Bill could provide a potential $92K windfall for 2 Michigan senators

Paul Egan | Detroit Free Press

Show Caption Hide Caption The winners of Michigan's biggest races, proposals A recap of the winners of Michigan's biggest races and proposals in the November midterm election.

LANSING — Two outgoing state senators could pocket more than $92,000 from their campaign funds under legislation on track for passage during the Michigan Legislature’s lame duck session.

Both Sens. Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township, and Jim Marleau, R-Lake Orion, voted for the legislation that would benefit them when it passed the Senate last week.

Those votes may violate Senate rules against conflict of interest.

Senate Bill 1022, if passed by the House and signed by Gov. Rick Snyder, would allow senators who earlier ran for the House to transfer surplus funds from their Senate campaign committees to their inactive and cash-poor House committees, in order to pay off old debts.

Such transfers from Senate to House committees are not permitted under current law because Senate committees have significantly higher donor contribution limits than House committees.

The bill, which passed the Senate on Thursday in a 22-12 vote, included some other minor amendments to Michigan campaign finance law and has been described as legislation making amendments that are only "technical" in nature.

But it has become known around the Legislature as “the Brandenburg bill.” At least for now, Brandenburg stands to be the primary beneficiary among three senators affected by the bill.

Brandenburg, who is leaving office Dec. 31 and can’t run for the Senate again because of term limits, has a $63,000 balance in his Senate campaign fund but still owes himself close to $48,000 in loans he made to his House campaign committee a decade ago, before he graduated to the Senate.

He did not respond to phone messages left at his home and his office.

Term-limited lawmakers who are leaving office can't keep surplus campaign funds, and they can't spend them however they wish. If they aren't transferring the money to another eligible committee, they have to either return the money to those who donated it, or give it to charity.

Craig Mauger, executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, said the bill itself doesn't bother him as much as the fact that it is proceeding through the Legislature under the radar and being voted on by senators who would benefit from its passage.

"Anything in the campaign finance world that's described as a technical change is probably worth closer inspection," Mauger told the Free Press on Tuesday.

Read more:

Lawmaker reimbursements raise questions about political vs. personal spending

Whitmer leads Schuette on campaign fundraising as spending nears record

Marleau, who will have about a $67,000 surplus in his Senate committee once he pays off outstanding loans to that fund, owes himself about $45,000 in campaign loans from his state House days.

Marleau, who earlier faced scrutiny for credit card expenses charged to his Senate campaign committee, also is term-limited and voted for the bill in the Senate. He did not respond to a phone message left at his office.

One other senator could be affected by the legislation, but less significantly, according to an analysis conducted by the Michigan Campaign Finance Network.

Sen. Darwin Booher, R-Evart, has yet to repay close to $22,000 in loans he made to his House committee when he ran for a seat in the other chamber. Booher reports a balance of just more than $11,000 in his Senate committee, but also reports just over $10,000 in Senate committee debts. Unless Booher, who is term-limited, did additional fundraising for his Senate committee, he would only have about $1,000 in surplus Senate funds to put toward his House committee loans, under the bill.

Booher also voted for the bill and did not respond to a phone message.

Records show Brandenburg voted for the bill twice — once in the full Senate on Nov. 8 and once in the Senate Elections and Government Reform Committee on May 29.

Under Senate rules, members "having a personal, private, or professional interest in a bill ... shall not vote on the bill," and "shall disclose in writing his or her interest in the bill." The Senate rules define a personal interest as one "that would provide a benefit particular to a Senator or a benefit particular to any individual or entity to whom the Senator is financially or legally obligated or is personally related."

Senate officials mostly leave it up to individual senators to decide when to declare a conflict of interest.

But Sen. Patrick Colbeck. R-Canton, said if he were in Brandenburg's position, he would have invoked the Senate conflict rule on SB 1022 and abstained from voting.

Colbeck, who ran unsuccessfully for governor this year, voted against the bill, despite the fact he liked some of its features, including a better way of handling reporting for joint fundraisers.

"It didn't pass the sniff test," said Colbeck, who added he wasn't aware of which senators would benefit from the bill when he cast his "no" vote.

"I like Jack," Colbeck said. "I didn't know who the individual was, I just knew it was someone."

Sen. Morris Hood, D-Detroit, who cast the lone "no" vote against the bill in committee as minority vice chair of the Senate Elections and Government Reform Committee, blasted the legislation as rewarding irresponsible spending.

"Are we saying that one committee can be irresponsible and pile up debt and then be bailed out by another committee?" Hood asked in committee, before voting no.

Sen. Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton, the other Republican to vote against the bill in the Senate, said a prohibition on shifting money from Senate committees to House committees should remain in place.

Asked whether senators with outstanding loans in their House accounts should have voted on the legislation, Schuitmaker said, "That's a good question," and "I would have to look at our conflict rules."

Mike Batterbee, director of government affairs for the Secretary of State's Office, told Hood that may be true in some examples in life, but in campaign finance, "it's quite common for someone to ... go into debt as a way to run for office, with the intent that eventually they hope to pay that off.

Kieran Marion, the agency's director of policy initiatives, told the committee the Secretary of State's Office was neutral on the bill, which he described as "a series of technical amendments."

"We don't think this is going to affect a great many committees," Marion said of the change that would allow money to transfer from Senate to House committees to pay off debts.

Since dormant committees can't be closed if they have outstanding loans, the bill would provide "a mechanism (so) we don't have a committee that's therefore going to be sort of going on in the future as a derelict committee."

Fred Woodhams, a spokesman for the Michigan Secretary of State's Office, confirmed there's an option under current law for senators who have outstanding loans from themselves in their old House committees. They can forgive — or write off — the loans, he said.

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @paulegan4.