Michigan lawmakers demonstrate why our new state bird should be the chicken

It's been a year since state lawmakers considered replacing the American Robin (Turdus migratorius) as our state bird. That effort, like more meaningful endeavors such as expanding right to know laws, went nowhere.

Now that the Michigan Legislature (Turdus on de populace) finally unveiled a bill requiring state lawmakers to tell us something about where they get their dough, it has become clear the avian mascot that best suits them is a chicken.

Don't bother getting your feathers ruffled defending pols considering how much information about their income and assets to disclose. They had no choice. Michigan voters are so evenly divided that Democrats ended up with only a two-member majority in the state House (56-54) and state Senate (20-18) after the 2022 elections. But two-thirds of those same voters (66.5%) supported a measure requiring state lawmakers to disclose personal financial information, which can be very helpful when it comes to spotting conflicts of interests and potentially dirty deals.

This kind of good-government legislation is long overdue. Michigan is one of only two states that does not require lawmakers to reveal anything about their finances.

Even Guam requires officials and candidates to report their income, business interests and real estate transactions. The same requirements apply to their spouses and dependent children, which is a point we'll get back to later. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands which, like Guam, are not states, also require lawmakers to disclose more than politicians in our state.

Almost everywhere else the United States flag flies, lawmakers are required to reveal where they get their money, who is giving them gifts and trips, what businesses they own, where they invest their money, what property they own and who they owe money.

These kinds of disclosures are crucial to maintain confidence in public officials and government because it sends us a message that lawmakers have nothing to hide. Making this information readily available to you and me also gives pause to public officials who may be tempted to sponsor legislation benefiting them or a friend, or to embark on a business venture that could be more lucrative with a little help in Lansing. And if their judgment falters, disclosure gives watchdogs like me — as well as gadflies and the junior detective in your life — help putting together the pieces of the puzzle that reveal a lawmaker more interested in self service than public service.

Yet, even with a clear mandate, lawmakers are about to lay an egg.

These aren't the candidates you're looking for

One of most useful things reporters can do to help you get the information you need to make informed decisions at the ballot box is to dig into the background of candidates. Not only do we uncover some fascinating stories, but voters generally feel it's best to know if someone is not trustworthy before entrusting them to protect the public trust.

In 2014, while working as the investigative reporter at Fox 2 Detroit, I revealed Detroit City Council secrets. My report detailed the bad debts, foreclosures, and drunken driving and drug dealing histories of six of the nine people then serving on the City Council. A year later, when council members were trying to fill a vacancy created by Saunteel Jenkins' resignation to take a job with a nonprofit, a council member called and told me they were having trouble attracting applicants because they were afraid I would dig into their past.

"Councilman, you've got it all wrong," I said. "Anyone who is worried about what I might find in their background is not the kind of councilperson you want!"

The best thing I can say about the financial disclosure requirements that the Senate approved last week is that they apply to candidates, as well as those already serving as a state representative, senator, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state or attorney general. That's more than the reform proposal approved by voters required. It also serves incumbents because challengers might have an advantage if they didn't have to reveal as much as the officials they're hoping to knock off.

Of course, state lawmakers are free to subject themselves to even more scrutiny than voters dictated.

Of course, they are reluctant to do so.

State Sen. Ruth Johnson, a Holly Republican, proposed requiring lawmakers to disclose their ties to political nonprofits they or their spouse control. These murky honey pots are sometimes referred to as "leadership funds," but are typically just ways to collect unlimited oodles of money without having to report where it came from — or precisely how it was spent. It should not have taken much to convince sober-minded Michigan lawmakers of the importance of Johnson's amendment. The Michigan House, as well as several high-end hotels, are still trying to remove the stain left by former House Speaker Lee Chatfield, who shocked even the greedheads in Lansing with his ability to raise money and spend it on trips, gifts and entertainment that his brother Aaron has said was of the "adult" variety.

Still, Johnson's amendment failed.

"We intentionally left loopholes the size of Texas for current and future legislators and state officials to exploit as they please," she said afterward.

Other politicos faulted the reform proposal for not requiring political spouses to disclose more than their occupation and employer.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, elected in part on her as-yet unfilled pledge to bring more transparency to Michigan government, said requiring spouses to disclose more information would be used against female candidates in a way it would not be used against male candidates. I'm not sure precisely what she means by that, but Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson doesn't share her fellow Democrat's concern. Benson said failing to include information about spouses' income and assets makes the reform effort "relatively ineffective." Other critics say requiring only the candidate or elected official to detail their assets allows them to shift assets to their spouse to avoid full disclosure.

Critics also noted the proposal fails to make lawmakers come clean about every gift and free trip they receive. It doesn't go beyond the voter-mandated provision requiring lawmakers to disclose only gifts and trips provided by lobbyists. But lobbyists are already required to report those perks. Senators could have done us all a favor by using this disclosure legislation to close the loophole allowing lawmakers to accept gifts and free trips from people who are not lobbyists.

Another missed opportunity is there is virtually no consequence for politicians who fail or refuse to follow the rules. The most a pol can be charged for failing to file their disclosure forms is $1,000 in late fees. The most a crooked pol can be charged for filing false information is $2,000.

So, a candidate who doesn't want you to know where they get their dough or who they owe may just withhold their information until after the election and, if they win, pay the $1,000 fine. It won't even come out of their own pocket because senators say they can use campaign funds.

Then there's the crooked pol who would rather risk a $2,000 penalty than disclose that he or she is a shareholder in a company that can make them rich if lawmakers approve legislation benefiting the business.

Those fines don't strike me as a deterrent so much as the cost of doing business for someone who doesn't deserve a chance to take care of the People's Business. After all, why risk getting in trouble by giving people information when there's less risk in not giving people information that could get you in trouble?

Guam knows best

The state Senate's disclosure proposals must still pass the state House before they can go to the governor, who must sign them before they become law. The financial disclosure referendum two-thirds of Michigan voters approved last year gives legislators and the governor until Dec. 31 to pass a law, or risk being sued by any one of us. So, if you were wondering why lawmakers are suddenly so interested in sharing information about themselves, it's because they have no choice.

The House is expected to take up the Senate's proposals next week, so there's still time to make improvements. Representatives might want to consider what other states — and even U.S. territories — have been doing better than us for years.

For example, according to data I mined from a series the National Conference of State Legislatures published earlier this year, 31 states require candidates' or officials' spouses to provide detailed financial information.

Many of those states go even further: Seven require candidates' or officals' family members to disclose detailed financial information; six require financial data on minor and dependent children; five require household members to provide financial information, and South Dakota requires officials to disclose "any enterprise that contributes over 10% or $2,000 to gross family income."

These disclosure requirements help us gain insights into what may motivate politicians, as well as to spot the rats in the House. And Senate. And other high-ranking state offices.

Many states also do a better job policing freebies.

California requires state lawmakers to report all gifts totaling more than $50. Ohio says lawmakers must report gifts worth more than $75, unless the gift is from a "legislative agent." In that case, the threshold is a mere $25.

Arkansas says officials must disclose "each non-governmental source of payment of expenses for food, lodging or travel that bears a relationship to the office when appearing in an official capacity when the expenses incurred exceed $150." Officials must also name the person or organization picking up the tab, as well as provide their address and the date, nature and amount of that expenditure.

In Texas, officials, their spouses and dependent children must identify the person or organization that gave them a gift with a value of more than $250 — unless it's a gun. (OK, I made up that last part.)

Almost no state does it better than Guam, the tiny U.S. territory in the Micronesia subregion of the western Pacific Ocean.

Guam requires officials, their spouses and children to disclose their gross income and assets, gifts worth more than $100, gains from sales of property and everyone the family owes more than $5,000. While this level of detail may seem intrusive to some, it encourages officials to avoid transactions that might look sketchy and, in the case of officials who are deep in debt, helps us identify who might be more vulnerable to temptation.

Instead of taking a cue from our fellow Americans in Micronesia, state senators included this inspiring little ditty in the preamble to their version of the reform legislation: "The financial disclosures required by this act represent a minimum expectation of transparency, and individuals subject to this act are encouraged to make financial disclosures in addition to those required by this act."

My not-so-bold prediction is that most, if not all, candidates and lawmakers will decline to take them up on that invitation.

M.L. Elrick is a Pulitzer Prize- and Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter and host of the ML's Soul of Detroit podcast. Contact him at mlelrick@freepress.com or follow him on Twitter at @elrick, Facebook at ML Elrick and Instagram at ml_elrick.

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan lawmakers demonstrate why our new state bird should be the chicken