Fact-check: How much money did Haley Stevens get from DTE? 43%

By Kelly House48%

7/23/2026, 12:48:19 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 21.3% saturation with 158 hits. Analysis detected 964 faulty-reasoning hits from 741 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.3% and a BS Rank of 43% (12,681 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.90% of the article peer group.

US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is criticizing Democratic primary rival Haley Stevens over donations from DTE Energy 
Records show a DTE PAC contributed $45,000 to Stevens in the past but had not donated to her Senate campaign through June 
El-Sayed has made his rejection of corporate contributions a pillar of his campaign 
As progressive Abdul El-Sayed looks to distinguish himself in Michigan’s Democratic US Senate primary, he and his supporters have recently zeroed in on rival Haley Stevens’ financial ties to the state’s largest utility. 
“While Michiganders sat in the dark for days after DTE’s failures, Haley Stevens was busy cashing $45,000 in DTE checks,” states one of several recent anti-Stevens ads by the PAC Fighting for Michigan, a super PAC supporting El-Sayed. 
“She’ll talk tough on rate hikes, but the receipts tell the real story.” 
Bridge Michigan pulled those receipts as part of our series that fact-checks claims made in the Senate primary, where El-Sayed and Stevens are vying for the chance to face Republican Mike Rogers in the November general election. 
Here’s what to know: 
Michigan’s largest monopoly utility, DTE Energy, has been a target of frequent public ire, much of it stemming from high rates, frequent outages and the company’s support of tax breaks for energy-hungry data centers that stand to boost its profits. 
Critics have long criticized DTE’s aggressive political lobbying, arguing the utility maintains favorable treatment from lawmakers by funding their campaigns . 
DTE’s corporate political action committee spends hundreds of thousands of dollars annually on donations to state and federal candidates. 
A potential proposal targeting the November ballot aims to ban such spending by monopoly utilities or large government contractors in state-level races. 
If approved by voters, the policy would not apply to candidates for federal office, whose campaigns are governed by separate rules . 
El-Sayed has refused to accept donations from corporate PACs, calling the influence of money in politics a “disease” that allows corporations to “buy and sell politicians.” 
Stevens has accepted donations from PACs representing health insurance companies, investment firms, weapons developers and a range of other industries, but insisted donors have no influence over her policy stances. 
“No one owns my vote,” she said during a July debate. 
Federal Election Commission records show DTE’s company PAC had not donated any money to Stevens’ Senate campaign through the end of June. 
But the PAC previously donated $45,000 to Stevens’ House campaigns and her congressional leadership PAC , starting the year she took office in 2019. 
The DTE PAC has not contributed to El-Sayed. 
El-Sayed has benefited from some PAC support, including the National Nurses United for Patient Protection. 
The Fighting for Michigan PAC that is spending to support him is funded by individual donors. 
Critiquing the DTE funding fits into a broader theme of El-Sayed’s campaign. 
He has repeatedly criticized the tens of millions of dollars corporate donors and outside groups have spent to support Stevens, contending they expect to receive friendly policy in return for their investment. 
“When DTE spends money to buy a Senate seat, they’re not just buying a Senate seat, they’re buying a quietude when you lose your power for five days because of a mild storm,” he said during a Sunday rally in Lansing. 
“When Blue Cross tries to buy a Senate seat, they’re buying the ability to raise your premiums again and again and again.” 
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has donated $19,500 to Stevens since 2018. 
Responding to such criticisms, Stevens spokesperson Joetta Appiah highlighted Stevens’ proposals to reform campaign finance laws and better police utilities, insurance and pharmaceutical companies as evidence that corporations supporting her campaign can’t buy her vote. 
In March, for example, Stevens introduced legislation that would withhold federal funding from utilities that raise rates twice in a year. 
“The only voices Haley cares about are the voices of Michiganders, and those are the stories she brings with her to Congress every day,” Appiah said. 
In a campaign video released last week, Stevens played up her push for utility accountability, noting DTE has paid no federal taxes since 2013. 
“As your next United States senator,” she said in the video, “I’m not going to let it stand.” 
DTE Energy’s company PAC repeatedly donated to Stevens’ past campaigns and her leadership PAC, spending a total of $45,000 since 2019. 
The utility has not reported any contributions to her current US Senate campaign. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.5%Kelly House: 4.1%Bridge: 3.0%Confirmation Bias10.5%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 2.2%Bridge: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.8%Bridge: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Kelly House: 9.2%Bridge: 6.8%Framing Effect11.9%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Kelly House: 0.8%Bridge: 2.3%Optimism Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 1.2%Bridge: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.3%Kelly House: 7.4%Bridge: 7.0%Negativity Bias21.3%This article: 2.0%Kelly House: 6.3%Bridge: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias2.0%This article: 4.3%Kelly House: 4.8%Bridge: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error4.3%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Kelly House: 0.7%Bridge: 1.9%Halo Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 4.7%Bridge: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.9%Bridge: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.3%Kelly House: 2.1%Bridge: 4.1%Hasty Generalization4.3%This article: 5.4%Kelly House: 3.4%Bridge: 0.7%Red Herring5.4%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 1.0%Bridge: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 18.9%Kelly House: 10.5%Bridge: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion18.9%This article: 1.5%Kelly House: 1.3%Bridge: 0.6%Begging the Question1.5%This article: 8.4%Kelly House: 3.3%Bridge: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.4%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.3%Bridge: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.7%Kelly House: 4.1%Bridge: 1.0%Burden of Proof4.7%This article: 3.5%Kelly House: 0.7%Bridge: 0.1%Appeal to Nature3.5%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.1%Kelly House: 1.0%Bridge: 1.3%Anecdotal5.1%This article: 4.7%Kelly House: 0.9%Bridge: 0.1%No True Scotsman4.7%This article: 4.0%Kelly House: 3.0%Bridge: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.8%Kelly House: 1.9%Bridge: 0.9%Unattributed Quote1.8%This article: 5.1%Kelly House: 1.0%Bridge: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection5.1%This article: 5.1%Kelly House: 2.7%Bridge: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice5.1%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.9%Bridge: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kelly House: 0.0%Bridge: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

741 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers31%attributed speech513writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageFighting for Michigan PAC • 38 words • 100.0% coverageFighting for Michigan PAC • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageHaley Stevens • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageAbdul El-Sayed • 41 words • 0.0% coverageAbdul El-Sayed • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJoetta Appiah • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJoetta Appiah • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJoetta Appiah • 24 words • 0.0% coverageHaley Stevens • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words22% of attributed speech32% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Quote-first Misdirection+74.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Fighting for Michigan PAC: 74.5%74.5%Biased Writer Voice+74.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Fighting for Michigan PAC: 74.5%74.5%Unattributed Quote+25.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Fighting for Michigan PAC: 25.5%25.5%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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