(intense music) - [Tim] Christy McGillivray is our guest this week for the Michigan Sierra Club.

Thanks for tuning in.

Our lead story, clamping down on distracted driving and a new political party being formed.

On the OTR panel, Jim Kiertzner, Lauren Gibbons, and Simon Schuster.

Sitting with us as we get the inside out, Off The Record.

(intense music) - [Announcer] Production of Off The Record is made possible in part by Martin Waymore, a full service, strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing, and public policy engagement.

Learn more at MartinWaymire.com.

And now, this edition of Off The Record with Tim Skubick.

- Thank you very much.

Welcome to Off The Record.

Well, if you've got one of these things and you're driving it within your hand, you're in deep doo doo, right Jimmy?

- [Jim] Yep.

- This is yours, by the way, I think.

- It's been that way (laughing) in Troy for a while.

The city of Troy in metro Detroit has had distracted driving for quite a while, but now it's gonna be statewide soon.

- [Tim] What'd you make of this?

- Yeah, I think, I think the speed in which that this went through and the speed that it will take effect, June 30th.

This has been something that's been talked about several sessions.

We're here.

It's gone through both chambers at this point, but yeah, people better start changing their ways if they're holding their cell phone while they're driving.

- Simon, this is addictive behavior and addictions are hard to break.

- Yeah, certainly.

I mean, I think that we see fatalities on the road are on the rise and the way we're interacting with our phones is constantly evolving.

So, lawmakers view this as a long overdue update, but I also don't think that we're not gonna see another update to this kind of law in the near future.

- Well, the hope is, the sponsors say eventually, this law will not be needed as the technology catches up in the automobiles.

Everybody will be able to just talk into the dashboard and you don't have to hold your car phone up in order to do this.

- And my research shows there was some opposition to this because of that, but not everybody is technology advanced.

They don't have bluetooths in their car.

In urban areas, in what some call the rural poor.

So, if they wanna be on the phone and they need to find out the grocery list, they're still gonna have to do this.

- This is the key to this debate, however.

As we saw in the seatbelt legislation, people didn't get serious about buckling up until they did two things.

One, they made it a primary offense and secondly, they added points to your driver's record.

As soon as that happened, people said whoops, this is gonna cost me my insurance, so I better do it.

So, they were very smart and put this in this legislation.

You get points.

- Right and I think that the big distinction here, holding your phone while you're talking is one thing, but in the lob right now, it's texting and driving is what's banned.

But people could be-- - [Tim] Placing a bet on the internet.

- Right, people could be watching videos on YouTube while driving.

People could be TikToking and driving.

People could-- - Or reading news of - [Tim] Off The Record.

- Exactly!

Hopefully that's what they're doing, right?

But yeah, so there's a lot of things that the texting and driving bill did not cover and this goes well beyond that.

It does have some exceptions for emergencies, but the real idea is to try and get someone.

If somebody gets in an accident and they were Facebooking and driving, it's harder to get em under the texting and driving law.

So, this is more all encompassing.

- Yeah, I think that this speaks to you know, the idea that our cars are increasingly becoming an extension of our smartphone.

Although I think GM might kind of contend with that a little bit given that they've banned Apple CarPlay and Android Auto from their cars but, I think that this really speaks to the idea that our relationship with our cars as another device that we have even though it's not in our pockets is changing.

- Well and the sponsors were particularly concerned about the younger people who are driving who have grown up, actually have been attached to their phone since they came out of the womb and those are the people that are trying to really get the changed behavior.

Lots of luck!

- Well, you said it.

The points will be the teeth in this and the seatbelt is a good analogy.

- I'm not even sure that'll get their attention.

- Wait till their car insurance rates go up.

That will.

- [Tim] You think so?

- Yeah and they'll get a ticket and then they'll get a wake up call with that ticket.

- All right, we'll see.

June 30th, circle that date.

(laughing) - Seriously, I think a lot of people will need to change their ways.

- All right, let's talk about a potential new political party coming into our state called the Common Sense Party.

Let's take a look.

- [Announcer] Over the years in this state, political parties with no ties to the democrats and republicans have had a tough time winning elections.

Usually, those parties siphon off only about two to three percent of all the votes in the state.

Will that happen to the guy who's backing this new movement?

- Is Mr. Timmer headed for the same conclusion?

- Well, it might be more depending, again, how much money is put into the effort and how much advertising they're able to do and of course, who their candidates are.

- [Announcer] Mr. Timmer is a maverick and former moderate republican who can not stand Donald Trump and Mr. Timmer is the driving force behind the Common Sense Party movement.

Later this month, he'll appear before the state board of canvassers asking for the board to sign off on his statewide petition drive.

Then, if he gathers a valid 45,000 signatures, his new party can field candidates for any office in the state.

Generally, however, third party candidates don't win elections.

But, in the case of Ross Perot and consumer advocate, Ralph Nader, they can siphon off the votes from the guy who should've won.

Just ask George Bush and Al Gore about that.

They lost due to the chunk of votes that Mr. Perot and Mr. Nader got in the presidential race.

6 News pollster, Bernie Porn, says it is too early to tell in our state if the Common Sense party will hurt more of the Ds than the Rs or vice versa.

- It could be a problem and I would probably say, we need to do some polling at this.

- Because it could end up hurting democrats.

- It could end up hurting democrats.

And the name, Common Sense Party, is intended to appeal to less educated voters, which could damage republicans more than it could damage democrats.

- [Announcer] Mr. Timmer, for his part, is out of the loop this week but he promises to talk more about his new party next week.

So, as they say, stay tuned.

- So, Simon, when you heard this story, what did you first think?

- I think that if there's going to be a moment for this sort of movement, a third party that's a conservative alternative to the Michigan Republican party, this is probably the opportunity for a couple of reasons.

One is that the Republicans are in the minority in the legislature.

So there's not the same sort of consequence.

If they managed to even receive a deflection from any member and two, the party itself has gone over and over hauling leadership and there's a lot of people dissatisfied with what the leadership is looking like now, especially people who consider themselves more traditionally conservative.

- So, is this designed to suck away the Republican vote?

- Well, I think it would have to or bring people who, ya know, otherwise might have been a clothespin vote for Donald Trump, but instead, ya know, drifted towards democrats, mainly suburban voters, it might give them an alternative that's fiscally sound or fiscally conservative but also socially liberal.

- I think where this will make or break the effort for a new party is where the money goes.

Certainly, big time, typically GOP donors have avoided giving to the current state party led by Kristina Karamo.

As Simon said, a lot of discontent there.

If Jeff Timmer and his organizers are able to convince some of those big donors that this is a better direction for the state to maybe go in a different direction, then the party faithful, the state GOP, where normally, that money is funneled, then perhaps there could be some movement.

I think Simon is right that it is a unique time in Michigan politics and perhaps there is a little bit more appetite for something like this.

Certainly, we've seen some opposition to Donald Trump before.

Now he's got a lot of legal issues that he didn't have before.

Maybe this is the time.

- Here's who helped him the most.

Donald Trump with his town hall on CNN.

If you're a never-Trumper, you're even more a never-Trumper.

If you're an only Trumper, you're even more an only Trumper.

But I think there are enough republicans I've talked with who say it's time to move on from Donald Trump and all of the things he said in that town hall.

Donald Trump is still Donald Trump.

He's still an election denier.

He's still all of the legal issues.

Ya know, he called his civil suit where he lost five million dollars, "I've never known the woman."

It's a disgrace.

The judge in New York who handled that case was appointed by the democrats.

- Yeah but has this Common Sense party become the vehicle for those people that don't like Donald Trump to say what they wanna do?

- I think they're looking for an outlet, aren't they?

So, this could be it.

- [Tim] You think so?

- I think that this is sort of gonna be the time of test.

For Karamo's republican party, there's been a lot of firm republicans I've talked to, longstanding republicans, a sort of wait and see approach.

If she can coalesce money, if she can bring enough of a financial base to actually maintain the operations of the party towards some sort of viable presence in 2024, then there might be some, ya know, clothespin people who can come in and say, ya know, we'll stick with this, and ride out the tough times.

But I think, on the other hand, Jeff Timmer is also someone who's consulted with Dane Aneso's campaign.

He sort of moved towards a moderate direction that some traditional conservatives might find unsavory.

So, it's really gonna depend on what we see in the checkbook.

- Your point about money is so critical and who's gonna run on that ticket, okay?

If you're really interested in running for office, aren't you saying, "Ya know what, "I may not like the democrats, "I may not like the re-- "but that's the way to go if I wanna win?"

Yes?

- I mean, I think where it could be really crucial is the US Senate seat where we haven't seen a major republican name get in.

- Correct.

- If an alternative were to appear to maybe present a challenge to Elissa Slotkin, who has so far cleared the field of major opponents, I think that that would be a pretty big test.

The other thing too is, ya know, it's starting a whole separate party is one thing.

But yes, getting the candidates, getting people aware.

It would be a huge lift to actually be successful.

We haven't really seen that happen, as you pointed out in your piece.

The only times that third parties have really made a difference is to topple the front runner.

So, I think that would be, there's a lot of history and a lot of considerations behind this but it is a really unique time in history.

So, I guess who knows?

- So, if Kendall Meyer can't get the republican nomination for the US Senate, does he run as a Common Sense Party candidate?

- Absolutely.

- I think that there's - a lot of viability there because, I mean, the long-term challenge for the past few years for republicans is being able to survive a competitive primary while maintaining a platform that maintains statewide electability.

So, this might offer an off-ramp for that, a clear shot that otherwise might not exist.

- What's the timing of this and will the republicans hold a presidential primary in Michigan next year?

- [Tim] No, it'll be a closed caucus.

- Right, right.

So, what's the timing of this?

- The timing is to have somebody on the 2024 ballot.

They can get the four, they'll get the 45,000 signatures, don't ya think?

- That's a low threshold.

- Yeah, that's very low.

It's one percent of the gubernatorial votes.

- Exactly.

- So that's the easy part.

Then putting Humpty Dumpty together again is quite another story.

All right, quickly, on the Lifer Program, they wanna change the Lifer law for kids that got no parole but this is a complicated story.

- How do you look somebody in the eye who lost a loved one, killed by a teen, who's been sentenced to life without parole and say to them, "We're gonna let this guy out in 10 years "or in 25 years."

But your loved one is gone forever.

You're saying that to four families in Oxford where the school shooting is.

- [Tim] Does that change the dynamics on the bill?

- I think, if you're a politician, again, how do you look at those family members in the face and say, we're gonna let Ethan Crumbley, the Oxford school shooter who's pleaded guilty.

There's no ambiguity there.

They had him on video anyway.

We're gonna let him out.

Now, the Oakland County prosecutor is pushing for life without parole and that's still gotta go through the legal process.

There's a Miller hearing in that case in July.

Sentencing won't happen until possibly the end of this year.

And there's a strong argument that he should get life without parole even though he was 15 at the time.

But that's a tough sell for politicians to look those families in the eye.

- I think this is a really interesting issue because by and large, in the last several years, criminal justice reform has been pretty bipartisan.

It's enjoyed a lot of support from republicans who are interested in second chances to criminal justice advocates who want more opportunities for people with prior convictions.

We saw expungement as a huge example of that recently.

But this, this could be the limit for a lot of people.

We've already seen Republicans come out against it's sighting, the Oxford case, and I think that this could be a real test of that bipartisan coalition.

- It's a high profile case that shocks the conscience and in a lot of ways, it makes it the perfect counter-example for this.

And as Lauren said, ya know, we've seen prosecutors who have, with discretion, ya know, wielded a heavy hand for a long time and so, advocates for criminal justice reform say ya know, maybe we can systemically have people restrain themselves a little bit.

But, I think when you have a perfect counter-example like this, it makes that sell a lot harder.

- All right, it's pending.

We'll see how it turns out.

Let's call in our guest to talk about the environment and the issue is basically this.

Welcome to the program, Christy.

- Thanks!

- As you look at the performance of the democrats so far in office, what kind of grades would you give them on the environmental agenda?

Let's start with polluter pay and work backwards.

- Sure.

I would give them a fantastic grade for their Pasco sponsorship.

For years, they've campaigned on amazing platforms.

Tyrone Carter and speaker, Joe Tate, are co-sponsors of a fantastic eight bill package that was introduced and discussed multiple times during 2021.

They have a great record of talking about how they are gonna do wonderful things once they get the majority.

The Senate already has fantastic bills in the works.

We're excited to be working with them.

And Governor Whitmer is the real champion.

Ya know, she's done unprecedented things on the environment and she's shown us all how we can stare down the dark money from the largest fossil fuel company in the world and win.

So, ya know, I think we're gonna get there.

We had some problems this week but we're gonna get past them and we're looking forward to providing the support that we know our champs need to get it done.

- Well, wouldn't you rather have them be debating polluter pay rather than the aggregate debate that's going on and the fact that they are dealing with that first and news second, doesn't that give you some concern?

- Yeah, it does!

Ya know, I think it's a conflict within the caucus right now and the conflict is between the voters and the voters that got them there and the corporate interest that spread money all around Lansing.

It's our job to push and help them prioritize their own campaign platforms and we're gonna do that.

- [Tim] Simon?

- What do you see, necessarily, as where you stand in this line up?

Do you think that the democratic caucus has maintained its commitment to fight this issue?

- I think they haven't properly taken up any of our issues yet.

I think that what we saw over the past two weeks was the wrong prioritization and it's our job to act as a watch dog group.

Ya know, I'm not a Lansing insider.

I work for the 150,000 members that we have here in Michigan and taking up a bad set of bills that would increase air and water pollution before touching any of our other issues substantively, that was the wrong move.

So, we had to push back quickly.

We did and I know that in coming weeks, we are gonna see more discussion on the issues that voters really care about.

- And ya know, as lawmakers start to get into some of the issues that your group has prioritized, are you concerned at all by the slim majorities in both houses?

Do you see any issues with getting, with getting the democrats all aligned on some of these things when there may not be a solid republican support?

- Ya know, our issues are actually wildly bipartisan.

I have some information to share on Off The Record, which I'm excited to.

There is gonna be a poll that will be public later this week.

It's the Lake Effect poll that Progress Michigan has been releasing once a month for the past two years and they asked a question on polluter pay this time around.

And their question was, do you support or oppose, to voters in Michigan, holding polluting corporations accountable for the cost of cleaning up their pollution instead of putting it onto taxpayers?

And ya know, the numbers were off the charts.

They actually gave me pause.

It was 93 percent.

This poll was done May 8th through 9th.

901 voters in Michigan.

It's been a regular poll that Progress Michigan does.

I think that there should be no fear among legislators for how voters are gonna respond to taking on these issues.

I think the issue is gonna be the corporate interest in Lansing that have been spreading money around both parties for a really long time.

But, legislators are gonna be overwhelmed with support in district when voters hear about the work that they're doing to protect public health.

And the rest of the issues poll really high too.

Great Lakes Protections, it's consistently 70 percent, 80 percent.

We work on popular issues.

It's one of those things that is truly bipartisan.

- Do I understand you're in a Detroit office right now talking about this?

- [Christy] Yes!

- Okay.

I'm on the eastside of metro Detroit.

I'm in Macomb County.

And a big issue over there is Lake St. Clair and the continuing pollution of Lake St. Clair with the combined sewer overflows.

I talk with Candace Miller often who's the Macomb County Public Works Director.

That is a systemic problem that has been going on for decades and it's gonna require a lot of money to get rid of those combined sewers.

For people who don't know, that means your sanitary sewer, when you flush your toilet, is combined with the storm sewer, the sewers on the street, and they're somewhat treated but then, that water goes into Lake St. Clair and those of us who boat out there and swim out there in the summer are in all of that you know what.

And I could show ya some nasty pictures.

Is there a long-term fix for that?

And doesn't that require a lot of money?

- Yes and yes.

So, I used to live in Mount Clemens.

Right now, I live right on the border of Harper Woods and Gross Point Woods.

I'm in Detroit.

- You know well, yeah.

- I know it well.

Ya know, I've blossomed Heath Beach.

I'm aware of the issues.

I've tracked the sewage overflow damage for decades and yeah, it is a huge problem.

The solution is that we have to continuously invest in our drinking and waste water infrastructure and prioritize it.

And we are on the right path.

Candace Miller's doing a good job.

She needs more resources.

Our drinking and wastewater systems were built out with massive federal investment starting in the 1950s and 1960s.

Michigan did not build out the amazing infrastructure that we have strictly on the backs of rate pairs.

So, we've built this massive system that has huge amounts of federal investment and we haven't kept pace with the amount of investment that we need in order to keep it going.

So, it is gonna require a long-term prioritization.

We've seen the start of it with the way that ARPA, EGA, and IRA dollars are gonna be spent on fixing our infrastructure.

But you're absolutely right.

It is a long-term investment issue and it is one that voters will prioritize.

So, voters have approved bonds, statewide bonds to keep improving these.

Ya know, we're, when you take this to voters and we ask voters, do we wanna be able to swim in Lake St. Clair?

Do we wanna be able to go to the beach and not worry about sewage overflows?

Do we wanna make sure that we all collectively pitch in to do this so that we can enjoy our Great Lakes without worrying about it?

People say yes!

So, I think the issue is making sure that we keep falling back on those Michiganders that we know you can trust and asking them to help collectively pitch in to pay for what we know we need to do.

- Can you give us hope?

Is there a year when we can say this'll be fixed by 2030?

- Ya know, I think it was Governor Snyder's infrastructure report said that it's gonna take about a billion dollars a year for at least 20 years in order to address all of our infrastructure problems.

So, we have some more work to do.

But I think that we can get there and we have a great start with the recent prioritization from the state legislature and the governor in addressing wastewater infrastructure.

- All right, let's talk about practical politics.

You mentioned earlier, you can not outspend the corporate interest in giving money to candidates.

Fair statement?

- Absolutely fair statement.

- All right, so the only leverage that you have is to go to lawmaker, my word, not yours, and threaten them.

If you don't give us a vote, our voters, 93 percent, are gonna come after you.

Are you ready to play that kinda hardball with lawmakers?

- Ya know, I am so flattered and charmed that you're giving me that much credit.

I think that that hardball's gonna be played whether or not I'm leading it because voters in Michigan are smart and Gretchen Whitmer knew this when she took on the largest fossil fuel transport company in the world and ordered the shut down of line five.

That fight is going to happen regardless of whether or not Sierra Club is leading it.

Voters want Great Lakes protections.

They turned out to the polls because they know we're in a climate crisis.

Voters want to know that when there's a storm, their power's not gonna go out.

Voters don't wanna foot the bill for corporations that saddle us with contaminated drinking water and dirty soil.

So, this is gonna be a fight that is gonna happen no matter what.

Our job is to provide the massive amounts of public support upfront so that we don't go too far down a path of listening to corporate donors in Lansing and we deliver to voters.

- I've heard you speak a lot about, ya know, overcoming special interest influence in this interview and when we look to like some of the most influential players in Lansing, say the electric utilities, for example, we just endured a days long shut down, ya know, during these ice storms.

From the action you've seen in the legislature, do you believe that the legislature is interested in overriding some of this influence and actually moving on an agenda that's pro environment?

- I absolutely think that they want to.

Ya know, we've heard amazing public statements from almost everyone in office right now on how invested they are in holding utilities accountable.

But that's gonna be a really hard fight because it is difficult to take on corporate giving in Lansing.

But look, the folks in the state legislature, they did not create this broken problem.

This has been 42 years coming.

So, they have the opportunity right now to do the right thing, but it's naive to think that it's easy.

It's not easy.

It is gonna take all of them working together and it is gonna take a big campaign to make sure that voters know about the hard work that they're doing.

I know that they can do it.

Again, we've seen amazing leadership from Governor Whitmer on taking on dark money and still winning.

Ya know, she showed the entire country.

That was a clarion call to democrats across the country that we can do truly amazing things in taking on the oil and gas industry and still win.

So, we're gonna have to do that again with DTE but we have a great executive at the helm who's showed everyone that it's possible.

- What did you make of the Senate democrats energy package recently released?

Is it enough, from your perspective, to get Michigan on a path towards cleaner energy?

- The Senate democrats are doing great work.

Look, we're advocates.

We're always gonna be pushing.

There's gonna be negotiations and so, we're gonna wanna go farther faster and then, that's the way that we get the best out of the package that the governor eventually signs.

It is a great first step.

We're really looking forward to seeing that movement in the House.

And you know, Governor Whitmer was on a national podcast just recently saying that climate is up next.

And I believe her.

So, I'm really excited to dig in and support what the Senate democrats are doing and get that kinda momentum in the House.

- By the same token, however, it is crickets from the executive office on this aggregate bill.

She has said absolutely nothing about it and you must be concerned.

Why isn't she leading the charge?

- You know, because she doesn't need to, right?

- [Tim] She's the governor of the state!

- Ya know, this bill has been defeated multiple times with bipartisan opposition under republican trifectas.

This isn't even worthy of her attention.

This is already going down in flames.

It is a terrible bill.

It will raise pollution rates.

Water, air.

Local government is against it.

It's not going anywhere.

It's not deserving of her attention.

- Then all she has to say is if you send it to my desk, I'll veto it.

The debate's over.

- Ya know, I'm really excited that she's spending her time making public statements about how she wants to see movement on clean energy.

That's what she should be doing.

- We got a quick time.

One more?

- No, I'm, I think she's got it.

- What, how many political donations does the Sierra Club make?

Does it, do you dole out money?

- Oh yeah.

Yeah, we do give to our candidates.

Ya know, our political spending is pretty modest.

The real time and effort that we put our energy into is our political internship program.

We work with young people and recruit them.

We give them the support they need to get the training to work on a campaign and then we embed them in campaigns with pro environment lawmakers to (audio inaudible).

- All right so if I heard you correctly, you're declaring that this aggregate bill is dead.

- It is dead.

It is not going anywhere.

- [Tim] What if we hang onto this tape and it's not true?

- Then I'm really looking forward to coming back on the show and hashing that out.

(laughing) - Thank you very much.

Good seeing you, you have a nice weekend.

Thanks to our panel.

Nice to have you guys onboard.

- Thank you.

- More Off The Record right here next week.

- [Announcer] Production of Off The Record is made possible in part by Martin Waymire, a full service strategic communications agency, partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing, and public policy engagement.

Learn more at MartinWaymire.com.

For more Off The Record, visit wkar.org.

Michigan public television stations have contributed to the production costs of Off The Record.

(upbeat music)