There's nowhere to go but up for Michigan legislative, judicial and executive branches, according to a public interest group study evaluating state governments in terms of openness and safeguards against conflicts of interest.
We're at the bottom of a 50-state list from the Center for Public Integrity, a 26-year-old nonpartisan, nonprofit group in Washington, D.C.
Michigan fails in campaign finance, lobbying disclosure, ethics enforcement, procurement, pension fund management, civil service management, access to information and accountability by all three government branches, according to grades issued Monday.
"The shadowy aspects of Michigan’s money-driven politics serve as a key reason why the state ranks last," Metro Detroit journalist Chad Selweski writes at the center's website. "Michigan received an F in 10 of the 13 categories of government operations that were examined."
A significant factor in Michigan’s 2015 ranking is its lack of effective disclosure rules for officials in nearly all facets of state government. Conflicts of interest and potential public corruption remain buried in an honor system with no honor.
Thanks to loopholes created by the legislature, big spenders representing special interests can dramatically influence an election without leaving a trace. . . . Campaign cash also taints the judicial system. . . .
The state doesn’t require officials to disclose their financial holdings and outside income.
Michigan gets two B grades (electoral oversight and budget processes) and a C for internal audits.
The national center focuses on legal loopholes, hidden information and openings for mischief, not on claims of actual wrongdoing.
The State Integrity Investigation used extensive research to grade the states based on the laws and systems they have in place to deter corruption.
The center, a tough grader, doesn't give any state an A or B. The top three finishers, each with a C, are Alaska, California and Connecticut. "Maybe you should grade on a curve," reader Nannette Haughney of Holland, Pa., suggests in a site comment.
Here's more of what Selweski, a former Macomb Daily politics columnist who now contributes occasionally to Deadline, writes in the study's Michigan portion:
The secretary of state, Michigan’s top election official, operates as a record-keeping agency, not an enforcement unit. It enjoys no subpoena powers and generally does not initiate investigations.
Former Michigan Democratic Party chairman Mark Brewer recently concluded that Michigan’s political system is “the Wild West … with no sheriff in town.” . . .
The cozy relationships between well-heeled lobbyists and pliable lawmakers also remain largely in the dark. Under the weak disclosure rules, lawmakers can accept nominal gifts. But it is the duty of the lobbyist, not the lawmaker, to report these gifts. In addition, state law requires those in the lobbying business to report their activities in such a vague format that the public cannot determine who is influencing whom. . . .
Robert LaBrant, a veteran business lobbyist, concedes that the disclosure reports essentially “have no meaning.”
Monday's study is the second of its type from the Center for Public Integrity. In 2012, Michigan also got an F grade, though the state ranked 44th then. "The two scores are not directly comparable, however, due to changes made to improve and update the project and its methodology," Selweski notes.
In a comment under his report, reader Ed O'Brien of Holly, Mich., posts:
This will never change until the Republicans are voted out. They control all branches of Michigan government and this is how they keep control.
