Michigan House Bill HB5310

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/9/23
• Refer: 11/9/23

Caption

State management: purchasing; awarding contracts to financial institutions that refuse to do business with certain persons; prohibit. Amends secs. 114 & 261 of 1984 PA 431 (MCL 18.1114 & 18.1261) & adds sec. 261g.

Impact

If passed, HB 5310 will significantly impact the procurement landscape within Michigan by restricting the state from entering into contracts with financial institutions that discriminate against certain business sectors. This amendment is posited to encourage a more inclusive economic environment where various industries are not penalized for their business models or the nature of their work. As a result, it might lead to increased opportunities for businesses traditionally marginalized by financial institutions, thereby affecting overall economic development. However, it also raises concerns about potentially enabling unethical business practices in contexts concerning social responsibility and ethical investing.

Summary

House Bill 5310 seeks to amend the 1984 PA 431, also known as the Management and Budget Act, specifically targeting provisions related to purchasing and awarding contracts to financial institutions that refuse to engage with certain entities. The bill introduces a new section, 261g, which mandates that any state contract with a financial institution includes a representation that the institution is not refusing business with specific designated actors based solely on their classification, which may include firearms dealers, manufacturers, advocacy groups, fossil fuel companies, agricultural producers, and timber companies. This aims to ensure that the state does business with institutions that engage with all sectors of the economy, thereby promoting fair competition.

Contention

The bill has sparked notable contention as lawmakers debate the implications of mandating state contracts with financial institutions that serve industries often labeled as controversial, such as firearms or fossil fuels. Proponents argue that it promotes economic inclusivity and freedom of commerce, while opponents warn of potential conflicts with ethical procurement practices. Concerns are framed around the idea that such policies could prevent the state from aligning with institutions that uphold corporate social responsibility. Lawmakers will need to weigh these perspectives as they consider the overall direction of economic policy represented by HB 5310.