Michiganders for Money Out Of Politics ballot drive clears signature hurdle 29%

By Michigan Advance37%

7/27/2026, 7:34:24 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Anchoring Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.4% saturation with 109 hits. Analysis detected 738 faulty-reasoning hits from 664 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.5% and a BS Rank of 29% (18,215 of 25,331 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.90% of the article peer group.

Valid signatures for the Michiganders for Money Out Of Politics ballot petition were determined to be sufficient on Friday after a close call by the Board of State Canvassers. 
However, the board must still determine if the wording of the proposed petition meets legal standards. 
It was still a key victory for the ballot initiative , which faced a steep initial challenge from an opposition group, Protect MI Free Speech, which effectively reduced Michiganders for Money Out Of Politics’ signature cushion to a little more than 20 signatures. 
That was significant because organizers for Michiganders for Money Out Of Politics turned in more than 562,000 signatures to the Bureau of Elections in May, well over the 356,958 valid signature threshold  8% of the votes cast for governor in 2022  needed to qualify for the November ballot. 
A staff report released late last week said that despite being pared down, the Michigan Bureau of Elections determined that the petition narrowly cleared the signature threshold, with 657 valid signatures found in a 1,000-signature sample after review and a challenge. 
A second challenge was lodged to the canvassers ahead of Friday’s meeting to determine the sufficiency of Michiganders for Money Out Of Politics’ signatures by Protect MI Free Speech. 
Yet after a morning full of opening arguments from either side, and a line-by-line examination of signatures the opposition said were still faulty, the canvassers ultimately voted 3-1 to approve the signature threshold. 
Republican Paul Cordes was the lone no vote. 
Michiganders for Money Out of Politics, which aims to ban utility companies and government contractors from making campaign contributions. 
The initiative would create a new state law saying as much. 
Christy McGillivray, co-chair for the Michiganders for Money Out of Politics Steering Committee, released a statement following the vote. 
“Today’s vote is a momentous victory for Michiganders who are fed up with what has become the norm  corrupt, pay-to-play politics. 
After nearly a year of tireless organizing by volunteers and supporters, voters are one major step closer to making their voices heard at the ballot box to rein in out-of-control corrupt spending by big corporations and state-regulated utilities. 
Today is proof that a people-powered movement can stand up to some of the most powerful special interests in Michigan,” McGillivray said. 
“Now we must continue to mobilize across the state because our opposition, backed by billion-dollar corporations, is going to do anything they can to stop us from holding them accountable and changing the way our politics work in Lansing.” 
Protect MI Free Speech spokesperson John Sellek said Friday’s lengthy meeting “exposed the sloppy and uncertain petition effort.” 
“The BSC certification took place despite only nine petition signatures being the difference between certification or rejection  less than 1% more than the required amount. 
The microscopic margin is made even more concerning by the fact that the state’s sampling margin of error would cause MMOP to be BELOW the minimum number of validated signatures, yet was ignored,” Selleck said. 
“This process proved that MMOP is sloppy at best and deceptive at worst.” 
If the board ends up approving the petition language, the canvassers-approved initiative would then head to the Michigan Legislature, which would then have 40 days to either accept the proposal language as written  in effect approving the new law  or reject it by voting it down. 
If the Legislature were to reject the measure or allow it to sit past 40 days, the language would automatically go to the next general election ballot for a statewide vote. 
Michigan voters, in that case, would decide whether the state’s regulated utilities like Consumers Energy Company and DTE Energy Company can continue to make campaign contributions. 
Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. 
Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. 
Contact Editor Jon King for questions: info@michiganadvance.com . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.2%Michigan Advance: 2.6%Planet Detroit: 1.5%Confirmation Bias10.2%This article: 11.4%Michigan Advance: 2.9%Planet Detroit: 0.6%Anchoring Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 1.0%Planet Detroit: 1.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.2%Michigan Advance: 1.5%Planet Detroit: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic6.2%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Michigan Advance: 3.4%Planet Detroit: 2.4%Framing Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.9%Michigan Advance: 1.0%Planet Detroit: 0.2%Status Quo Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.2%Michigan Advance: 3.0%Planet Detroit: 3.0%Optimism Bias12.2%This article: 7.8%Michigan Advance: 2.0%Planet Detroit: 1.0%Pessimism Bias7.8%This article: 16.4%Michigan Advance: 7.6%Planet Detroit: 3.5%Negativity Bias16.4%This article: 3.3%Michigan Advance: 0.8%Planet Detroit: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Michigan Advance: 7.5%Planet Detroit: 1.2%In-Group Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 1.5%Planet Detroit: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Michigan Advance: 0.8%Planet Detroit: 0.6%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.7%Planet Detroit: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Michigan Advance: 1.1%Planet Detroit: 0.5%Recency Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 1.7%Planet Detroit: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 5.9%Michigan Advance: 1.5%Planet Detroit: 0.2%Straw Man5.9%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 1.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 2.0%Michigan Advance: 1.0%Planet Detroit: 0.6%False Dilemma2.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 1.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.0%Michigan Advance: 14.9%Planet Detroit: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion6.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.3%Michigan Advance: 1.3%Planet Detroit: 0.2%Burden of Proof5.3%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.3%Michigan Advance: 1.3%Planet Detroit: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.3%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 1.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.8%Planet Detroit: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michigan Advance: 0.0%Planet Detroit: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

664 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers32%attributed speech451writer words
Selected voice

John Sellek

100%flagged-word coverage
92 attributed words43% of attributed speech52% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.