opinion

How Michigan's political machine works

Who sets Lansing's agenda? Gov. Rick Snyder is term-limited, and that means power is shifting to the Michigan Legislature, where the GOP holds a solid majority in both chambers — and thus to House Speaker Kevin Cotter and Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof.

Though all three men are Republicans, both the House and Senate have shown willingness to buck Snyder's agenda in recent votes on prevailing wages and e-cigarettes and a hearing on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

So how we'll pay to fix Michigan's crumbling roads; negotiate legal protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Michiganders; reform Detroit Public Schools, or set teacher evaluation standards are likely to be determined by Meekhof and Cotter — and maybe the folks who fund their campaigns.

Campaign finance is complicated, but it's worth understanding: Each kind of fund-raising committee is required to register with a county, state or federal oversight agency, and each kind of committee is subject to different donation and contribution restrictions. Donations to candidate committees — those established by the candidate in pursuit of a seat — are capped at relatively low-dollar amounts.

Caucus political action committees — like those affiliated with the state House Republicans or state Senate Democrats — can accept larger contributions (like political action committees affiliated with candidates or causes), and can make larger donations in turn. Super PACs are largely free from such restrictions.

Skillful politicians cycle contributions through candidate committees and political action committees, shifting funds to dodge restrictions on giving and receiving money.

Rich Robinson of the watchdog group Michigan Campaign Finance Network explains: "When you look at those several committees side by side, you see churning, caucus members' PACs feeding back into the caucus committee, Meekhof moving $182,000 from one of his PACs to the other PAC, so if they're maxed out (on donations), they can max out again with the other committee."

Between 2010 and 2014, candidate committees and political action committees (there are three) associated with Meekhof took in $1.3 million. Between 2012 and 2014, Cotter's candidate committee and PAC accepted $699,360.

That means when it's time to wield influence, both men can command attention from their colleagues in the House and Senate. And when special interests come calling, they'll likely find an open door.

Both parties guilty

Let's be absolutely clear: Accepting political donations from special interests isn't illegal, and it's not wrong. They're a fundamental part of our political system. But secretive contributions, and regulations and maneuvers that allow for unlimited contributions, taint our democracy. And both parties are guilty of that.

It's too simple to draw a direct line from donation to action — campaign donors seek out like-minded candidates or incumbents to support, people already sympathetic to the donor's goals. But study the pattern of donations and contributions, and it's difficult not to see a pattern of influence emerge. Campaign contributions allow candidates access to voters, and a healthy PAC war chest (plus access to so-called dark money — contributions and expenditures that aren't subject to much, if any, disclosure) allows a legislator to build support among fellow lawmakers. Cotter, it's worth noting, won his leadership job with the support of three newly elected, self-described tea party legislators — his PAC made campaign contributions to each.

For donors, Robinson says, "It's more like this: 'I understand that you understand and support my interests, you know what I don't like, and if you go there, you'll lose my financial support.' I don't think it's a to-do list, and if you check all the boxes, I'll get you a big check. It's more subtle than that, but not a whole lot more subtle."

Take, for example, the first bill package introduced by Meekhof in this legislative session, which would repeal Michigan's prevailing-wage law, a requirement that workers on publicly funded construction projects receive wages commensurate with union pay. The Associated Builders and Contractors PAC made a $14,400 donation to Moving Michigan Forward Fund I, one of the three PACs that the West Olive Republican is associated with.

John Kennedy, CEO of Michigan-based Autocam, donated $50,000 to Moving Michigan Forward Fund I. Kennedy is a west-side business executive who has led a charge against the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employers offer contraceptive care free of charge all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court; the state Senate just held a hearing on its latest attempt to pass a Restoration of Religious Freedom Act, which the Supreme Court has said would exempt closely held businesses with sincere religious beliefs from taking actions that violate those beliefs.

"Those are conservative policy agenda items they're enacting," said Bill Nowling, senior partner in the Detroit office of Finn Partners, a global public-relations firm based in New York, and a former Republican political consultant. "That conservative leaders are moving (these bills) in the Legislature shouldn't come as a surprise, but they have to avoid any appearance of a quid pro quo.

"Pro-business organizations are going to promote pro-business lawmakers, and when they have control of the agenda, they tend to move those issues that are, at the core, more important to the constituency that they feel elected them."

Cotter, a Mt. Pleasant Republican, had this to say:

"As a public official, I've been happy to receive support from hundreds of individuals and groups who share my interests in turning around Michigan's economy and finally fixing our state's roads," Cotter wrote in an e-mail to the Free Press. "I've always supported transparency in state government — including my first bill in the House back in 2011 — but we also need to make sure we respect the First Amendment and protect the ability of the people to take part in the political process."

The largest donors to Cotter's candidate committee and associated PAC are a standard who's who of business and right-wing groups — the DeVos family, the Meijer PAC, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce PAC.

"The way all the money cycles through, the very large donors have a very large role in determining who gets elected," Robinson said. "So it's not as simple as people just representing viewpoints of local people."

So who isn't at the table?

"You have to look at the dog that's not barking," Robinson said. "The county roads association didn't show up with much, (the Michigan Infrastructure & Transportation Association PAC) didn't show up with much. They're often overshadowed by more ideological interest groups, and they don't appear to have a lot of push in the process."

And Snyder?

"Snyder doesn't have 5 cents in his leadership PAC, and he can't seem to get anybody to do anything, unless it's tax cuts for business. But try to put together a viable road-funding package, and that's a real stretch," Robinson said. "He's not involved in the game in that way, and I think that shows up in his influence in the process — limited."

And it's all fueled by term limits.

The clock's ticking

Because term limits mean a lawmaker has less time to establish connections with voters, campaign cash and the access it buys is more important than ever before.

Term limits put legislators on a race for quick money, sprinting to stay elected for as long as they're allowed — six years in the House and eight years in the Senate — and then to find their next job.

And so, the institutional knowledge and the relationships we need our legislators to wield instead lands with lobbyists, often former lawmakers, who in turn help those special interests navigate our money-driven political machine. A system intended to rid our legislative halls of career politicians has instead emboldened campaign contributors and led to shortsighted policy.

Nowling said: "Getting your job and keeping your job and running for your next job becomes even more important, and you need resources to do that."

Nowling isn't in favor of limiting corporate or PAC campaign contributions, but thinks the process should be more transparent. Nonprofits created under section 501(c)4 of the U.S. Tax Code, for example, aren't required to list donors. Those nonprofits can make unlimited donations to super PACs, which can spend unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates or causes.

"The majority drives the agenda in the legislative process, so to control the agenda, you have to control the majority," he said. "That's where most of the money goes."

Because, thanks to term limits, "you don't have lawmakers who have been around for 20 years ... who are a force to be reckoned with because they have built relationships and constituency. So they do everything on party lines, and it becomes less about the particular lawmaker," Nowling said. "Now, it's what are the numbers to get me to 56 in the House and 20 in the Senate? The way laws are written for campaign finance, it benefits that system over a head-to-head system. If you don't control the sausage-making, you can't control the agenda. You can't bring the bills up, vote amendments up, it becomes issues of the power of the majority."

There's also been a shift in the importance of donations to candidates versus donations to PACs, said Ken Sikkema, a senior policy fellow at Public Sector Consultants and a former longtime Republican state lawmaker who held leadership positions in both the House and the Senate.

"What is really relevant, at least in terms of campaigns, is how candidate committees have been totally disenfranchised, and how independent PACs and super PACs participate in campaigns," he said. "I think the conservative tea party element in the Legislature is overwhelming the PAC phenomenon. When you're looking at the big givers to PAC leadership funds, they're not getting what they want. ... I am not one who would believe there's much of a relationship between money and a vote."

Sikkema points to the health care industry's substantial contributions and the passage of no-fault insurance reform, which the industry strongly opposes.

"You'd think they're big givers, they should be able to get what they want in the Legislature, but they're getting hosed," he said.

It goes around in circles

In its worst iteration, the system folds in on itself.

In 2013, Meekhof introduced a bill — passed by both chambers and signed by Snyder the same year — that doubled the donation limit to candidates and PACs, and also kept the names of so-called "issue ad" funders from being made public.

Last week, conservative former state lawmaker Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, was appointed Michigan director of Americans for Prosperity, the tea party-friendly PAC founded by billionaires Charles and David Koch. The people who funded candidates' campaigns hire the lawmakers they've helped elect to perpetuate the cycle of influence.

"Legislators and governors come and go," Robinson said. "The funders are fixtures, and the funders will be served.

"That may feel like democracy to Charles Koch and Rich DeVos, but it feels like a crooked deal in a fixed game to most Americans."