Mackinac Center sues Michigan over ‘pork-barrel' spending
Pork-barrel refers to the legislative practice of slipping funding for a local project into a broader budget, even when the project may have little or nothing to do with the larger bill.
The Mackinac Center says they are an independent, nonprofit research and educational institute based in Midland, Michigan.
The center says this spending is 'often hidden from public scrutiny, disproportionately benefits legislative districts controlled by the majority party.'
They say that Michigan's Constitution states that funds directed towards a specific local or private program must receive two-thirds support.
They say legislators have ignored this requirement in passing recent budgets, 'undermining safeguards put in place to prevent political patronage and corruption.'
'Michigan's budget process fell short of the transparency and accountability that taxpayers deserve,' said Patrick Wright, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, in a news release sent to 6 News.
'Too often, decisions were made behind closed doors, shaped by political connections rather than the broader public interest. Greater transparency and following the supermajority voting requirement would help ensure that state spending reflects the priorities of all Michigan residents, not just a few,' added Wright.
The cites two baseball stadiums, Jimmy John's Field in Utica and Jackson Field in Lansing, worth $1.5 million and $1 million, respectively.
The lawsuit also cites money being used to fund , a , a , labor unions, a , developers, donors, and private organizations favored by lawmakers as examples of pork-barrel spending.
'The funding was clearly aimed at those local entities and did not receive the necessary two-thirds approval from lawmakers,' said the Mackinac Center in a news release sent to 6 News.
The Mackinac Center's lawsuit seeks to 'restore fiscal accountability and ensure that taxpayer dollars are allocated through a transparent and constitutional process (and) to uphold the integrity of Michigan's budgeting process and prevent further abuse of public funds.'
Mackinac Center lawsuitDownload
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
9 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Mail Workers Union Leader: The U.S. Postal Service Is Not for Sale
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Growing up near the Boston Post Road, I never appreciated that I had the early postal system to thank for this old thoroughfare between New York and Boston. Nor did I know that I would one day proudly earn a living as a postal worker and spend 12 years as the elected leader of my union of postal workers. As the U.S. Postal Service celebrates its 250th anniversary, my experience lends a unique perspective on its past, present, and future. Older than the country itself and enshrined in the Constitution, the Postal Service reflected a then-radical commitment to the free exchange of ideas and information. The Founding Fathers relied on the Postal Service to organize the Second Continental Congress and to circulate the Federalist Papers. Later, the abolitionist movement agitated and organized against the evils of slavery largely through mailed newspapers and correspondence. The Postal Service has driven the nation's development, from roads, railroads, and civil aviation to the Sears mail-order catalog to Amazon's e-commerce. What is today referred to as the USPS has always changed and adapted to the times. Vote-by-mail first gave Union troops access to the ballot box during the Civil War and today it is the preferred method of voting for tens of millions of people. Rural Free Delivery, permanently implemented in 1902, linked isolated rural communities with the rest of the country. The Postal Savings Bank, established in 1911, softened the blow of the Great Depression for millions, before being killed by the big banks in 1967. The United States Postal Service (USPS) logo is displayed on a door as a postal customer uses a self-service mail shipping kiosk to ship a package at a USPS post office on August 28, 2024... The United States Postal Service (USPS) logo is displayed on a door as a postal customer uses a self-service mail shipping kiosk to ship a package at a USPS post office on August 28, 2024 in Redondo Beach, California. More PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP/Getty Images The e-commerce revolution would be unimaginable without the USPS' unrivaled network. For generations, the law has required universal and affordable postal service to every community. While private shippers maximize profit, the public USPS remains the low-cost anchor of a $1.3 trillion mailing industry, to the benefit of 169 million households and businesses that receive their mail six, and sometimes seven, days a week. The USPS has led the way with its fair hiring practices, good living-wage union jobs, and as the largest civilian employer of veterans. Workers from all walks of life earn equal pay for equal work. The USPS remains a true symbol of the strength of the public good and is prized by the vast majority of Americans, with dedicated postal workers among the most trusted public servants in the country. Yet, as we celebrate this historic milestone, this national treasure is facing threats to its very existence. The White House is openly advocating for postal privatization, an idea promoted for decades by the Heritage Foundation. As Elon Musk rampaged through government, he declared that selling off the USPS was a priority. And now the Postal Board of Governors has shamefully selected a new postmaster general—David Steiner—straight from competitor FedEx, an obvious and glaring conflict of interest. If the privatizers succeed at selling off this public institution, in whole or in part, Wall Street investors and postal competitors may celebrate, but postal customers—businesses large and small, households urban and rural—will suffer. In February, Wells Fargo Advisors put in writing what is usually whispered by the private shippers and their allies in Washington: privatization of the USPS would be a boon to UPS and FedEx, and increase parcel prices by up to 140 percent. The Wells Fargo memo also said that many local post offices would be sold off and closed or, as the big bank terms it, "harvested for value." Want to know what a privatized mail service looks like? Look no further than the Royal Mail, the United Kingdom's historic postal service, now owned by a Czech billionaire, where a first-class letter costs two dollars. In Portugal, privatization has resulted in three days a week delivery. The USPS is a successful example of government "of, by, and for the people." It belongs to us, the people, and not to Wall Street. Through new and expanded products, e-commerce package growth, and better staffing, the USPS can remain a vital public service for generations—if it can survive the vultures who wish to privatize. The following inscription, carved into white granite on the Smithsonian Postal Museum, is a powerful reminder of why it's so important to maintain the USPS as a public service, especially as Americans commemorate this important anniversary: Messenger of Sympathy and Love Servant of Parted Friends Consoler of the Lonely Bond of the Scattered Family Enlarger of the Common Life Carrier of News and Knowledge Instrument of Trade and Industry Promoter of Mutual Acquaintance Of Peace and Goodwill Among Men and Nations Happy anniversary to the people's Post Office. The U.S. Mail is not for sale, nor should it be. Mark Dimondstein is the President of the 200,000-member American Postal Workers Union. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump knocks ‘unfair' media coverage ahead of summit with Putin
President Trump on Wednesday blasted news outlets for 'unfair' coverage of his upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, arguing that he expects criticism from the media whether a 'good' deal comes out of the summit or not. Trump pointed to networks promoting quotes from former officials-turned-critics, including ex-national security adviser John Bolton, who has panned the summit between the two leaders in Alaska as a 'great victory for Putin.' 'Very unfair media is at work on my meeting with Putin. Constantly quoting fired losers and really dumb people like John Bolton, who just said that, even though the meeting is on American soil, 'Putin has already won,'' the president wrote in a post on Truth Social. 'What's that all about? We are winning on EVERYTHING.' 'The Fake News is working overtime (No tax on overtime!). If I got Moscow and Leningrad free, as part of the deal with Russia, the Fake News would say that I made a bad deal! But now they've been caught,' he continued. 'Look at all of the real news that's coming out about their CORRUPTION. They are sick and dishonest people, who probably hate our Country.' Trump added, 'But it doesn't matter because we are winning on everything!!!' The president has ramped up his criticism of Putin in recent months as the Russian military has continued its attacks on Ukraine despite the threat of increased sanctions on Moscow and its trading partners. Trump has also jabbed at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, including on Monday after the leader pushed back on talks around a territory swap, sparking worries from European officials who fear that the commander-in-chief could cut a bad deal for Kyiv. 'I was a little bothered by the fact that Zelensky was saying, 'I have to get constitutional approval,' he has approval to do a war and kill everybody, but he needs approval for land swapping,' Trump said to journalists on Monday. The president has painted the upcoming meeting with the Russian leader as an opportunity to 'feel out' Putin. Zelensky said this week that as part of a potential ceasefire, Ukraine might be asked to withdraw its military from Donbas, a hint he has gotten from Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff, who met with Putin last week. 'Witkoff said that there should be territorial concessions from both sides — that's how it sounded. And that, most likely, Putin wants us to withdraw from Donbas. In other words, it didn't sound like it was America wanting us to withdraw,' the Ukrainian leader said on Tuesday during a meeting with reporters. 'After we held two more NSA meetings, it became clear what Putin wants. This is not a proposal from Trump or Witkoff.' 'During the call, I said that I am not ready to discuss Ukraine's territories, as this is solely a matter of our Constitution,' Zelensky added. He has also pressed the Trump administration to include Ukraine at the negotiating table, including the Alaska summit. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt signaled during a press briefing Tuesday that the president intends to meet with Putin one-on-one.
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Supreme Court poised to rehear voting rights case
The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to rehear a case that will have implications on the Voting Rights Act when its next term begins in October. The high court posted an order in the case Louisiana vs. Callais on Aug. 1, directing the parties involved to file supplemental briefs. File Pool photo by Chip Somodevilla/UPI | License Photo Aug. 12 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to rehear a case that will have implications on the Voting Rights Act when its next term begins in October. The high court posted an order in the case Louisiana vs. Callais on Aug. 1, directing the parties involved to file supplemental briefs. The court heard arguments in the case in March but did not hand down a decision, setting the stage for reargument at a later date. Louisiana vs. Callais is a case over redistricting Louisiana's congressional map. There are six congressional districts in Louisiana. The state legislature passed a redistricted map in 2024 that included two districts where a majority of voters are Black: District 2 and District 6, represented by Rep. Troy Carter and Rep. Cleo Fields respectively. Fields, a Democrat from Baton Rouge, was elected to represent the second majority Black district in 2024. About one-third of Louisiana's population is Black, reflected in the newly-drawn congressional map. The plaintiffs, a group of voters in Louisiana, argue that race was the prevailing consideration in redistricting, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Stuart Naifeh, manager of the Redistricting Project at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, argued the case in favor of the map before the Supreme Court in March. He told UPI that fair representation is at stake in this case. "It's not about proportional representation," Naifeh said. "It's about places where unless you create a district to provide an opportunity to have representatives of your choice a particular group will not have a fair opportunity to do that because of the race-infused politics that exist in those places." The issue at hand in Louisiana vs. Callais, according to Naifeh, is whether the redistricting map adopted in January 2024 is a remedy to a Voting Rights Act violation or if it is itself racial gerrymandering as plaintiffs claim. "The question that they asked us to brief is somewhat general. In some ways it's asking us to rebrief the same issue," Naifeh said. "But then it refers to a specific section of the plaintiff's brief where they argue, at least in Louisiana, that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can no longer be applied without violating the Constitution." "So you can't draw a second majority-Black district without violating the Constitution, is the argument that they have made," he added. The Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, represents a key victory for Civil Rights advocates. It was passed to address racial discrimination in voting. Section 2 prohibits discrimination in voting policies and procedures on the basis of race, color or minority status. The previous version of the congressional map, drawn in 2020, included just one majority-Black district. That map was determined to have violated the Voting Rights Act because it diluted the role of Black voters in electing representatives. Former Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed that map in 2022 but the Republican-led legislature held a special session to override his veto. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund and a group of voters then filed a complaint to challenge the map, arguing that it was an instance of unconstitutional gerrymandering. A federal judge ruled in favor of the NAACP and co-plaintiffs but their ruling was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court. It put enforcement of the federal judge's decision on hold as another redistricting case was mulled by the high court Allen vs. Milligan. The Allen vs. Milligan case was based on a congressional redistricting plan out of Alabama in which a majority of Black voters were placed into a single district, using a "race-neutral benchmark" theory and "modern computer technology" to draw its congressional map. Plaintiffs argued that this plan, like the 2020 redistricting plan in Louisiana, violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 5-4 in favor of Black voters in Alabama and subsequently Louisiana. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined in part by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the court's three liberal judges. In Roberts' opinion, he noted that there is sometimes difficulty in discerning between "racial predominance" and "racial consciousness." "When it comes to considering race in the context of districting, we have made clear that there is a difference 'between being aware of racial considerations and being motivated by them,'" Roberts wrote. "The former is permissible; the latter is usually not. That is because '[r]edistricting legislatures will -- almost always be aware of racial demographics,' but such 'race consciousness does not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination.'" Naifeh highlights Kavanaugh's partial concurrence with the majority opinion as a key factor in redistricting cases going forward, including Louisiana vs. Callais. Kavanaugh agreed with the minority opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas that while "race-based redistricting" may be required in some circumstances, it should not continue indefinitely. "The authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future," Kavanaugh wrote. "But Alabama did not raise that temporal argument in this Court, and I therefore would not consider it at this time." A victory for Naifeh, the NAACP and Black voters in Louisiana does not rely solely on the proposed congressional map remaining intact, Naifeh said. "Victory, for Black voters in Louisiana in particular, is that they continue to have the opportunity to elect candidates of choice and are not shut out of having a voice in the political process on account of race, which was the situation until the state adopted this new map," he said. "We don't see victory as meaning the state keeps this particular map." Looking beyond Louisiana vs. Callais, Naifeh notes that race continues to be a "salient factor" in elections across the country. It remains a motivator in political platforms and civic engagement. "We still have parts of this country where race is a very salient factor in elections and it's not because of the Voting Rights Act," Naifeh said. "Where race is still such a salient part of the electoral process we continue to need the Voting Rights Act. That's what it was designed to address. So I worry that we will have a country where race is still such a salient part of elections and there is no remedy. The court needs to recognize that race continues to play a role in elections in many places."
