Proposal 1 asks Michigan voters to determine whether a convention should be convened in 2027 to draft a general revision of the state constitution after which, any proposed changes would be submitted to voters for approval or rejection

1. It modernizes an aging constitution – Supporters argue Michigan’s Constitution, last comprehensively revised in 1963, should be updated to address modern issues such as technology, elections, infrastructure, and government accountability
2. Opportunity for comprehensive reform – A constitutional convention allows for a broad review of state government structures rather than addressing issues one amendment at a time.
3. Citizen-elected delegates – Convention delegates would be elected, giving voters a direct role in choosing who drafts proposed revisions.
4. Final voter approval remains required – Any proposed changes to the constitution would still require approval from Michigan voters before taking effect, providing a safeguard against unwanted changes.
5. Chance to address long-standing governance issues – Proponents contend a convention could tackle issues that are difficult to resolve through the normal legislative process.

1. Risk to existing constitutional protections – Opponents note that all constitutional provisions could potentially be reviewed, including protections that many voters support today or that have recently been added.
2. Unpredictable outcome – Once convened, delegates could propose far-reaching changes beyond the issues voters may have envisioned when approving the convention.
3. Existing amendment process already works – Critics argue Michigan already has mechanisms to amend the Constitution through ballot proposals and legislative referral, making a convention unnecessary.
4. Potential cost to taxpayers – Holding delegate elections, staffing a convention, and conducting related public processes could require significant public expenditures.
5. Broad coalition opposes it – A number of organizations from across the political spectrum are publicly opposed to Proposal 1, arguing that the risks outweigh the benefits.

Proposal 2 would amend the Michigan Campaign Finance Act to expand disclosure rules for political ads and restrict campaign contributions from regulated utilities, large government contractors and certain employees and family members. Below are points in favor and opposition to the proposal:

• Increases transparency in political advertising – Proposal 2 would require “paid for by” disclosures on certain internet-distributed political ads, giving voters more information about who is funding political messaging.
• Expands donor and spending disclosure – closes loopholes that allow groups to run ads without disclosing donors if they avoid explicit advocacy language, helping the public better understand who is trying to influence elections.
• Restricts contributions from regulated utilities and major government contractors Supporters argue this reduces the risk of officials taking favorable regulatory or contracting actions based on political influence rather than public interest.
• Addresses concerns about corporate influence in politics – Backers say the measure helps ensure politicians are accountable to voters rather than corporations with financial stakes in regulatory decisions.
• Includes a severability clause – If parts of the proposal are ruled unconstitutional, the remaining provisions can still stand, preserving some reforms even if others are struck down.

• Potential First Amendment challenges – Opponents argue the restrictions on contractor and utility donations likely violate free speech protections under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, making legal challenges likely.
• High constitutional bar for restricting political spending – Courts require strong justification for limiting political contributions & speech, and Proposal 2’s restrictions are overly broad and insufficiently justified.
• Uncertain impact on reducing political influence – Even with contribution limits, utilities and contractors may still exert influence through other channels, making the practical effect unclear.
• Does not get money out of politics. – The proposal selectively limits only certain companies and individuals from giving while allowing other companies, individuals and groups, such as unions, to continue to give and influence politicians and policy decisions.
• Could restrict legitimate participation in the political process – Utilities and contractors should have the same rights as other entities to weigh in on public policy that affects them or their industries and banning their contributions but not others unfairly limits their ability to participate in the political process.