voiced concerns that legislators had too little time to review the legislation. 'That's insanity, and that's heartbreaking to the rest of Californians,' Tangipa said. 'How can you say you actually care about the people of California? Berman dismissed the criticism, saying the bill was five pages long. In a Senate elections committee hearing, State Sen. Steve Choi (R-Irvine), the only Republican on the panel, repeatedly pressed Democrats about how the maps had been drawn before they were presented. Tom Willis, Newsom's campaign counsel who appeared as a witness to support the redistricting bills, said the map was 'publicly submitted, and then the legislature reviewed it carefully and made sure that it was legally compliant.' But, Choi asked, who drew the maps in the first place? Willis said he couldn't answer, because he 'wasn't a part of that process.' In response to questions about why California should change their independent redistricting ethos to respond to potential moves by Texas, state Sen. Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) was blunt. 'This is a partisan gerrymander,' she said, to counter the impacts of Trump administration policy decisions, from healthcare cuts to immigration raids, that are disproportionately impacting Californians. 'That's what we're talking about here.' Her comments prompted a GOP operative who is aiding the opposition campaign to the ballot measure to say, 'It made me salivate.' California Common Cause, an ardent supporter of independent redistricting, initially signaled openness to revisiting the state's independent redistricting rules because they would not 'call for unilateral political disarmament in the face of authoritarianism.' But on Tuesday, the group announced its opposition to a state Senate bill. 'it would create significant rollbacks in voter protections,' the group said in a statement, arguing that the legislation would result in reduced in-person voting, less opportunities for underrepresented communities to cast ballots and dampens opportunities for public input. 'These changes to the Elections Code ... would hinder full voter participation, with likely disproportionate harm falling to already underrepresented Californians.'
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's how Trump could throw a ‘wrench' into Hill funding negotiations as shutdown looms
President Donald Trump's budget director has talked about attempting the ultimate override of Congress' funding prerogatives during the final 45 days of the fiscal year — and that time is now. With six weeks left until Oct. 1, lawmakers are staring down a government shutdown deadline alongside the threat of a 'pocket rescission,' a controversial White House tactic to cancel federal cash without the consent of Congress. It's also a ploy that the government's top watchdog, along with key lawmakers from both parties, say is illegal. 'The money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year,' White House budget chief Russ Vought said last month in defense of the gambit, adding it has 'been used before.' Lawmakers anticipate Trump will send Congress a formal rescissions request to claw back billions of dollars in federal funding as soon as lawmakers return from recess in September. Already, the threat of the White House then unilaterally canceling the funding in October — regardless of Congress' response to the request — is straining negotiations between Democrats and Republicans desperately trying to head off a shutdown with bipartisan negotiations, which Vought is also actively seeking to undermine. 'He is trying to throw a wrench in this by introducing or sending to us a second rescission bill — by trying to do pocket rescissions,' Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, the top Democrat on the appropriations panel that funds the military, said of Vought in an interview. It also would undoubtedly throw Republicans into another politically dicey balancing act of trying not to buck their president while answering to constituents who are feeling the effects of the administration's mass gutting of widely used government programs. Congress cleared an initial rescissions package of $9 billion in cuts to public broadcasting and foreign aid in July. The White House has stayed publicly mum on what sort of programming it would seek to slash next, but officials have previously signaled the Department of Education will be the target of a second package, which could align with Trump's controversial goal of eventually eliminating the agency altogether. As for the size of this upcoming clawbacks request, Republicans have mixed predictions. Last month, Speaker Mike Johnson told members that a second package would be less than the $9 billion, but other GOP lawmakers said they expect to be asked to revoke much more money than that. Under decades-old budget law, the White House is allowed to send Congress a rescissions request and then withhold the cash for 45 days while lawmakers consider whether to approve, reject or ignore the proposal. If lawmakers don't pass the rescissions bill, the administration must spend the money as Congress intended. These were the conditions under which the administration transmitted its most recent plan. Now, with less than 45 days before the current fiscal year comes to a close, top Trump administration officials argue the White House can send another rescissions package and then treat the funding as expired come midnight on Sept. 30 — regardless of congressional action. And if the White House moves forward with the plan, it could do more than just cause political headaches. It very likely would kick off a high-stakes legal battle over Congress' funding power and whether a presidential administration must spend all of the money prescribed by law or whether the spending levels are simply 'a ceiling,' as Vought has contended. The Government Accountability Office has said repeatedly that pocket rescissions are against the law and would 'cede Congress's power of the purse by allowing a president to, in effect, change the law by shortening the period of availability for fixed-period funds.' Vought has taken aim at the watchdog, and Mark Paoletta, the Office of Management and Budget general counsel, piled on this month. 'Trump Derangement Syndrome is on full display' at GAO, Paoletta said on social media, and 'wrong on pocket rescissions.' 'Congress is well aware' that the law allows the maneuver, he added, pointing out that lawmakers did not bother heeding GAO's urging 50 years ago to fix a loophole leaving the legality question open to interpretation. Yet even some of the Republican lawmakers who are hungry for more chances to kill funding are wary of the Trump administration using the rescissions process to undermine Congress' funding power under Article I of the Constitution. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who reluctantly voted in support of the rescissions request last month, said he won't support more clawback packages if the White House doesn't provide account-by-account details of how the funding would be cut. 'I'm just not going to aid and abet moving appropriations decisions over to the Article II branch,' Tillis said in an interview. Trump 'just happens to be a Republican,' Tillis continued, but 'we could regret this, just as Democrats would, if they are tempted to do the same thing. That's why you've got to draw lines here institutionally.' Concerns about precedent, legality and political appetite are converging on the reality for members of both parties that Republicans can't afford to alienate Democrats, whose votes they likely need to pass any government funding bill to avoid a shutdown next month. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, when asked about a second rescissions package, stressed he would prefer to handle any more cuts through the regular appropriations process. 'My hope would be that that's the way we deal with a lot of these issues,' he said. Democrats hope so too, and they have warned that any Trump administration effort to claw back money already approved by Congress — 'pocket' or otherwise — would undermine lawmakers' ability to work across party lines to avoid a shutdown. In remarks late last month alongside House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his party's senior appropriators, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats would try to reach a compromise with Republicans despite GOP lawmakers' approval of the latest $9 billion rescissions package. But, he added, 'Republicans are making it extremely difficult to do that … by talking about rescissions, pocket rescissions, impoundment — which would undo anything that we did in the budgets.'
