Michigan's Prop 2 faces legal challenge a day after Elections

Well, Hamtramck isn't the only election heading back to court. Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved Proposal 2 to limit corporate money in politics. But a federal lawsuit is already challenging parts of it, raising questions about what happens next. Joining us now is Oakland University political science professor Dr. Peter Trembor, who clocked a lot of hours at Fox 2 during this last election cycle. And we said, you know what, why don't you just join us from home? You spent enough time here yesterday. Dr. Trimborne, good to see you. Talk for a moment about this proposal. What would this proposal essentially do? Now that it's been, you saw the votes come in, it was prohibiting the money. I mean, it seems very common sense that utilities that enjoy a regulated monopoly that are regulated by the state, that they shouldn't be allowed to then give campaign donations To the very politicians who regulate them and it's not just utilities but also contractors who have I think it's a quarter million dollars or more in in state contracts and and that seems to be a very common sense perspective to take if you are worried about money tainting the the political process and the regulatory process the problem with that is is it runs afoul. What the Supreme Court has decided and has essentially ruled since 2010 under Citizens United, which is that first, that corporations are people and that second, that campaign dollars equals speech. And so a limitation on the ability of corporations to. Thank you. Essentially, pay for campaign ads and to fund campaigns would be a violation of their First Amendment rights. And so I think that's the crux of the issue here. So corporations are people under this argument. However, people are people who vote on things that they believe. They should have a voice in. When there are people who have tremendous power and corporations that have more power than the individual, the individuals go to the polls and say, hey, 81% of us say, please stop. But that seems to kind of pale in comparison to the power of that freedom that you speak of. I don't disagree with you. And as a Michigan voter who also voted in favor of Prop 2, to I think my feeling is in line with what the bulk of Michiganders want, which is to dilute the power of corporate money in our political system. But the reality is that free speech rights Do not necessarily bow to the will of the majority. Unless we are in a circumstance in which there is a decision which says corporations aren't people and don't enjoy the same rights that you and I enjoy as individuals. If we're going to say that they have the same free speech rights that you and I have, then they can tap into their potentially You know, bottomless funds in order to continue to sway the political discourse in ways that you and I could never match. And so I think that's the real issue. So until something has changed with the language of this whole distinction about whether corporations are people or not, this particular challenge to try to reverse this could fall on deaf ears because they do deserve those rights. That's right. I mean, the argument would be the same as any potential minority, right? That once you say it's okay to squelch the political speech of any group... Then every group is potentially at risk of losing their speech rights. So there are two things at play here. The first is the idea that corporations have the same rights as you and I have as individuals. And the second, that money equals speech in our political system. And I think unless we are willing to address both of those issues, then Prop 2 is going to be really is going to be uphill sledding to get that to actually take effect the way that the voters would like to see. We're going to keep watching it, and I know there's a lot of legal challenges that we're looking at and watching carefully, and we'll do it with the help of you, Dr. Peter Trombor, political science professor at Oakland University. Thanks for your time here tonight.