LANSING – The Michigan Legislature has tried for years to extend transparency to the state House of Representatives, the Senate and statewide elected officials by requiring elected officials to file financial disclosure reports and open themselves up to Freedom of Information laws.

The bills have gotten widespread support in the House, but stalled in the Senate. And that could be the fate of another package of financial disclosure bills that were approved with bipartisan support in the House Elections Committee on Wednesday.

The committee voted 6-1 in favor of eight bills that would require candidates and office holders for state House, Senate, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state Supreme Court and state Court of Appeals to file financial disclosure forms with the Secretary of State.

More:House votes to make governor, legislature subject to FOIA — but with exemptions

More:University of Michigan fights to keep files of anti-immigrant leader sealed

The candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state and attorney general also would also have to file federal tax returns for the three preceding calendar years.

The Center for Public Integrity ranks Michigan 50th in the nation in terms of transparency because the governor and Legislature are exempt from disclosure of documents through the Freedom of Information Act, as well as for the lack of any financial disclosure.

While the bills are expected to get wide support in the state House, the Senate is a different story. Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, still has reservations.

“He hasn’t looked at them in great detail. He’s generally supportive of some discussion about it,” said Amber McCann, spokeswoman for Shirkey. “But he's just not totally sold on the concept.”

The disclosures would have to include:

Any outside income if it’s more than $5,000

The address of property owned by the candidate or elected official if the value of the property is $50,000 or more

A description of stocks and bonds with a market value of $10,000 or more

Compensation of the candidate or elected official or family members on boards that is worth more than $1,000 annually

If a family member is registered as a lobbyist, the clients and compensation for that lobbying

Interest in a legal business operating in Michigan if it’s valued at $10,000 or more

“This is an incredibly important change, given how poorly we monitor potential conflicts of interest,” said state Rep. David LaGrand, D-Grand Rapids. “There's a huge breakdown of voter trust on this issue. So we absolutely have to restore voter confidence in elected officials.”

State Rep. Pamela Hornberger, R-Chesterfield Township, was the lone no vote on the package of bills, saying they’re not necessary.

“In a lot of instances, it makes it more difficult for good people, who don’t feel the need to disclose their income or investments, to run for office,” she said. “We have a lot of really good people out there who will be deterred from running for office.”

LaGrand said there are a lot of reasons people don’t want to run for office: fear of fundraising, the media or talking to people, but they’re able to overcome that anxiety and start campaigns.

“There are lots of things that might discourage people from running. I don't think that it's an impediment that outweighs or even comes close to outweighing the massive concern we have,” he said. “If we want representative democracy, voters have to be able to trust the people they’re using as representatives.”

The bills, however, have some major loopholes, said Craig Mauger, director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, which tracks campaign spending. Currently, elected officials are grandfathered in and won’t have to file financial disclosures unless they decide to run for reelection.

And elected officials won’t have to report on trips or other forms of entertainment they receive as part of their jobs. The requirements of reporting outside sources of income and ownership of property also are not as stringent as other states.

“This is a very low level amount of disclosure compared to what other states require,” he said. “We’re one of two states that have nothing on the books so we know nothing of their finances. Compared to what we have now, it’s a step toward better disclosure, but it would still keep us toward the back of the pack.”

The House voted earlier this year to subject the Legislature and governor's office to FOIA, but those bills have not gotten a hearing in the Senate yet.

And while the bills may not be perfect, LaGrand said it is necessary to put something on the table that might be considered in the state Senate. The provision exempting current elected officials from disclosure until they run again is one of those bargaining chips.

“This is going to be tough sledding. This is something that we've seen incredible movement on, and a lot of real bipartisan engagement in ways that is just completely different than last session. We’ve got 63 co-sponsors in the House for this legislation,” he said. “There is an argument that whoever ran for office and is currently elected didn't sign up to have to disclose private information. … Changing the rules on financial disclosure for people who are currently here would be a little bit like changing the speed limit on the highway while you were driving.”

The bills — HB 4642-4649 — now move to the House Ways and Means committee before they’ll get a vote in the full House of Representatives.

Contact Kathleen Gray: 313-223-4430, kgray99@freepress.com or on Twitter @michpoligal.