Welcome to Politically Speaking.

I'm Elizabeth Bennion and chancellor's professor of political science and director of the American Democracy Project and Community Engagement at Indiana University, South Bend.

One year ago, voters in Michigan overwhelmingly passed proposal one, demanding stronger transparency and ethics laws in the state of Michigan.

Two Michigan State legislators have joined us to discuss current efforts to expand transparency.

They are District seven Senator Jeremy Moss and District 38 State Senator Ed McBroom.

Senator McBroom, I want to start with you.

Can you give us some background on the passage of Proposal one in 2022?

Sure.

Yeah.

Thank you for having me on.

And your interest in this subject.

Michigan term limits have been the shortest in the country, and after many states changed them in the mid-nineties and adopted similar to what Michigan has, they've all moved on and changed, recognizing they weren't doing everything people had hoped.

Michigan was struggling with that and a group of people came together and said, you know, we need both term limits reforms, but we also need institutional reforms for ethics.

And so our proposal was born from those two ideas and went together and the legislature adopted it, put it out for the voters to decide on.

And as you mentioned in your lead, it passed with very strong support across the state.

Now, how does the legislation that you and Senator Morse co-sponsored sort of address that need for transparency?

Well, the parts in Proposal one were very much focused on disclosure and letting people know what potential conflicts we have based on our sources of income and various activities or organizations that we're part of.

And I think that, you know, giving people the reassurance that we are upfront with our sources of income, particularly those who have various government functions and are tied to whether it's a lobbying organization or a very large company that's getting a contract with the state.

These were all things that members were supposed to recognize and possibly abstain or at least confirm with their leadership that they had.

But we discovered over the years members weren't always as upfront with it as they ought to have been.

And so these laws are going to force everyone to disclose those things long before the conflict might even be apparent.

And that way, when the conflict does happen, others, including the press and the public in general, can see those things and call somebody out and say, We think that this is too much of a conflict for you and that you should back off of that.

It's still up to the members ultimately to decide and for the legislature to decide ultimately whether they do or don't.

But at least now they can be questioned on that very transparently.

Senator Moss, Michigan has been ranked low in terms of government accountability and integrity in the past.

Do you think that this legislation will change that?

Will people disclose and perhaps avoid some of those conflicts of interest?

How hopeful are you?

I'm very, very hopeful.

There is a poll or a statewide and a nationwide study of 50 states in our country and where they ranked on ethics and accountability.

It was from the Center for Public Integrity, and they measured 13 functions of state government.

And Michigan specifically failed ten of those categories, specifically on financial disclosure, which are disclosing potential conflicts of interests.

48 other states have a law that requires lawmakers to make that disclosure so that when they vote on something or introduce a proposal, there are watchdogs that can better understand are they personally benefiting from it?

Only Michigan and Idaho did not have this law.

Now, Senator McBroom and I have long championed more disclosure, more transparency from the legislature.

But the legislature wasn't able to get it up and moving.

So as a result of this proposal, it compelled the legislature to put forward a financial disclosure form into law.

And the and the implementation around it by the end of this year.

So here we are in November.

We have now passed this out of both chambers.

It hits the governor's desk very soon and starting next year, this will be a requirement.

And not only will there be financial penalties for not complying and filing that form, but if somebody elect it to the legislature and they haven't filed that form, they won't even be able to be seated in the legislature.

So we are instituting real penalties for compliance, all to benefit the Michigan taxpayer so that they know when their lawmaker is acting on their behalf, it's on their behalf and not the lawmaker's own personal financial interests.

This is one of those missing pieces that Michigan lags, other states do, and now we're catching up.

Senator McBroom One of the things I noticed about the legislation that was passed in that final day of voting this year is that, well, it does require that annual financial disclosure form from the members.

It doesn't include certain kinds of perks like travel and gifts and perhaps spouses assets.

Do you think that those may be added in the future?

Should they?

Shouldn't they?

And why weren't they included already?

Sure.

As far as the spouse issue goes, we have increased several of the reporting requirements in the final version of the bill, particularly if a spouse is connected with government interests, contracts or direct employment.

And I think that was important.

However, you know, listing a wife's or husband, the spouse's assets and such to me was always a little bit of a people people over blew.

How much that would help with the situation because ultimately if a member is transferring assets or materials to a spouse in order to hide them so they don't have to disclose that, which is why people want these things reported.

And now we reported the spouse.

Well, if that member was already willing to do that, now they're going to find somebody else.

They can transfer that to a child, an ex spouse, a different loved one, somebody at their country club, whatever it is.

So I felt like we were kind of chasing after the boogeyman here ultimately.

And so I don't know that that needs to go further than we've done as far as the disclosure of trips and gifts.

I think we definitely need to get that done, whether the gifts are from a lobbyist or from a non lobbyist, how they're done through different accounts, some which are types of accounts that I have that are currently legal but don't require disclosure.

I think we need to change those things.

But the this wasn't in my opinion and I know Senator Moss, too, not the place to do this because.

Well, it is disclosure in a sense.

It's campaign finance.

And these bills weren't campaign finance.

And so Senator Moss and I and many others both fully intend to continue to move forward with this kind of good legislation and the next year to disclose those things and to bring more transparency to that part of the process as well.

Sounds like the main issue that voters had proposed in terms of those financial disclosures every year, though, is something that you got accomplished.

So do I.

Go ahead.

No, I think you're right that I agree.

Senator Moss, I'm wondering what inspired you to take a role in promoting transparency in state government?

As I understand that both of you really have been working on this issue for quite some time, even though the legislation was just passed this year.

Yeah.

So my background is I'm a student out of Michigan State University where I earned a journalism degree.

So when I graduated and kind of entered into the political arena, I still really value the role of watchdogs on government.

And so we are alone in the nation, nearly alone in the nation on our lack of of integrity laws and ethics laws and watchdog laws for journalists to use.

It's not just financial disclosure.

We are one of two states where FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, doesn't apply to the legislature.

And when I was a student at Michigan State University, you know, back then, you really learned you understood that FOIA is the journalist's lifeblood to get answers out of government institutions, out of government actors, and better understand how government decisions are made.

And so when we shield you from that information, when when we allow lawmakers to introduce legislation in the dark without an understanding of how they may personally benefit from it, it breeds distrust in government.

And so I think it's that background that I took with me when I entered into the legislature.

I really wanted to change the institution.

I think people really should have a better understanding on how we operate.

And there are there are many of us who are there for earnest and honest reasons.

We care about our constituents.

We may approach different topics differently, but we're there for the right reasons at our heart.

But the bad apples get the attention.

And if we have more laws to disclose what the bad apples are doing, I think that it really will highlight the intention and integrity of those of us who serve for the earnest reason of helping out our constituents back home.

So these are big topics, big issues.

And Senator McBroom and I have just found an affinity for them changing the institutions for the better so that really the health of our democracy in the state of Michigan can thrive.

And Senator McBroom, I should note that you're a Republican, Senator Moss is a Democrat, and yet you're working on these issues together.

Why was working on these kind of issues important to you?

Well, I think Jeremy quipped one of the lines I often say at our events, and that's leaving the legislature better than I found it.

And, you know, Jeremy is exactly right.

There's so many of our colleagues are there for the right reasons, are good, honest people trying to make their way and make the state a better place.

But a lot of our colleagues do come in with, you know, a certain focus on some particular issue, whether it's education or business, agriculture, natural resources, etc.. And it's not a lot of people come in focused on how am I gonna make the legislature work better.

And for me, I was just very confronted right away with how there's a number of things that are not working well and how ultimately those failures of process and minority right protections and by minority in the legislature, minority parties, all those failures to follow our process, to follow even our constitutional provisions specifically are ultimately leading to bad policy decisions being made.

And people kind of ignore that because eventually they get what they're trying to do in their policy sort of done.

But it's really not the legislative mature process that other states are using.

Michigan, I think, is one of the most dysfunctional legislative states in the country, and I'm brokenhearted about that.

And I'm passionate about seeing a change.

And we only need to make a few minor changes to really put us back on the tracks.

But they're so esoteric, they're so nuanced that they're not very attention grabbing for the public.

And a lot of my colleagues are too busy with other things to care a lot about them.

And so I kind of find my spot here, but I'm often kind of a voice in the wilderness.

And Senator Moss and I are kindred spirit on a lot of these issues.

And so we kind of naturally came together on it.

It is interesting.

The policy is so incredibly critical and important and ultimately impacts or the process impacts policy, but people focus on policy, both constituents and media.

So it's good to have people who are working on process, although many people may not pay attention to process all the time and issues like transparency or procedural issues of how things get done.

The two of you have done this, but not without opposition.

Even the transparency legislation that you promoted faced some opposition.

And I wonder if you could talk a little bit about that.

Does the opposition break down along party lines, generational lines or incumbency or seniority, rather, or something else?

Yeah, you think about.

All of the above.

It it really does.

I mean, there's just folks who have different perspectives, different ideas, different They're not concerned about this or they haven't thought about it.

It's or it's a problem for them or they or it's partizan driven for some.

There's all of the above, all of these issues.

Senator Moss might have a different perspective, but I think you answered your own question.

All of the above.

And I'll answer this.

You know, it's it's a balancing act.

So we've obviously been leading in this space on financial disclosure.

We've been leading on this space on open records, disclosure from within the legislature.

And we are balancing folks on in both of our caucuses, Democratic caucus and Republican caucus, who say on one end this goes way too far.

And then two folks on the other end to say this doesn't go far enough.

And so you're never going to be able to please everybody.

You know, and we and we've faced criticism in this financial disclosure process from both ends.

And for the people who say this doesn't go far enough, we are moving the ball down the field.

We are opening the door for more conversations around ethics and transparency and accountability that just quite simply have not happened in the legislature.

Well, they've happened in the legislature, but movement hasn't happened as a result because of it.

So, you know, I think Senator McBroom and I have just been very optimistic about our efforts rather than pessimistic, recognizing what more it can lead to rather than what we're leaving out.

So a lot of the the criticism has been what the bill doesn't include, but I really want to champion what the bill does include and what it is going to achieve.

A lawmaker will be reporting where their income came from, what their assets are, that are held for investments or for income, what their liabilities are from the previous year.

And you'll be able to understand what that is.

And did it impact their policymaking?

That's a huge step forward.

And so for those who don't believe it went far enough, I think we need to kind of widen the lens of where we are now with no system in place and how much it will benefit the residents of Michigan with this system in place.

And I think there's two other delicate balances here, because we have a lot of folks who look and say, well, why is some of this even necessary?

We didn't have to do this in the past.

And I think, you know, term limits and cultural change are reasonable explanations for why that's true.

But we also have people who only want to make some of these changes or more.

We're asking for more so they can make political points and political statements.

And the changes they're asking to be added to these wouldn't actually accomplish what they say they would accomplish, but it would give them a bigger flag to carry home and say that they won something which is ultimately nothing.

And Senator Moss and I are focused on policy that actually yields a tangible result in getting to the goal of a more transparent legislature and a more ethical legislature.

And we don't want to be waylaid by just coming home to all of the folks and saying, we did this great big thing that ultimately is just smoke and mirrors where we're looking for real policy change.

Can you give an example of something that people have said?

Well, I don't support this legislation because it doesn't go far enough.

It needs to have this other thing, but you really don't see that change as being substantive.

Well, I mentioned the spousal reporting earlier, you know, and to believe that somehow or other, if the spouse reports all of her assets, because then we catch if I shifted my assets over and it's like, well, if I'm really trying to hide them so much that I would shift them over to my wife and now she has to report, well, find somebody else to shift them over to.

How do you chase that down?

And I think another good example is people who wanted us to report actual dollar amount assets and, you know, so and I've got to figure out, well, how much is my car worth and is it this worth?

Is it based on the blue book?

Is it based on what I could get on the side of the street?

And is my car is it worth it here in the U.P.

or is it the worst down in southeast Michigan?

And then how much money do we each make dollar on, you know, to the penny?

And it's like none of this matters.

I mean, we're not here to measure wealth there.

There's some people in the legislature who are very wealthy.

There are some who are very poor.

I mean, that might be hard for people to believe, but there's this huge spectrum across that that's not what we're after here.

Disclosure doesn't involve those things.

And then as far as many of the other things that are left out, as I mentioned earlier, Senator Moss, and I feel that those belong in campaign finance, not in this disclosure law.

We're not against disclosing them.

We just feel that there is a better mechanism for doing so.

Yeah, I would echo that.

We I there are folks who really wanted us to get into some of these other fundraising accounts that a lawmaker can or may not hold and what money was coming in there and what money was expended.

I'm all in support of that.

I'm all about that.

But that is its own separate, gargantuan task to figure out how to break open those fundraising accounts.

What our goal here was on the personal financial disclosure is what was our income?

Where were where were we earning our income?

Maybe aside from the legislature?

And how does that influence our policymaking?

What personal income, assets, liabilities do we personally hold that may influence policymaking, which was its own gargantuan task.

So, you know, I think some people were conflating you're in this space over here.

Why didn't you go in this space over here without recognizing how significant this space over here was?

And then we can continue.

And and one thing I have said throughout this process is this isn't an end.

This isn't you know, we wrap it up in a bow and we're so proud of ourselves.

And this is that we achieve transparency.

We're moving on to the next issue.

This is a start, a long overdue start that has been blocked for many, many years from being able to achieve.

And then we can move on to the next issue and the next issue.

I chair the Elections and Ethics Committee on which Senator McBroom serves.

He also serves on the Oversight Committee.

These are temporary three committees that are wrapping up their work.

We're in year one of a of a four year term here, and this work will continue throughout the rest of this legislative session.

I wonder for both of you, are there certain kinds of things or certain forms of transparency that you think are not necessary to protect the public interest, communications with constituents, certain advisory sessions?

Are there things that really should not be included in future transparency laws due to the Some of them are private nature of those conversations as you get broader transparency?

Well, Senator Moss has heard me say many times that, you know, if if most of the media and other curious folks could look at what our office is do every day, they'd be startled at how boring it is.

It's we take phone calls, people ask for help.

We get a help.

We make a phone call for them.

We write a letter for them.

I mean, it's it's pretty mundane daily work.

And I think within the bills that I've sponsored in the past and that are now, we've changed our approach a little bit.

And Senator Moss and I just rolled out our new approach to doing FOIA for the legislature and the governor.

We recognize there's a series of exemptions that are critical for both the governor's office and for the legislature.

Personal communications with constituents is probably the biggest one.

Senator Moss's ability to communicate with me personally on policy ideas that we have as we kind of spitball our various ideas.

And this is even more true in the governor's office when she says, Hey, we're going to have a huge budget shortfall.

I need every department to submit to me your ideas on what you can do to operate within this new framework and several departments and things like, Hey, let's close all the state parks, you know.

Well, that's just spitballing some ideas and yet a political foe could fire that and then say, Oh my goodness, look, they talked about closing state parks and blast that out and then hit the governor as if she really had suggested, let's close all the state parks and you can see how that could be used as a political football and be very unfairly placed in front of the public.

And so our bills try to keep those kind of internal work documents under you know, those don't need to be exposed until they actually become the real plan that's being discussed.

Now.

I would agree with Senator McBroom on that, and it's certainly that the inner workings of policy shouldn't be politically weaponized from one party to the next.

If I have a bill before a committee, you know, and I'm a Democrat and a Republican, and it kind of digs into my emails and my communications and says, well, this is what your draft said last week.

I mean, the outcome of the draft is the bill is the legislation that's being produced that that's what should hold up to public scrutiny.

And then on the constituent end, as Senator McBroom mentioned, you know, we are often the last stop where somebody who is really, really desperate for a solution where they turn to and we wouldn't want those people vulnerable to to being exposed for some of the dire straits that they're going through, whether it's a foreclosure, a utility shut off a tax issue.

We want to keep communication lines with constituents confidential so that they know that they can confidentially solve some of their personal issues without it being, you know, weaponized in some other political context.

Now, it's interesting.

We've been talking about things that shouldn't be subject to FOIA, but of course, the two of you recently introduced legislation, a couple of bills that would make the legislature and the governor subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

So why is that important?

And what kind of things do you think are important to be disclosed?

So, again, you know, it's we are one of two states that didn't have financial disclosure of lawmakers.

We're one of two states that doesn't both subject the governor and legislature to the Freedom of Information Act.

And there are communications between the governor and his or her staff that are important to bring to light.

There's communications between a lawmakers and a lobbyist that are important to bring to light.

There's also opening up our calendars, which is one of our we're very passionate about that so that you can check to see who we met with.

What were some of the outcomes of that, Maybe if it affected something policy wise.

And then Senator McBroom also, you know, brings up the case of of a of a constituent who may ask us to communicate to a department on their behalf and just wants to follow up to make sure that that communication happens at So we are we are we've created the framework for people to request documents of our of our offices that fulfill those goals to ensure there's good, good oversight over how we carry out our business.

Okay.

Well, we will be watching for what happens next, because it sounds like this is just the beginning of this journey toward greater transparency.

I want to thank both of you for being here and Michigan State Senators Jeremy Moss and Ed McBroom.

I'm Elizabeth Benyon, reminding you that it takes all of us to make democracy work.

We'll see you next time.

This WNIT local production has been made possible in part by viewers like you.

Thank you.