Michigan needs direct action to ban paying for petition signatures

“A republic, madam, if you can keep it” -- Benjamin Franklin.

The story goes that Franklin, at the end of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, was asked, “Well, doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” 

His answer was perfectly relevant to the political concerns of the 18th century, a world in which hereditary monarchies were the prevailing form of government. Our Founders, however, opted for a democratic republic -- and laid out the foundations of what was then a radically new structure in our Constitution.

Today, people are again debating over what kind of government to have. And while the major issue is different, it is just as important. Today, the talk is about the distinction between a republic -- in which elected representatives of the people make the decisions necessary to govern -- and a direct democracy, in which many issues are left up to a direct vote of the people.

For many years, we have automatically referred to our  government as a “democracy.” But that one word doesn’t tell us what the speaker really means. Throughout the two and a quarter centuries since our Constitution was adopted, the trend in America has been toward increasingly direct democracy.

Members of the House of Representatives always have been elected directly by popular vote. But we’ve only been electing U.S. senators since the Constitution was amended to allow us to do so in 1913.

Presidents are still technically elected indirectly, through the Electoral College. But the once-independent electors now pretty much always follow the popular vote results from their states.

The changes in the way we pick senators and presidents were arguably for the better. But the tendency to make laws by statewide votes on ballot proposals has been much more destructive.

Some states, notably California, have seen state policy-making hobbled, year after year, by the enormous number of state ballot propositions, some of which contradict each other.

This has been made worse because it has become almost ridiculously easy to get a proposition on the ballot. I am far from alone in thinking referenda-run-amok is the best argument for preferring a “republic” to a “direct democracy.”

Ominously, this seems to be happening here. Michigan, too, has a large number of ballot proposals kicking around. Backers of no less than seven proposals have collected the signatures required to get their respective proposals on the ballot.

Many of these are currently tied up in the courts, and it's not my intention here to discuss the merits of any of them. What concerns me more is the increasing tendency to bypass our established governing institutions to improperly inject into the state constitution propositions that, at heart, are special interest political pleadings, such as requiring a public vote before building an international bridge.

Others are outright appeals to economic self-interest -- the proposal to build eight more gambling casinos obviously benefits the folks who would own the designated properties.

Constitutional changes get on the ballot by filing supporting signatures, a process intended to demonstrate adequate public support to justify putting a measure on the ballot. (The number of valid signatures required is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for governor at the most recent election – or 322,609 signatures this time.)

The idea was to limit statewide votes to those rare issues that had massive citizen support. But, in today’s world, special interests pay canvassers to collect signatures, so the only thing the numbers now indicate is the relative wealth of the sponsoring groups.

For the record, I should add that the vote on the emergency manager law is different. This is a referendum to decide the fate of a law passed by the Legislature last year that is fiercely opposed by many labor unions. Unlike the others, this is not a constitutional amendment, nor were signatures solicited by paid circulators.

Rich Robinson, who heads the watchdog group Michigan Campaign Finance Network, told Bridge Magazine nearly $30 million has been raised and $20 million already spent in support of various statewide ballot proposals. Robinson thinks this is a record.

“Voters should understand that, for the most part, ballot initiatives are anything but grass-roots democracy. Mostly, they are driven by an interest group with very deep pockets facing off against opposing interest groups with very deep pockets,” he said.

The net result of this process, of course, is the very best (or perhaps worst) government that money can buy.

And it is also something utterly unforeseen by Benjamin Franklin and the framers of our Constitution, not to mention folks who participated in Michigan’s last constitutional convention in 1961-62.

According to a one article last week, “Con-Con” delegates intended that signature drives be mounted by common citizens. There was no discussion of petition solicitors “descending on the state like a bunch of locusts,” former delegate Eugene Wanger said.

The tragedy is that what we have now in Michigan is neither democracy nor a republican form of government. Instead, in many respects, we have an oligarchy of deep-pocketed special interests.

So what can we do about it?

Simple. Pass a statute that forbids anyone to pay solicitors to circulate petitions and collecting signatures for ballot proposals. (Such laws have had a mixed record of success legally, with federal courts rejecting some state efforts and clearing others, according to ballotpedia.org.)

Will our Legislature have the guts to pass something so simple and sensible, that cuts the influence of money and returns the important process of amending our state constitution to ordinary citizens? I hope so, but don’t hold your breath.

Instead, if you agree, make your voice heard.

Editor’s note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics. He is also the founder and chairman of the Center for Michigan, a nonprofit, bipartisan centrist think–and–do tank, designed to cure Michigan’s dysfunctional political culture; the Center also publishes Bridge Magazine. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of the Center. He welcomes your comments via email.