Who Pays for the Ads About Your Electric Bill

Your electric bill is set by state regulators who answer to elected officials. The utility can donate to those officials' campaigns.

PACs tied to DTE and Consumers Energy are among Michigan's largest political donors. Both are asking regulators for rate increases that would add over nine hundred million dollars to customer bills.

This November, Michigan voters decide whether to ban political contributions from regulated utilities and companies holding government contracts over two hundred fifty thousand dollars.

It also targets dark money. Right now, a group can run ads about a candidate without disclosing who paid, as long as the ad never tells you how to vote. This measure would require those groups to name their funders.

The Legislature could have passed it first. The House did, seventy-seven to twenty-six, with votes from both parties. The Senate didn't take it up.

Learn More

The measure. Michiganders for Money Out of Politics — also called Mop Up Michigan — is a citizen-initiated law certified for the November 3, 2026 ballot. Organizers submitted over 500,000 signatures against a requirement of 356,958. The Board of State Canvassers approved the ballot language in August, largely rejecting opponents' push to reword the summary to deemphasize its effect on utilities.

What it would do:

• Prohibit regulated electric and gas utilities from contributing to state officeholders and political party committees
• Prohibit companies with more than $250,000 annually in government contracts from contributing to candidates for state or local office within the jurisdiction of the contract
• Extend those prohibitions to top executives and to people and organizations with substantial connections to the covered utilities and contractors
• Require disclosure of funders by groups running political communications that reference candidates or ballot issues

What it would not do: it does not prohibit contributions to independent-expenditure super PACs, which Citizens United protects, and it does not reach federal-level spending, which dwarfs state spending. It includes a severability clause anticipating legal challenge: "If any portion is found void, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining portions remain in effect." (Mop Up Michigan; Planet Detroit; Bridge Michigan)

The legislative sequence — the script's closing beat. Under Michigan's initiative process, the Legislature has an opportunity to enact a citizen petition before it reaches voters. On August 25, 2026, the Michigan House voted 77-26 to approve it, with bipartisan support. The measure then failed on the Senate floor, sending it to the November ballot.

Worth noting the strategic dimension, which the script does not editorialize about: Reps. Carrie Rheingans (D-Ann Arbor) and Betsy Coffia (D-Traverse City) told Planet Detroit that Republican lawmakers might adopt the legislation specifically to keep it off the ballot, because a statute enacted by the Legislature is easier to amend or repeal later than one approved by voters. MMOP itself criticized the House move and supported letting the proposal go to voters. So the House vote is not straightforwardly a pro-measure vote, and the script's neutral phrasing — "the House did" — is deliberate. (Spectrum News; Michigan Advance)

The utility conflict. Michigan's Public Service Commission sets the rates DTE Energy and Consumers Energy may charge. Commissioners are appointed by the governor. Both utilities maintain employee-funded PACs that are among the largest political donors in the state, and both have also funded so-called dark money nonprofits that run ads supporting candidates without disclosing donors.

The rate context is what gives the measure its salience this cycle: DTE's and Consumers' pending electric rate increase requests would together raise ratepayer bills by over $900 million if fully approved. MMOP co-chair Christy McGillivray has said anger over those requests could drive support in November. (Michigan Advance; Bridge Michigan)

The dark money provision, and why the script describes it the way it does. Under current law, a group can run advertising that names a candidate without triggering campaign finance disclosure, provided the ad avoids express advocacy — the so-called magic words, such as "vote for" or "vote against." These are termed issue ads. The measure would extend disclosure requirements to communications referencing candidates or ballot issues regardless of whether they contain express advocacy.

An earlier draft of this script specified a hundred-day window before the general election and used the example of an ad urging listeners to call a senator about a water bill. Both were cut during fact-checking — no current source states the timeframe, and the example depended on it. If the window is confirmed from the measure's text, it would strengthen the paragraph and would also sharpen the opposition's scope objection.

The opposition. Protect MI Free Speech is the committee organized against the measure. It has raised approximately $579,000 from sixteen donors, among them Comcast, CMS Energy (Consumers Energy's parent), Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Delta Dental of Michigan, MITA Inc., and Michigan Citizens for Better Health. Its treasurer is Wendy Block, head lobbyist for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

Their arguments, stated fairly:

• First Amendment. Banning political contributions restricts the right of political association. Courts will ultimately decide this; the measure's severability clause anticipates it.
• Shifting influence rather than removing it. DTE spokesperson Ryan Lowry and Consumers spokesperson Katie Carey both argue the proposal would shift influence to out-of-state donors and to super PACs the measure cannot reach.
• Employee PACs are not corporate money. Blue Cross says its PAC is "funded entirely by employees, who represent all political viewpoints and voluntarily contribute their own money," and that the measure "silences their voices."
• Proponents' own funding. Consumers' spokesperson has pointed to MMOP's use of dark money: the campaign received $115,000 from the California-based Tides Foundation, a donor-advised-fund clearinghouse that does not disclose original sources. This is a fair counterweight and was in an earlier draft of the script before being moved here for length.

Opponents have also asked the Michigan Supreme Court to block the measure from the ballot, and Michigan's Attorney General has criticized the proposal. (Michigan Advance; Bridge Michigan; Spectrum News)

Related Civic Minute segments: What Citizens United Actually Did, What Is Dark Money?, Montana's Hundred-Year Fight (the other campaign finance measure on the November 3 ballot, using a different legal mechanism), Money in Wisconsin Politics.