View this email in your browser ([link removed])
MCFN.org ([link removed])
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed] https%3A%2F%2Fmcfn.org%2Farticle%2Fhow-132150-in-donations-led-to-a-20-million-no-bid-grant Tweet ([link removed] https%3A%2F%2Fmcfn.org%2Farticle%2Fhow-132150-in-donations-led-to-a-20-million-no-bid-grant)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
MCFN Investigation: We Need More Oversight of Michigan's Earmarks ([link removed])
State budgets are frequently passed in the middle of the night with new pork-barrel spending added just hours before lawmakers must vote. Here are three ways to make this spending more accountable to the public.
By NEIL THANEDAR
MICHIGAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE NETWORK
LANSING, MI (October 13, 2025) — MCFN’s last investigation ([link removed]) focused on how $107,150 in donations from Sharif Hussein to Gretchen Whitmer’s campaign and $25,000 to Jason Wentworth’s PAC could have led to Whitmer recommending the funding and Wentworth sponsoring the $20,000,000 no-bid grant to Global Link International, an organization created ten days after the grant was signed into law by Hussein and his then business partner Fay Beydoun
This $20,000,000 was not the only no-bid grant in that year’s state budget. The largest one was a $130,000,000 grant “for an electric vehicle teaching, training, and development center located at a research university located in a city with a population between 123,850 and 123,900.” That city is of course Ann Arbor, and the research university is none other than the University of Michigan.
There is also $100,000,000 for “armory modernization”, $100,000,000 for “business attraction and community revitalization”, $100,000,000 for “capital preventative maintenance treatments for pavement preservation”, and $100,000,000 for an “information technology investment fund” in Michigan’s 2022 budget bill.
2023 saw another record breaking year in budget earmarks, with $1.6 billion ([link removed]) in pork projects spread out over 342 projects. An MLive analysis ([link removed]) found that in the budget for the 2023-2024 fiscal year, “nearly 90% of the money was sent to areas represented by a Democrat in the state House or Senate.” This is because many of the largest projects fall in the biggest cities that also vote consistently Democratic. But this also raises the concern that the budget appropriations process is being used for local and/or private purposes.
The use of hyper-specific language to direct funds to predetermined recipients has become standard practice in Michigan budget bills. While supporters of this practice argue that targeted spending addresses genuine local needs and represents legitimate legislative negotiation, the lack of competitive bidding and transparent review raises serious questions about whether taxpayer dollars are being allocated efficiently and fairly. Per the Michigan constitution, any such bills must pass with a two-thirds majority.
Here are three concrete ways politicians and activists can fight back against these earmarks:
1. Constitution: File a legal case to challenge the “local or private purposes” of these grants.
+ Challenge the constitutionality of all earmarks that use specific language to limit public grants to individual locations and corporations. This could cause a judge to rule all such appropriations unconstitutional, since most state budgets pass with less than a two-thirds majority. That would make it easier to stop future disbursements of these funds and could also allow Michigan to recover some funds that have been appropriated but not spent.
2. Legislature: Pass House Bill 4420 ([link removed]) to make new earmark reforms permanent.
+ The Michigan House already approved new rules ([link removed]) in January 2025 that will now require all funding requests to be made publicly available online by April 1st starting in 2026. That would give lawmakers, journalists, and other citizens three months to fully review all earmarks before each budget is passed. These new rules also prohibit earmarks for for-profit businesses and require each funding request to include the name of the sponsor and the recipient. HB 4420 passed the House on June 10, 2025 and is now in the Senate.
3. Ballot: Draft a proposal to define and limit earmarks while requiring transparency.
+ If HB 4420 gets blocked in the Michigan Senate by the same leadership capture mechanism described earlier in this investigation, then the strongest option for Michigan residents is to draft an amendment, collect signatures, and campaign for voters to approve a ballot proposal to change how earmarks can be added to future state budgets. This strategy cannot be directly blocked by the Governor or legislature, but special interests will attack the language of the proposal and spend millions of dollars to influence voters against it. Still, a successful amendment to the Michigan Constitution is the most permanent solution to this problem with earmarks.
A grant for a city with a population "between 123,850 and 123,900" is functionally identical to writing "for Ann Arbor" directly into the budget, but the coded language obscures accountability. Our courts should stop this farce and enforce Michigan’s constitution vs. attacks like this.
To be clear, earmark abuse is not a partisan issue. When Democrats controlled the Michigan legislature in previous years, similar patterns emerged with spending directed to Democratic districts and priorities. The problem is systemic: whichever party controls the budget process tends to use earmarks to reward political allies and punish opponents. And when the two parties work together to expedite this corruption, the situation is even worse. This transforms what should be a transparent appropriations process into a tool for political patronage.
Next Steps:
Part three of this investigation, which will be released in two weeks, focuses on a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of no-bid grants that appear to be targeted for local or private purposes. This lawsuit was filed on May 20, 2025 and Judge Brock Swartzle of the Michigan Court of Claims stated ([link removed]) that he would rule on the motion to temporarily halt this grant by the end of this year.
The outcome of this case could reshape how Michigan handles budget earmarks for years to come. A ruling that these appropriations violate constitutional requirements for two-thirds majorities on local or private spending could invalidate hundreds of millions in questionable grants and force the legislature to adopt more transparent processes.
Michigan taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent, who is requesting specific appropriations, and whether those expenditures serve genuine public purposes or reward political donors. Until the state implements meaningful reforms, the budget process will remain vulnerable to the kind of pay-to-play dynamics that undermine public trust in government.
============================================================
** Link to Investigation ([link removed])
** X ([link removed])
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Website ([link removed])
Copyright © 2025 Michigan Campaign Finance Network, All rights reserved.
You have interest in money in Michigan politics: [link removed]
Our mailing address is:
Michigan Campaign Finance Network
602 W. Ionia St
STE 108
Lansing, MI 48933
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
