The federal government has done a lot of legislating recently. Between the Infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, Congressional lawmakers have been active.
But so many of our laws are determined state and local representatives, not congressional representatives. Though less encompassing, these individuals have a lot of power in deciding who gets what and how our public systems operate in the state of Michigan.
One proposal, ushered onto the ballot by state legislators, is Proposal 1, which expands the time that state legislators can serve in office and ensures that lawmakers disclose their personal financial ties.
“Just two states — Michigan and Idaho — are the only two states that don’t require this [minimum] level of disclosure.” — Josh Pugh, public affairs director.
Listen: Two political consultants make the case for Michigan’s Proposal 1.
Jason Cabel Roe is the principal for Roe Strategic, a campaign and communications strategy consultancy firm. He says lawmakers, more so than the general public, have been very supportive of this proposal.
“Supermajorities of both caucuses [Republican and Democrat] voted to put this on the ballot,” says Roe.
Josh Pugh is the senior director of public affairs for Truscott Rossman, a Lansing-based public relations firm. He says state legislators across the country almost always need to disclose public financial records.
“Just two states — Michigan and Idaho — are the only two states that don’t require this [minimum] level of disclosure,” says Pugh.
Photo credit: Shutterstock.