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%2Fare-billions-of-dollars-in-michigan-earmarks-actually-unconstitutional Tweet ([link removed] https%3A%2F%2Fmcfn.org%2Farticle%2Fare-billions-of-dollars-in-michigan-earmarks-actually-unconstitutional)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
MCFN Investigation: Are Billions of Dollars in Michigan Earmarks Actually Unconstitutional? ([link removed])

State lawmakers have used one loophole to give away more than $1 billion per year in earmarks and no-bid grants. A new lawsuit is challenging the constitutionality of this workaround.


By NEIL THANEDAR

MICHIGAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE NETWORK

Note: This is part three in an MCFN investigation into Michigan’s over $1 billion per year in earmarks and no-bid grants. Part one ([link removed]) focused on one such $20 million no-bid grant in 2022. Part two ([link removed]) focused on three concrete ways politicians and activists can work to add transparency to the state’s annual budget process.

Part three focuses on one of those strategies, a new lawsuit by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy versus the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO) challenging the constitutionality of using taxpayer dollars for local or public purposes.

LANSING, MI (October 27, 2025) — What do Jackson Field in Lansing and Jimmy John’s Field in Utica have in common, besides being home to minor league baseball teams? Each field was given a no-bid grant in Michigan's 2024-2025 omnibus budget bill. The Michigan Constitution requires all appropriations of public money for “local or private purposes” be passed by at least a two-thirds majority. The 2024-2025 budget bill only passed with a 56-54 vote in the State House and a 21-17 vote in the State Senate on June 27, 2024.

A lawsuit ([link removed]) filed on May 20, 2025 by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy ([link removed]) , “a nonprofit research and educational institute that advances the principles of free markets and limited government,” argues that no-bid grants like the ones to Jackson Field and Jimmy John’s Field are unconstitutional because they were not passed with a two-thirds majority. This case is currently at the Michigan Court of Claims. Judge Brock Swartzle said ([link removed]) that he would rule on a motion by the Mackinac Center to temporarily halt these grants by the end of this year.

We interviewed Patrick Wright, vice president of legal affairs with the Mackinac Center and Attorney for Plaintiff in this case, last week to see how quickly he thinks this case can be decided and how strongly it could be enforced against past and future earmarks in Michigan if they win. Wright emphasized that this would be a long fight. “"Even if the Court of Claims decides this case by the end of this year, we're still looking at two to two and a half years to get through the Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court," said Wright. The losing side would likely appeal the case to the Supreme Court either way.

Wright had previously stated ([link removed]) , “We’re not going after any party here. We’re going after an institution… The Legislature needs to do it properly. There’s a constitution involved. It needs to be followed.” If the Mackinac Center wins this case, that would require Michigan’s executive branch to stop funding any past earmarks that were not passed with a two-thirds majority. And future earmarks could not be disbursed at all without passing these constitutional tests.

Article IV, Section 30 of the Michigan Constitution affirms:

“The assent of two-thirds of the members elected to and serving in each house of the legislature shall be required for the appropriation of public money or property for local or private purposes.”

Michigan state legislators try to get around this rule by hiding the name of the city and organization receiving each grant. But grants like the $20,000,000 one ([link removed]) to Global Link International were absolutely made for “local or private purposes”.

Likewise, there is no legal difference between writing “city with a population over 500,000 according to the most recent federal decennial census” and “city of Detroit” in an appropriation. The 2020 census ([link removed]) has no other city in Michigan above 200,000. The constitutionality of these earmarks have not yet been challenged in court to decide whether pork by any other name is still pork. But there’s a strong argument to be made that all such appropriations are required by Michigan’s constitution to be passed with a two-thirds majority.

Asked why the Mackinac Center chose to bring this lawsuit, Wright said, “The huge amount of money that goes into these earmarks made us think about this case… It's all about the constitution. If people want to spend public money for private purposes, they need to change the constitution.”

Wright pointed to MCL Section 600.2041 ([link removed]) , where part three states:

“an action to prevent the illegal expenditure of state funds or to test the constitutionality of a statute relating thereto may be brought in the name of a domestic nonprofit corporation organized for civic, protective, or improvement purposes”

This means that a 501(c)3 like the Mackinac Center has full power to file this lawsuit on behalf of Michigan residents. Wright believes this action is long overdue. “This has been the law since 1850. There is no excuse for not following it,” said Wright, “Go back to Con Cons 1, 2, and 3. When delegates were discussing earmarks, they identified just two cases that caused them to act... This proliferation of earmarks is a modern creation and is probably unconstitutional."

In its June 17, 2025 response ([link removed]) , the defendant LEO argued:

“(LEO) did not enact the appropriations; did not choose the grant recipients; and does not have discretion in how the grants are administered. LEO is simply the vehicle through which the funds are to be expended… Accordingly, LEO is not “adverse” to Plaintiff on its constitutional claims, which means Plaintiff has not satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of MCR 2.605”

In other words, LEO claims they’re just following orders from the Michigan Legislature, who should be the real target of this lawsuit. Wright counters ([link removed]) , “The brief demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of our constitutional system. The judiciary doesn’t lose its authority just because a payout was promised. If the payment process was unlawful, the judiciary not only can intervene—it must.”

Passing multi-billion dollar annual state budgets with under 24-hour notice to review new earmarks prevents any serious scrutiny over pork projects, which increases the risk of major waste and corruption. For example, the Michigan House recently added $50 million ([link removed]) in funding for a mining project in the Upper Peninsula that will largely benefit one subsidiary of a Canadian company. And the legislature committed over $35 million in infrastructure costs in Washtenaw County that will benefit a housing development project by Schostak Brothers and Co., whose General Manager and Fund Partner is former Michigan Republican Party chairman Bobby Schostak, who has made over 100 donations to Republican candidates, committees, and PACs, but also donated the then $3,400 maximum
([link removed]) to both Jennifer Granholm and her gubernatorial opponent Dick DeVos in the same 2006 election cycle. These earmarks do not benefit the average Michigander and cost us over $1 billion every year.

It is hard to get anyone to defend earmarks. We reached out to Christopher Braverman, Assistant Attorney General and Attorney for Defendant in this Mackinac Center v. LEO case, for comment. He referred me to the AG Press team, which has not responded. We also reached out to Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, who requested ten earmarks ([link removed]) in the latest budget, including $100M ([link removed]) for Rx Kids, a public-private partnership in Flint, over 100 miles from Brinks’ district. That earmark was disclosed on October 1st. But by the time the final budget was passed in the early morning of October 3rd, that earmark was at$250M ([link removed]) . Why was this seemingly significant funding disclosed, altered, and
passed so late in the state budget instead of through independent legislation? What happened in those two days that caused this earmark to grow so quickly right before the budget was passed? As of the time of publication, Senator Brinks has also not responded. We will update this story if and when these leaders respond to our questions.

Both the Michigan House and Senate passed different earmark legislation this year, with the major sticking point being the House rule requiring 90 days disclosure for new earmarks while the Senate only requires 10 days. These bills, House Bill 4420 ([link removed]) and Senate Bill 596 ([link removed]) , are tie-barred ([link removed]) , so they must be passed and signed together to become law. Speaker Matt Hall has promised ([link removed]) that “no more Senate bills” will be voted on in the House until a deal is struck on these disclosure rules. Either plan would be a major improvement over the status quo, but more time to investigate earmarks would be better for the public. Senator Jim Runestad
proposed an amendment to require at least 60 days disclosure in the Senate bill, but the amendment failed. While the Republican leadership in the House and the Democratic leadership in the Senate remain deadlocked, these new earmark disclosure rules cannot become law.

What's Next for Earmark Disclosures?

In a potential nod to this pending legislation, the Michigan House and Senate passed ([link removed]) the state budget this year with over a two-thirds majority, with a 101-8 margin in the House and 31-5 margin in the Senate. This is the first time since 2021 ([link removed].) that the Michigan annual state budget passed with a two-thirds majority in both chambers of the Legislature. So earmarks in the 2026 fiscal year annual state budget will not be subject to constitutional challenges like the ones in this case.

However, that doesn’t mean that there is no waste, fraud, or corruption in Michigan’s latest budget. In fact, requiring a two-thirds majority for all state budgets could increase the incentives for House and Senate leaders to horsetrade more pork-barrel spending to convince more legislators to vote for each budget.

This is why it is so important for Michigan to make earmark disclosure rules permanent. A compromise on House Bill 4420 and Senate Bill 596 that provides 60 to 90 days disclosure for new earmarks would make these rules law. Our goal with this whole investigation has been to drive more transparency into Michigan's earmarks. Ultimately getting new earmark disclosure rules into Michigan's constitution is the best way to enforce them long-term.

Pro-transparency advocates, activists, and politicians should continue to stay on top of these cases, legislation, and potential ballot proposals to make sure journalists and the public have the time and tools to investigate who is truly benefitting from these earmarks. MCFN will continue to investigate this budget and all future budgets for connections between dark money and corruption like we have identified over the course of this three-part investigation. Michigan residents deserve to know exactly what our taxes are funding.

------------------------------------------------------------


If you have any tips about waste, fraud, or corruption associated with any of Michigan’s earmarks, please email us at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or message us at @MichiganCFN ([link removed]) . Anonymous tips are welcome!

============================================================
** 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]