Michigan Senate Bill SB0615

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/24/23
• Refer: 10/24/23
• Report Pass: 11/1/23
• Refer: 11/1/23
• Engrossed: 11/1/23
• Enrolled: 11/9/23
• Chaptered: 12/29/23
• Passed: 12/29/23

Caption

Campaign finance: committees; prohibition on certain candidate committee expenditures and disbursements; create exception. Amends 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.201 - 169.282) by adding sec. 44a. TIE BAR WITH: SB 0613'23, SB 0616'23, SB 0614'23

Impact

If enacted, SB0615 will modify existing campaign finance laws, particularly those governing the responsibilities of candidates regarding financial disclosures. By enabling candidate committees to cover late fees, the bill aims to reduce the deterrent effect these fees might have on candidates who are financially constrained. Advocates argue this amendment ensures that candidates can continue their political pursuits without being significantly penalized for minor administrative errors. This could potentially lead to a broader range of individuals feeling encouraged to participate in the political process, increasing competition and diversity in candidate selections.

Summary

Senate Bill No. 615, also referred to as SB0615, proposes an amendment to the 1976 PA 388 concerning campaign financing regulations within Michigan. This bill introduces Section 44a, which allows a candidate committee supporting a candidate to use their funds to pay for any late filing fees imposed under the Public Officers Financial Disclosure Act or the Candidate for Office Financial Disclosure Act. The intent behind this bill is to alleviate potential financial burdens on candidates who may face penalties due to late filings, thus promoting a more equitable political landscape.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB0615 appears generally supportive among legislators concerned with campaign accessibility and equality. Many support the amendment because it addresses discrepancies faced by candidates, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds who may struggle with compliance costs. However, there remains a faction of skeptics who question whether this could inadvertently open doors for abuse, allowing candidates to bypass accountability measures meant to safeguard electoral integrity by simply paying off fines.

Contention

Notable points of contention emerged during discussions surrounding the bill, particularly regarding the implications for campaign accountability. Opponents argue that allowing candidate committees to pay these fees could undermine the seriousness of financial reporting requirements and lead to negligence in filing obligations. They fear this could establish a precedent where candidates might prioritize political strategy over stringent compliance with disclosure laws. Meanwhile, proponents stress that easing such financial pressures is necessary to foster a more inclusive political arena.