MICHIGAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE ACT
Act 388 of 1976
169.254 Contributions, expenditures, or volunteer personal services by corporation, joint stock company, domestic dependent sovereign, or labor organization; contribution to ballot question committee or independent expenditure committee; independent expenditures as to ballot questions; violation; penalty.
Sec. 54.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section and section 55, and except with respect to loans made in the ordinary course of business, a corporation, joint stock company, domestic dependent sovereign, or labor organization shall not make a contribution or expenditure or provide volunteer personal services that are excluded from the definition of a contribution under section 4(3)(a).
(2) An officer, director, stockholder, attorney, agent, or any other person acting for a labor organization, a domestic dependent sovereign, or a corporation or joint stock company, whether incorporated under the laws of this or any other state or foreign country, except corporations formed for political purposes, shall not make a contribution or expenditure or provide volunteer personal services that are excluded from the definition of a contribution under section 4(3)(a).
(3) A corporation, joint stock company, domestic dependent sovereign, or labor organization may make a contribution to a ballot question committee or independent expenditure committee subject to this act. A corporation, joint stock company, domestic dependent sovereign, or labor organization may make an independent expenditure in any amount advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate, or the qualification, passage, or defeat of a ballot question and does not for this reason become a committee, unless it solicits or receives contributions in excess of $500.00 for the purpose of making the independent expenditure, but is subject to the independent expenditure reporting requirements under section 51.
(4) A person that knowingly violates this section is guilty of a felony punishable, if the person is an individual, by imprisonment for not more than 3 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both, or, if the person is not an individual, by a fine of not more than $10,000.00.
History: 1976, Act 388, Eff. June 1, 1977 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 95, Imd. Eff. June 21, 1989 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 117, Eff. Apr. 1, 1995 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 264, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 2015, Act 269, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 2016 ;-- Am. 2017, Act 119, Imd. Eff. Sept. 20, 2017 ;-- Am. 2019, Act 93, Imd. Eff. Oct. 10, 2019 ;-- Am. 2023, Act 244, Eff. Feb. 13, 2024
Constitutionality Notes:
Subsection (1) of this section does not violate the First Amendment and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 US 652; 110 S Ct 1391; 108 L Ed 2d 652 (1990).
Compiler's Notes:
Section 2 of Act 264 of 1995 provides:
“If any portion of this amendatory act or the application of this amendatory act to any person or circumstance is found to be invalid by a court, the invalidity does not affect the remaining portions or applications of this amendatory act that can be given effect without the invalid portion or application, if those remaining portions are not determined by the court to be inoperable. To this end, this amendatory act is declared to be severable.”
Notes of Decisions
Michigan Chamber of Com. v. Land, 725 F. Supp. 2d 665 (W.D. Mich. 2010).
· cites it 45× “Rejecting Defendant’s Ripeness, Administrative Exhaustion, Abstention, and Laches Arguments; Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Application for Preliminary Injunctive Relief: Preliminarily Enjoining the Defendant from Enforcing Mich. Comp. Laws § 169.254 against…”
Michigan Educ. Ass'n v. Sec'y of State, 761 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 14× “Compare MCL 169.254 with 169.257. Given this differential treatment, we would conclude that the allocated costs of collecting and delivering payroll deductions by members of the MEA affiliate to the MEA-PAC are both an expenditure and a contribution to the MEA-PAC by the Gull…”
Michigan Educ. Ass'n v. Sec'y of State, 489 Mich. 194 (Mich. 2010).
· cites it 7× “First, § 54 of MCFA, MCL 169.254, imposes the same rule, prohibiting the making of a “contribution or expenditure,” on corporations and labor organizations that § 57 imposes on public bodies.”
Fieger v. Cox, 524 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 2008).
“The Attorney General began investigating Fieger and his law firm for a felony violation of Michigan election law, see Mich. Comp. Laws § 169.254 (prohibiting corporate campaign donations), when it found that checks to the Barlow agency may have been written from the Fieger firm.”
Fieger v. Cox, 734 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “For these reasons, there was no abuse of authority in the Attorney General’s conducting, by means of search warrants, the investigation of the Fieger firm’s potential violation of MCL 169.254. Michigan statutes specifically authorize the Attorney General to seek and obtain…”
Michigan Educ. Ass'n v. Sec'y of State, 793 N.W.2d 568 (Mich. 2010).
· cites it 4× “First, § 54 of MCFA, MCL 169.254, imposes the same rule, prohibiting the making of a “contribution or expenditure,” on corporations and labor organizations that § 57 imposes on public bodies.”
Michigan State Chamber of Com. v. Austin, 637 F. Supp. 1192 (E.D. Mich. 1986).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiffs seek judgment declaring Section 54(3) of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, Mich.Comp.Laws § 169.254(3), a facial violation of the first and fourteenth amendments and enjoining its enforcement.”
Dep't of State v. Michigan Educ. Ass'n-NEA, 650 N.W.2d 120 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“Those proceedings culminated in a hearing officer’s issuing a final decision and order on October 13, 1997, finding that respondent had violated MCL 169.254(1) (subsection 54[1]) by making a contribution to the committee in the form of a forbearance.”
Michigan State Chamber of Com. v. Austin, 643 F. Supp. 397 (W.D. Mich. 1986).
· cites it 4× “§ 169.254(1), under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I of the Michigan Constitution.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 169.254(1) — 11 cases
Michigan Educ. Ass'n v. Sec'y of State, 489 Mich. 194 (Mich. 2010).
“First, § 54 of MCFA, MCL 169.254, imposes the same rule, prohibiting the making of a “contribution or expenditure,” on corporations and labor organizations that § 57 imposes on public bodies.”
Michigan Educ. Ass'n v. Sec'y of State, 761 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“Compare MCL 169.254 with 169.257. Given this differential treatment, we would conclude that the allocated costs of collecting and delivering payroll deductions by members of the MEA affiliate to the MEA-PAC are both an expenditure and a contribution to the MEA-PAC by the Gull…”
Fieger v. Cox, 734 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“For these reasons, there was no abuse of authority in the Attorney General’s conducting, by means of search warrants, the investigation of the Fieger firm’s potential violation of MCL 169.254. Michigan statutes specifically authorize the Attorney General to seek and obtain…”
Dep't of State v. Michigan Educ. Ass'n-NEA, 650 N.W.2d 120 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“Those proceedings culminated in a hearing officer’s issuing a final decision and order on October 13, 1997, finding that respondent had violated MCL 169.254(1) (subsection 54[1]) by making a contribution to the committee in the form of a forbearance.”
Michigan Educ. Ass'n v. Sec'y of State, 793 N.W.2d 568 (Mich. 2010).
“First, § 54 of MCFA, MCL 169.254, imposes the same rule, prohibiting the making of a “contribution or expenditure,” on corporations and labor organizations that § 57 imposes on public bodies.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 169.254(2) — 2 cases
Michigan Educ. Ass'n v. Sec'y of State, 761 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“Compare MCL 169.254 with 169.257. Given this differential treatment, we would conclude that the allocated costs of collecting and delivering payroll deductions by members of the MEA affiliate to the MEA-PAC are both an expenditure and a contribution to the MEA-PAC by the Gull…”
Michigan Chamber of Com. v. Land, 725 F. Supp. 2d 665 (W.D. Mich. 2010).
“Rejecting Defendant’s Ripeness, Administrative Exhaustion, Abstention, and Laches Arguments; Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Application for Preliminary Injunctive Relief: Preliminarily Enjoining the Defendant from Enforcing Mich. Comp. Laws § 169.254 against…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 169.254(3) — 4 cases
Michigan Educ. Ass'n v. Sec'y of State, 761 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
“Compare MCL 169.254 with 169.257. Given this differential treatment, we would conclude that the allocated costs of collecting and delivering payroll deductions by members of the MEA affiliate to the MEA-PAC are both an expenditure and a contribution to the MEA-PAC by the Gull…”
Michigan State Chamber of Com. v. Austin, 637 F. Supp. 1192 (E.D. Mich. 1986).
“Plaintiffs seek judgment declaring Section 54(3) of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, Mich.Comp.Laws § 169.254(3), a facial violation of the first and fourteenth amendments and enjoining its enforcement.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 169.254(4) — 2 cases
Fieger v. Cox, 734 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“For these reasons, there was no abuse of authority in the Attorney General’s conducting, by means of search warrants, the investigation of the Fieger firm’s potential violation of MCL 169.254. Michigan statutes specifically authorize the Attorney General to seek and obtain…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 169.254(5) — 1 case
Michigan State Chamber of Com. v. Austin, 643 F. Supp. 397 (W.D. Mich. 1986).
“§ 169.254(1), under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I of the Michigan Constitution.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.