Lawmakers resurrect legislation to end political spending from utilities and government contractors
Taking Back Our Power coalition press conference on April 23, 2025 | Submitted photo
A group of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle joined with members of the Taking Back Our Power Coalition Wednesday to reintroduce a package of bills looking to bar energy companies and companies seeking government contracts from donating to political campaigns.
Arguing that political spending has allowed companies like DTE Energy, Consumers Energy and Blue Cross Blue Shield to escape accountability through political influence, State Reps. Donovan McKinney (D-Detroit) James DeSana (R-Carleton), Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor) and Dylan Wegela (D-Garden City) said people deserve to have their voices heard.
'It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, it doesn't matter if you're a Republican, doesn't matter where you live in our state in this country, doesn't matter how you worship or who you love. People want corporate influence out of politics, and so this is a opportunity to bridge that gap, bring everybody together,' McKinney said.
According to a survey from Emma White Research LLC., commissioned by the Taking Back Our Power coalition, 81% of Michiganders support limiting corporations seeking government contracts and regulated monopolies like Michigan's major energy providers from making political contributions.
During the previous legislative cycle, at least 119 of the 148 members of the Michigan Legislature accepted political spending from energy utilities including Consumers Energy and DTE Energy, according to an Oct. 27, 2023 report from the Energy and Policy Institute, an energy industry watchdog.
Wegela criticized Consumers and DTE alongside health insurance company Blue Cross Blue Shield for their campaign contributions, accusing the companies of bypassing contribution limits by donating through 'dark money' spending where the donor is not disclosed.
Among those donations was a $100,000 contribution from an account led by DTE Energy executives to an account linked to former Michigan Speaker of the House Joe Tate (D-Detroit) in 2023, the Detroit News reported.
'Michiganders are paying the highest rates for energy in the region when we deal with the worst reliability and instead of investing in the grid, corporations are making record corporate profits and spending thousands on campaign donations and lobbying efforts,' Wegela said.
DeSana noted his support for free market policies before stating the perils of massive corporate and special industry spending in politics are 'readily apparent.'
'I believe that only citizens should fund our elections, and my support for this package of bills is an outgrowth of that belief,' he said.
Clean Water Action is one of the member groups of the Taking Back Our Power Coalition. Mid-Michigan Campaign Organizer Nichole Keway Biber said corporate funding for campaigns is buying more than influence.
'They're buying outcomes,' she said.
'When corporations fund campaigns, we are stuck with policies that leave out the rights and needs of working families,' Keway Biber said.
Michigan's energy companies have faced strong scrutiny in recent years as customers face frequent and often lengthy outages while energy rates continue to climb. According to the Citizens Utility Board of Michigan, the state ranked as the 9th worst in the nation for reliability, as residents pay the 15th highest energy bills in the U.S.
Under the newly reintroduced bills, utility companies and their affiliates in the state would be barred from providing political contributions to politicians and engaging in campaign activities. Government contractors with $250,000 or more in aggregated contracts would also be prohibited from making political contributions for 18 months before seeking or entering the contract, during the contract's term, and 18 months after the contract is terminated.
While the previous bill package failed to secure a committee hearing, DeSana told reporters at the announcement that there is an openness to these ideas within the Republican-led House of Representatives, noting that they were able to secure the Republican Conference room for the announcement.
'I've had conversations with colleagues who are, they can get 99% of the way there, and I think we're just going to keep working on that other 1%,' DeSana said.
Wegela further noted that several of the package's supporters were in conversation with members of the Democratic-led Michigan Senate looking to have them introduce similar if not identical legislation in the upper chamber.
Katie Carey, Consumers Energy's director of media relations, said the company is committed to compliance and transparency, including through its participation in the legislative and political process.
'Contributions to elected officials can come from one of two places — either shareholder profits, or voluntary contributions made by our employees to the Employees for Better Government (EBG) PAC — and never customer bills,' Carey wrote in an email.
Participation in the employee PAC and all contributions are publicly disclosed on the Secretary of State's website, Carey said. Additionally, the corporation does not contribute to federal Super PACs, nor does it directly contribute or make independent expenditures to advocate for the election or defeat of a federal, state or local candidate, per the company's policy.
Jill Wilmot, director of corporate communications for DTE similarly emphasized the company's compliance with laws governing corporate donations and political contributions.
'In compliance with our [Integrated Resource Plan] settlement, we have voluntarily expanded our disclosures to increase transparency for all stakeholders. These disclosures showcase DTE's commitment to our customers and communities we serve, helping us meet our aspiration of being best in the world and best for the world. The political contributions the company makes are supported by the DTE voluntary employee PAC or DTE shareholders — not from customer revenue,' Wilmot said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump EPA moves to repeal climate rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from US power plants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, an action that Administrator Lee Zeldin said would remove billions of dollars in costs for industry and help 'unleash' American energy. The EPA also proposed weakening a regulation that requires power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants that can harm brain development of young children and contribute to heart attacks and other health problems in adults. The rollbacks are meant to fulfill Republican President Donald Trump's repeated pledge to 'unleash American energy' and make it more affordable for Americans to power their homes and operate businesses. If approved and made final, the plans would reverse efforts by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to address climate change and improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority Black or Hispanic communities. The power plant rules are among about 30 environmental regulations that Zeldin targeted in March when he announced what he called the 'most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' Zeldin said Wednesday the new rules would help end what he called the Biden and Obama administration's 'war on so much of our U.S. domestic energy supply.' 'The American public spoke loudly and clearly last November,' he added in a speech at EPA headquarters. 'They wanted to make sure that … no matter what agency anybody might be confirmed to lead, we are finding opportunities to pursue common-sense, pragmatic solutions that will help reduce the cost of living … create jobs and usher in a golden era of American prosperity.' Environmental and public health groups called the rollbacks dangerous and vowed to challenge the rules in court. Dr. Lisa Patel, a pediatrician and executive director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate & Health, called the proposals 'yet another in a series of attacks' by the Trump administration on the nation's 'health, our children, our climate and the basic idea of clean air and water.' She called it 'unconscionable to think that our country would move backwards on something as common sense as protecting children from mercury and our planet from worsening hurricanes, wildfires, floods and poor air quality driven by climate change.' 'Ignoring the immense harm to public health from power plant pollution is a clear violation of the law,' added Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'If EPA finalizes a slapdash effort to repeal those rules, we'll see them in court.' The EPA-targeted rules could prevent an estimated 30,000 deaths and save $275 billion each year they are in effect, according to an Associated Press examination that included the agency's own prior assessments and a wide range of other research. It's by no means guaranteed that the rules will be entirely eliminated — they can't be changed without going through a federal rulemaking process that can take years and requires public comment and scientific justification. Even a partial dismantling of the rules would mean more pollutants such as smog, mercury and lead — and especially more tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs and cause health problems, the AP analysis found. It would also mean higher emissions of the greenhouse gases driving Earth's warming to deadlier levels. Biden, a Democrat, had made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency. Coal-fired power plants would be forced to capture smokestack emissions or shut down under a strict EPA rule issued last year. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the power plant rules would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting a reliable, long-term supply of electricity. The power sector is the nation's second-largest contributor to climate change, after transportation. In its proposed regulation, the Trump EPA argues that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from fossil fuel-fired power plants 'do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution' or climate change and therefore do not meet a threshold under the Clean Air Act for regulatory action. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired plants 'are a small and decreasing part of global emissions,' the EPA said, adding: 'this Administration's priority is to promote the public health or welfare through energy dominance and independence secured by using fossil fuels to generate power.' The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to limit emissions from power plants and other industrial sources if those emissions significantly contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. If fossil fuel plants no longer meet the EPA's threshold, the Trump administration may later argue that other pollutants from other industrial sectors don't either and therefore shouldn't be regulated, said Meghan Greenfield, a former EPA and Justice Department lawyer now in private practice. The EPA proposal 'has the potential to have much, much broader implications,' she said. Zeldin, a former New York congressman, said the Biden-era rules were designed to 'suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment,' with the intent to regulate the coal industry 'out of existence' and make it 'disappear.' National Mining Association president and CEO Rich Nolan applauded the new rules, saying they remove 'deliberately unattainable standards' for clean air while 'leveling the playing field for reliable power sources, instead of stacking the deck against them.' But Dr. Howard Frumkin, a former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Public Health, said Zeldin and Trump were trying to deny reality. 'The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms and many other health threats,' Frumkin said. 'These are indisputable facts. If you torpedo regulations on power plant greenhouse gas emissions, you torpedo the health and well-being of the American public and contribute to leaving a world of risk and suffering to our children and grandchildren.' A paper published earlier this year in the journal Science found the Biden-era rules could reduce U.S. power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040, compared with a reduction of 60% to 83% without the rules. 'Carbon emissions in the power sector drop at a faster rate with the (Biden-era) rules in place than without them,' said Aaron Bergman, a fellow at Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research institution and a co-author of the Science paper. The Biden rule also would result in 'significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, pollutants that harm human health,' he said.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri lawmakers on Wednesday approved hundreds of millions of dollars of financial aid to try to persuade the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals to remain in the state and help the St. Louis area recover from a devastating tornado. House passage sends the legislative package to Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, who called lawmakers into special session with a plea for urgent action. Kehoe is expected to sign the measures into law. Missouri's session paired two otherwise unrelated national trends — a movement for new taxpayer-funded sports stadiums and a reevaluation of states' roles in natural disasters as President Donald Trump's administration reassess federal aid programs. The stadium subsidies already were a top concern in Missouri when a deadly tornado struck St. Louis on May 16, causing an estimated $1.6 billion of damage a day after lawmakers had wrapped up work in their annual regular session. The disaster relief had widespread support. Lawmakers listened attentively on Wednesday as Democratic state Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins described with a cracking voice how she witnessed the tornado rip the roof off her house and damage her St. Louis neighborhood. Collins said she has no home insurance, slept in her car for days and has accepted food from others. 'Homes are crumbled and leveled,' said Collins, adding: 'It hurts me to my core to see the families that have worked so hard, the businesses that have worked so hard, to see them ripped apart.' Lawmakers approved $100 million of open-ended aid for St. Louis and $25 million for emergency housing assistance in any areas covered under requests for presidential disaster declarations. They also authorized a $5,000 income tax credit to offset insurance policy deductibles for homeowners and renters hit by this year's storms — a provision that state budget director Dan Haug said could eventually cost up to $600 million. The Chiefs and Royals currently play football and baseball in side-by-side stadiums in Jackson County, Missouri, under leases that expire in January 2031. Jackson County voters last year defeated a sales tax extension that would have helped finance an $800 million renovation of the Chiefs' Arrowhead Stadium and a $2 billion ballpark district for the Royals in downtown Kansas City. That prompted lawmakers in neighboring Kansas last year to authorize bonds for up to 70% of the cost of new stadiums in Kansas to lure the teams to their state. The Royals have bought a mortgage for property in Kansas, though the team also has continued to pursue other possible sites in Missouri. The Kansas offer is scheduled to expire June 30, creating urgency for Missouri to approve a counteroffer. Missouri's legislation authorizes bonds covering up to 50% of the cost of new or renovated stadiums, plus up to $50 million of tax credits for each stadium and unspecified aid from local governments. If they choose to stay in Missouri, the Chiefs plan a $1.15 billion renovation of Arrowhead Stadium. The Chiefs, in a statement to The Associated Press, described the legislative vote as a 'significant step forward' that enables the team to continue exploring options to remain in Missouri. The Royals described the legislation as 'a very important piece of our decision-making process" but made no site-specific commitment. 'Our focus remains the same: to prioritize the best interests of our team, fans, partners and regional community as we pursue the next generational home for the Kansas City Royals,' the team said in a statement to the AP. Though they have no specific plans in the works, the St. Louis Cardinals also would be eligible for stadium aid if they undertake a project of at least $500 million. Many economists contend public funding for stadiums isn't worth it, because sports tend to divert discretionary spending away from other forms of entertainment rather than generate new income. But supporters said Missouri stands to lose millions of dollars of tax revenue if Kansas City's most prominent professional sports teams move to Kansas. They said Missouri's reputation also would take a hit, particularly if it loses the Chiefs, which have won three of the past six Super Bowls. 'We have the chance to maybe save what is the symbol of this state,' Rep. Jim Murphy, a Republican from St. Louis County, said while illustrating cross-state support for the measure. The legislation faced some bipartisan pushback from those who described it as a subsidy for wealthy sports team owners. Others raised concerns that a property tax break for homeowners, which was added in the Senate to gain votes, violates the state constitution by providing different levels of tax relief in various counties while excluding others entirely. 'This bill is unconstitutional, it's fiscally reckless, it's morally wrong," said Republican state Rep. Bryant Wolfin. ___ Associated Press writer Dave Skretta contributed from Kansas City, Missouri.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Louisville did not delay police reform order, say mayor, chief in response to criticism
Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg talks with attendees of The Louisville Forum at Vincenzo's in downtown Louisville. June 11, 2025. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Sarah Ladd) LOUISVILLE — Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg and Louisville Police Chief Paul Humphrey said the city should not be blamed for delaying a court order to correct civil rights abuses by Louisville police and to reform the department. During the monthly meeting of The Louisville Forum Wednesday, Humphrey pointed to federal 'bureaucracy' while Greenberg acknowledged that 'a lot of people … think that our administration and the LMPD was the reason' a consent decree mandating police reforms was not signed before the Republican Trump administration killed the agreement as expected. The mayor insisted that is not the case. Responding to an audience question, Greenberg told the gathering that it took more than 11 months for the Justice Department under Democratic President Joe Biden to get the city a draft agreement after then-Attorney General Merrick Garland came to Kentucky in 2023 to discuss the police department's civil rights violations. Greenberg said the city at that time offered to provide an initial draft of a consent decree. 'They insisted that they would provide us with the first draft. Notwithstanding our weekly requests (of) when that draft was coming, we got the first draft of the consent decree 11 and a half months later,' Greenberg said. 'So we waited basically a year to see a first draft of the consent decree after Attorney General Garland came to our city.' Trump Justice Department moves to end consent decree aimed at reforming policing in Louisville The agreement was announced in December 2024, the month before President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term. In May, the Trump administration's U.S. Department of Justice pulled back from the consent decree, saying such actions are 'handcuffing local leaders.' The consent decree came in response to the 2020 police killing of Breonna Taylor, an unarmed Black woman, and a subsequent federal investigation that exposed a pattern of constitutional violations by Louisville police. Taylor's mother criticized the mayor, Louisville Public Media reported in May, accusing him of 'dragging his feet' on the issue. Louisville Metro Council member J.P. Lyninger, a Democrat, also has voiced disappointment with Democrat Greenberg's administration. 'The findings were announced two years ago,' he told Louisville Public Media last month. 'If we had more speedily entered into agreement with the Department of Justice, this would already be on the books and we wouldn't be talking about this today.' A consent decree is a negotiated agreement that avoids a trial by spelling out requirements that a federal judge signs and enforces. On Wednesday, Greenberg said, 'Louisville Metro government was not the reason why this took time.' Instead, he said, the police department and city had 'worked day and night with getting this done as their primary focus.' Humphrey agreed, saying there are 'a lot of things that could be improved about that process' at the federal level to expedite the consent decree process. The federal government, Humphrey said, was 'more concerned with protecting the case than they were with improving the police department.' On the same day the Trump administration moved to let LMPD off the hook for reform, Greenberg and Humphrey announced the city would move forward with its own Community Commitment, a 214-page handbook with goals similar to those outlined in the proposed consent decree. 'If we were using delay as a negotiating tactic, we would not have voluntarily signed the community commitment within hours of the Department of Justice announcing they were dropping the case,' Greenberg said at the Louisville Forum. 'It would have been a very different response.' Under the Community Commitment, the city will issue a request for proposals (RFP) seeking candidates to fill the role of an independent monitor. The public will be able to weigh in on monitor candidates via an online survey and at community listening sessions. The independent monitor will cost Louisville around $750,000, Greenberg said, and will have a five-year contract. 'We have our community commitment that we're moving forward with, and so … looking back at what the federal government did or didn't do is a waste of time, in all honesty,' Humphrey said. 'Let's move forward and … make this community better.' The city has several listening sessions already scheduled where the public can weigh in on reforms. 'I encourage you to be a part of the solution,' Greenberg said. 'It's very easy to criticize, it's very easy to observe and talk to friends. We want (people) across the community to be a part of the solution.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
