Democracy Tree: Proposal 1 money trail was a one-way street

by Amy Kerr Hardin

The Michigan roads proposal, billed as “road kill” after its resounding defeat Tuesday, was paved with cash, but it flowed in mostly one direction.

Regardless of how voters felt about the content of the bipartisan compromise, in the interest of complete transparency, they should additionally know a thing or two about the campaign spending, both for and against the ballot measure.

In this case, it’s the Prop 1 proponents who enjoyed the considerable largess of a broad array of financial backers, leaving opposition spending in the dust. This particular ballot measure is unique in its bipartisan origins, an oddity also was reflected by the similarly bipartisan battle lines.

The non-partisan Michigan Campaign Finance Network reports that those promoting a “yes” vote on the roads measure outspent the opposition by a factor of over 44 to 1. Safe Roads Yes spent $8,658,349 attempting to persuade voters to approve the ballot question. They were largely bankrolled by MITA — the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association, which dropped $5,571,230 on the cause as of April 23.

Rich Robinson, director of MCFN, describes the meager opposition landscape:

“Three committees that have registered to oppose Proposal 1 have raised a total of $195,527. The Coalition Against Higher Taxes and Special Interest Deals has raised $172,555, of which $161,535 was contributed by Paul Mitchell III, who self-funded $3.56 million while running unsuccessfully in the 4th Congressional District Republican primary in 2014. Concerned Taxpayers of Michigan has raised $12,092. Citizens Against Middle Class Tax Increases has raised $10,880, of which $10,000 was contributed by the political consultant John Yob of Grand Rapids.”

Ballot initiatives in off-season elections typically draw lower voter turnout, often attracting those who favor the proposal. Polling on Prop 1 indicated a possible rout, with 61 percent against the proposal. It turned out to be closer to 80%. Their reasons for the thumbs-down are: no new taxes, wasteful government spending, and distrust in Michigan’s government.

Even lawmakers, many of whom were responsible for cobbling-together the plan, were loath to weigh in on it, with only 31 percent responding to an Associated Press survey. Presumably they didn’t want to get pegged for its defeat, or victory. A chicken-shit response over a chicken-shit proposal — how apropos.

PHOTO: Carl Levin comes-a-courting via pricey personalized mailer