Lawmakers in the Michigan House passed bills in the early hours of Thursday morning to enact financial disclosure requirements for public officials and political candidates, moving another step closer to implementing legislation required by a ballot measure voters passed last year. 

Under Proposal 1, approved by around 66% of Michigan voters last fall, lawmakers were required to implement legislation for financial disclosure for themselves, the governor, and other state officials by the end of the year. Senate Bills 613-616 create a series of new financial disclosure requirements for lawmakers, public officials and those running for office in Michigan.

The first bill in the package didn’t pass until 2:30 a.m. Thursday morning. Voting itself took a half hour to get through, as members eventually voted 59-49 to pass Senate Bill 613.

Michigan’s laws on what officeholders have to disclose about their financial interests have long been criticized for being too relaxed. And at around 1:30 a.m. Wednesday morning, lawmakers said the package fails to meaningfully address the state’s longstanding shortcomings.

“Michigan makes headlines for all the wrong reasons, with regard to transparency,” said Rep. Brad Paquette, R-Niles. “We can’t force legislators to be more ethical under state law, nor will we really want to force it, but we can put structures in place to increase the likelihood that ethical behavior is upheld and maintained for true transparency.”

Paquette mentioned a pair of scandals involving Michigan lawmakers that have surfaced in recent years — former House Speaker Rick Johnson, R-LeRoy, who presided over the chamber from 2001 to 2004, received a 55-month prison sentence for accepting bribes from lobbyists when he chaired a state medical marijuana licensing agency from 2017 to 2018. He also referenced former Speaker Lee Chatfield, R-Levering, who is being investigated over allegations of sexual assault by his sister-in-law. That investigation later expanded to probe into potential financial misconduct while Chatfield was in office, according to affidavits obtained by The Detroit News.

Only one lawmaker spoke in favor of the legislation’s passage — Rep. Andrew Fink, R-Hillsdale, said he too thought policymakers could go beyond the disclosure requirements outlined in the bill package but Proposal 1’s passage mandated lawmakers pass some measure of financial disclosure bills before the end of the year.

“For all of the flaws these bills have … the question today is whether we take the first step toward some level transparency from where we are now, when we have none,” Fink said.

Under the bills, officials would have to disclose their earned income from employment, gifts received, money received through avenues like unemployment benefits, annuities, stock dividends and pensions; positions they have with outside organizations like nonprofit groups, gifts, trip payments and reimbursements, and payments that are “reported” by lobbyists and lobbyist agents; their spouse’s employer and income, future employment agreements and stocks and bonds worth $1,000 or more. 

The House passed an amended version of the legislation which states that public officials also must report if their spouse is a registered vendor, or works with a registered vendor of the state.

Both Democrats and Republicans offered dozens of additional amendments but were unsuccessful in getting them adopted.

The information would be disclosed in an annual report filed with the Michigan Secretary of State’s office. The secretary of state would also be tasked with addressing complaints that arise from annual reports. 

There would be a maximum penalty fee of $1,000 for a late filing and a civil fine of up to $2,000 for knowingly filing an incomplete or inaccurate report. 

The bills passed the Michigan Senate by a 36-2 vote Nov. 1. At the time, lawmakers in the chamber said the bills still left “loopholes the size of Texas,” but the package ultimately passed the chamber by a wide margin. 

Among the issues with the legislation is the lack of spousal disclosure mandated by the bills — while the bills state lawmakers have to disclose their spouse’s income and employer, as well as stocks and bonds worth more than $1,000, officials would not be required to disclose further details, including financial investments of their spouse.  

While Proposal 1 does not explicitly require details about politicians’ spouses, transparency advocates say it’s important to have a full picture of a lawmaker’s household finances and ensure that lawmakers don’t transfer assets to avoid disclosure. 

Contact Arpan Lobo: [email protected]. Follow him on X (Twitter) @arpanlobo.

Become a subscriber today.