Michigan House Democrats recently re-introduced their “BRITE Act” package, which, as the name indicates, is aimed at “Bringing Reforms for Integrity, Transparency and Ethics” (BRITE). The bills in last year’s iteration of the BRITE Act failed to pass the House, despite Democrats’ control of the chamber at the time. Now, with Republicans in control of the lower chamber, the package includes nonprofit donor disclosure mandates that were curiously absent from last year’s proposal.

As described by its sponsors, the goal of the BRITE Act is a more open and ethical government in Michigan. Yet House Democrats are now taking aim at the privacy of nonprofit donors. In doing so, lawmakers are not only missing their target but also running afoul of core constitutional protections.

Ethics reform has been on the agenda in Michigan in recent years due in large part to charges filed in 2023 by state Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) against aides to former Michigan House Speaker Lee Chatfield (R). In a December 2023 press release announcing the charges “for their role in misappropriating funds from three non-profits and a Political Action Committee tied to [the] former Speaker,” Nessel urged the Legislature to address Michigan’s “woefully inadequate” campaign finance reporting requirements for nonprofits and PACs. In announcing subsequent charges against Chatfield himself last April, Nessel said she was “basically pleading” for her desired changes to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.

Last year’s version of the BRITE Act included connected bills (H.B. 5580 and H.B. 5582) that, together, would have required 501(c)(4) nonprofits with ties to candidates or elected officials to submit information about such affiliations to the Secretary of State for publication on the agency’s website. Importantly, however, the legislation did not include any new nonprofit donor disclosure requirements.

This year, the package includes two connected bills (H.B. 4269 and H.B. 4270) that, together, would require 501(c)(4) organizations with ties to candidates or elected officials to hand over their donor lists to the Secretary of State.

Despite being limited to nonprofits affiliated with those in office or seeking office, the bills’ donor disclosure requirements would primarily impact the many private citizens who support nonprofits in Michigan. Those individuals should not lose their right to privacy simply because, for example, the aunt of an employee of a nonprofit they support decides to run for office.

Crucially, such requirements would not prevent the already illegal actions these bills are supposedly meant to address. Indeed, PACs are already required to comply with extensive donor disclosure and reporting requirements under existing law, and these laws did not prevent those charged from allegedly engaging in already illegal behavior. Additionally, according to the charges, instead of complying with existing laws that apply to nonprofits and PACs, the defendants simply lied and falsified records. It’s hard to believe that easier access to nonprofit donors’ full names, street addresses, occupations, and employers would have made a difference for the Attorney General’s Office, even if reported accurately.

Nonprofit donor disclosure will do nothing to “reduce the pervasive malfeasance” that the Attorney General instructed lawmakers to address through legislation, while creating unjustifiable burdens on First Amendment rights. And despite being inserted within the Michigan Campaign Finance Act and enforced as a campaign finance regulation, the new requirements would apply regardless of whether the nonprofit is engaging in campaign finance activity that is already required to be reported. It’s difficult to see how such a mandate would survive a constitutional challenge.

House Democrats’ decision to include nonprofit donor disclosure in their BRITE Act package only after losing the majority suggests the addition may have more to do with political calculations than serious efforts to address ethical concerns. Proposing imprudent policy for the sake of enabling partisan talking points is far easier when not in a position to actually pass the proposal.

If Michigan lawmakers truly seek to address government transparency and ethics, they should focus on government transparency and ethics. Accordingly, any new reporting requirements should be aimed at elected officials – not nonprofits and their supporters.

If House Democrats wish to move ahead with their current strategy of attempting to justify a broad new donor disclosure mandate by pointing to crimes that such a mandate would do nothing to prevent, they may want to go ahead and budget for the money the state will waste defending its constitutionality in court.