起诉该措施的组织称，密歇根州新的竞选融资规定可能将政策非营利组织纳入政治委员会范畴
作者：亚历克·舍梅尔
发布时间：美国东部时间2026年11月6日 上午10:37
阿卜杜勒-赛义德阐述其”清空政治现金”的理念
密歇根州民主党参议院提名人马利克·阿卜杜勒-赛义德在《The Story》节目中阐述他的”全民医保”计划，同时呼吁政客不要接受大型企业的资金。
密歇根州选民批准了一项名为《第2号提案》的投票倡议，该提案旨在遏制权钱交易式捐款、清空政治现金。但该措施也引发了一起联邦第一修正案诉讼，指控其独立的言论和披露条款可能会波及那些讨论民选官员的记者、非营利组织和政策研究人员。
名为”密歇根清空政治现金者联盟”（简称MOP UP Michigan）的组织表示，在选民批准第2号提案后，这场诉讼在意料之中。该组织竞选经理莫拉·考利称，”该组织相信第2号提案将经得起法律审查”；此前组织者表示，他们已提交逾56万个签名，使该措施得以进入投票程序。
提起诉讼的麦基诺公共政策中心表示，它并非挑战该倡议针对公用事业公司和政府承包商的核心权钱交易限制。其诉讼的核心是针对那些提及候选人或”推动、支持、攻击或反对”候选人或投票问题的特定沟通的报告和披露要求，即使此类沟通并未明确敦促选民支持或反对相关内容。
“密歇根选民理应享有研究、辩论和报道影响自身生活的政策的自由。但第2号提案是特洛伊木马：它声称打击腐败，却会让麦基诺中心、其支持者以及普通密歇根居民仅仅因为讨论公共政策就面临刑事处罚和骚扰风险，”麦基诺中心法律事务副总裁帕特里克·赖特在向福克斯新闻数字版提供的声明中表示。
调查显示：大学生对言论自由的容忍度不断下降
2025年9月18日，加利福尼亚州洛杉矶，抗议者在好莱坞举办《吉米·坎摩尔直播秀》的El Capitan娱乐中心外，抗议该节目被停播。（马里奥·塔马/盖蒂图片社）
根据第2号提案，在一个日历年中，任何产生至少5000美元”选举相关沟通费用”的个人——而非仅竞选团队或政治委员会——都必须在10天内提交报告。每产生额外5000美元的相关沟通费用后，还需提交额外报告。这些报告需包含沟通的日期和成本、提及的候选人、支付的供应商，以及为开展沟通而捐款超过100美元的捐赠者信息。
第2号提案将”选举相关沟通”定义为：在大选前100天或初选或特别选举前30天内，提及清晰可辨的候选人的公共信息，包括广播、印刷品、邮件、电话、网络通讯等各类面向公众的沟通形式。根据条款规定，此类沟通还必须针对候选人所在选区的相关选民群体。
麦基诺中心认为，该措施留下了诸多尚未明确的问题，包括哪些开支计入5000美元门槛、捐赠者”为开展选举相关沟通而捐款”的含义，以及该州将如何判定某一沟通是否针对相关选民群体等。
最高法院推翻了政党与候选人协调竞选开支的限制
麦基诺中心的诉讼还对第2号提案中与选举相关的”开支”定义的扩大提出质疑。修订后的定义涵盖了”推动、支持、攻击或反对”候选人或投票问题的公共沟通，无论此类沟通是否明确倡导支持或反对相关结果。根据该提案修订后的委员会定义，某组织若在这类开支上花费至少500美元，且该州认定开支目的是影响选民，则可能被视为政治委员会。
代表麦基诺中心的自由言论研究所律师布雷特·诺兰告诉福克斯新闻数字版，新的选举相关沟通报告条款没有为中立报道、立法投票记录或政策研究提供明确例外。第2号提案确实保留了现有规定，将某些新闻报道、评论和社论排除在竞选开支范畴之外，但麦基诺中心认为，该豁免并不能解决选举相关沟通的报告要求问题。
麦基诺中心的诉状特别指出，该中心的”密歇根投票项目”、政策评分卡、一份关于第2号提案的中立政策简报、杂志、广播节目、播客和公共政策活动等，都可能因这些材料有时会讨论民选官员或候选人，而被纳入新要求的范围。
共和党议员敦促最高法院加强对街头传教士的第一修正案保护
“最高法院近年来已多次表示，此类披露规定对言论自由造成了’必然的’寒蝉效应，因为政治骚扰（或更糟情况）的风险太大了。我们给那些想要交流思想、讨论公共政策的人施加的成本越高，愿意这么做的人就越少，”诺兰说。
“这项法律的适用范围远远超出了该州对竞选和选举倡导资金透明度的任何利益关切，”他继续说道。”政府若以某人敢于提及民选官员为由对其公共政策讨论进行监控，这一理念本身就与第一修正案背道而驰。”
美国最高法院为特朗普政府继续实施第三国驱逐政策扫清了道路，目前大法官们正在审理对该政策的法律挑战。（盖蒂图片社）
针对第2号提案的诉讼旨在阻止适用于麦基诺中心的选举相关沟通报告要求和政治委员会规则，而非全面推翻第2号提案。根据诉讼内容，该措施将在官方公布投票结果后10天生效，且生效时间不得晚于12月3日。
“这场诉讼并不意外，”考利在给福克斯新闻数字版的声明中表示。”资助我们反对意见的企业自第2号提案首次获得投票资格以来，甚至更早，就一直在为这场诉讼做准备。”
注册获取政治新闻通讯
根据MOP UP Michigan的说法，除了遏制权钱交易式政治捐款外，第2号提案还旨在堵住该组织所称的”议题广告漏洞”——即通过讨论候选人或投票问题而不明确敦促选民支持或反对相关内容，从而规避某些披露规则的操作空间。
点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP
“昨晚，密歇根民众的声音清晰响亮：他们以压倒性多数投票通过第2号提案，明确要求结束权钱交易式政治，将权力归还给人民，”考利继续说道。”关键在于，我们相信第2号提案将经得起法律审查，我们完全预料到了这场挑战，并且已做好应对准备。”
亚历克·舍梅尔是福克斯新闻数字版的政治记者，来自北卡罗来纳州夏洛特市，目前居住在华盛顿特区-巴尔的摩都会区。
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6406309498112
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6407195194112
‘Money out of politics’ ballot measure sparks First Amendment fight in battleground state
Michigan’s new campaign finance measure could treat policy nonprofits as political committees, says the group suing
By Alec Schemmel
Published November 6, 2026 10:37am EST
El-Sayed explains what he means by getting the money out of politics
Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed details his Medicare for All plan while advocating for politicians to not take money from big corporations on ‘The Story.
Michigan voters approved a ballot initiative called Proposal 2, pitched to them as a way to curb pay-to-play donations and get money out of politics. But the measure has also triggered a federal First Amendment lawsuit alleging its separate speech and disclosure provisions could ensnare journalists, nonprofits and policy researchers who discuss elected officials.
Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, also known as MOP UP Michigan, said the lawsuit was expected after voters approved Proposal 2. Campaign manager Maura Cowley said the group is “confident Proposal 2 will withstand legal scrutiny” after organizers said they submitted more than 560,000 signatures to place the measure on the ballot.
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, which filed the lawsuit, says it is not challenging the initiative’s central pay-to-play restrictions on political contributions from utility companies and government contractors. Its lawsuit instead targets provisions imposing reporting and disclosure requirements on certain communications that refer to candidates or ” promote, support, attack, or oppose” candidates or ballot questions, even without expressly urging voters to support or oppose them.
“Michigan voters deserve the freedom to research, debate, and report on the policies that shape their lives. But Proposal 2 is a Trojan horse: while it claims to target corruption, it would expose the Mackinac Center, its supporters, and ordinary Michiganders to criminal penalties and harassment simply for discussing public policy,” Patrick Wright, the Mackinac Center’s vice president of legal affairs, said in a statement provided to Fox News Digital.
SURVEY REVEALS COLLEGE STUDENTS’ GROWING INTOLERANCE FOR FREE SPEECH
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/jimmy-kimmel-protest-free-speech-sign.jpg
Demonstrators protest the suspension of the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show outside the El Capitan Entertainment Centre where the show is performed in Hollywood on Sept. 18, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.(Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Under Proposal 2, any person — not just a campaign or political committee — who makes “electioneering communications” aggregating at least $5,000 in a calendar year would have to file a report within 10 days. Additional reports would be required after each additional $5,000 in covered communications. The reports would include the dates and costs of the communications, candidates mentioned, vendors paid and information about donors who contributed more than $100 for the purpose of making the communications.
Proposal 2 defines “electioneering communications” as public messages — including broadcasts, print publications, mailings, telephone calls, internet communications and other forms of general public communication — that reference a clearly identifiable candidate, regardless of whether they contain express advocacy, within 100 days of a general election or 30 days before a primary or special election. The communication must also be targeted to the relevant electorate where the candidate appears on the ballot, according to the provision.
Mackinac argues the measure leaves important questions unanswered, including which expenses count toward the $5,000 threshold, what it means for a donor to contribute “for making electioneering communications,” and how the state will determine whether a communication is targeted to the relevant electorate.
SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN LIMIT ON PARTY CAMPAIGN SPENDING IN COORDINATION WITH CANDIDATES
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/michigan-capitol-lansing-mi-august-29-2026.jpeg
The Mackinac Center’s lawsuit also challenges Proposal 2’s expansion of the definition of an election-related “expenditure.” The amended definition includes public communications that “promote, support, attack, or oppose” a candidate or ballot question, regardless of whether they expressly advocate for or against the outcome. Under the proposal’s revised committee definition, an organization that spends at least $500 on such expenditures could be treated as a political committee if the state determines the spending was intended to influence voters.
Brett Nolan, an Institute for Free Speech attorney representing Mackinac, told Fox News Digital that the new electioneering-communications reporting provision contains no express exception for neutral reporting, legislative voting records or policy research. Proposal 2 does retain an existing exemption for certain news stories, commentary and editorials from being treated as campaign spending, but Mackinac argues that exemption does not resolve the reporting requirements for electioneering communications.
Mackinac’s complaint points specifically to its MichiganVotes project, policy scorecards, a neutral policy brief about Proposal 2, magazines, radio programs, podcasts and public-policy events as examples of speech that could be swept up in the new requirements because those materials sometimes discuss elected officials or candidates.
GOP LAWMAKERS URGE SUPREME COURT TO STRENGTHEN FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS FOR STREET PREACHERS
“The Supreme Court has said several times in recent years that disclosure mandates like this create an ‘inevitable’ chilling effect on free speech because the risk of political harassment (or worse) is so significant. The more costs we impose on those who want to exchange ideas and discuss public policy, the fewer of those people we will have,” Nolan said.
“This law goes much further than addressing any interest the state may have in transparency about those who are funding campaigns and election advocacy,” he continued. “The notion that the government has an interest in monitoring people who talk about public policy if they dare mention an elected official is antithetical to the First Amendment.”
https://news-multimedia-1393112320.cos.ap-guangzhou.myqcloud.com/Supreme-Court-at-dusk.jpg
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to continue third-country deportations while the justices consider a legal challenge to the policy.(Getty Images)
The lawsuit against Proposal 2 seeks to block the electioneering-communications reporting requirement and the political-committee rules as applied to Mackinac — not to overturn Proposal 2 in its entirety. The measure is set to take effect 10 days after the official declaration of the vote, and no later than Dec. 3, according to the lawsuit.
“This lawsuit is no surprise,” Cowley said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “The corporations bankrolling our opposition have been gearing up for this lawsuit since Proposal 2 first qualified for the ballot, if not before.”
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
According to MOP UP Michigan, besides curbing pay-to-play political donations, Proposal 2 is designed to close what the group calls an “issue-ad loophole” — the ability to discuss candidates or ballot questions without expressly urging voters to support or oppose them in order to avoid certain disclosure rules.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Last night, Michiganders spoke loud and clear, voting to pass Proposal 2 with an overwhelming majority and delivering a resounding mandate to end pay-to-play politics and put power back where it belongs – with the people,” Cowley continued. “The bottom line is that we are confident Proposal 2 will withstand legal scrutiny, and we were fully expecting and are prepared to take on this challenge.”
Alec Schemmel is a Politics Reporter for Fox News Digital who is originally from Charlotte, North Carolina but now resides in the Washington D.C.-Baltimore Metro Area.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6406309498112
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6407195194112
