Aug. 1, 2025 | This Week in Government: Invest in MI Kids Group to Gather Signatures Using Previous Summary Language After Canvassers Deadlock on Amended Wording

Proponents of a ballot proposal which seeks to place a tax surcharge on high income earners and direct it to education spending plan to circulate petitions using earlier summary language approved in June by the Board of State Canvassers.

On Thursday, the panel split 2-2 along party lines on amended summary language following hours of discussion over several words and phrases recommended for inclusion or removal by supporters and opponents of the Invest in MI Kids ballot proposal.

The panel on June 27 had approved summary language, which was rescinded earlier this month following complaints that the group had changed its language at the last minute (See Gongwer Michigan Report, July 10, 2025).)

Invest in MI Kids is trying to place a 5% income tax surcharge on the highest earners in Michigan and use the monies for funding public schools.

“We’re going to circulate our petition,” Molly Sweeney, organizing director of 482 Forward, told reporters following the deadlocked vote as well as a unanimous vote approving the form submitted by the group. “We’re excited to go out and circulate the petition that was approved on June 27. We are disappointed that politics was played out for kids in Michigan today.”

Sweeney said she anticipates that the group would begin circulating petitions within the next two weeks.

Steve Liedel, counsel for the group, told reporters the recission by the board was beyond its authority.

“We view the (June) 27th language as approval of the language, and they just approved the form of the petition,” Liedel said. “So both the form and the summary have now been approved by the Board of State Canvassers and Invest in MI Kids. It’s free to circulate.”

Board Chair Richard Houskamp told reporters he had multiple concerns with the wording, including the list of uses for the funding, which to him was not limited to those purposes.

“I think it’s going to tempt the folks across the street to find ways to take money out of regular educational funding,” Houskamp said of the Legislature.

It was a lengthy slog Thursday prior to the board deadlock.

Thursday’s meeting was marked by debate among board members following testimony from supporters of the ballot proposal and several business groups opposing it. Business groups said a majority of those that would be affected by the tax would be small business owners who file individual income taxes.

Another major concern from business groups included listing the purposes which the tax would be directed toward. These would include local school district classrooms, career and technical education, reducing class sizes, and recruiting and retaining teachers. Opponents and counsel for groups against the measure said the language should be removed.

Further, opponents said language emphasizing the effect on small businesses was needed. They also requested references to a graduated tax be included as well as what the tax rate would be for those affected, that being 9.25%.

Backers of the measure called the concerns raised by its opponents distractions, adding that the uses of the funds are part of the language contained within the ballot proposal and inform voters of what it would do if approved.

Amanda Fisher, Michigan state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, urged the board to include language that outlines the potential effect of the proposal on small businesses.

“It is not well known or understood by most people that the vast majority of small businesses pay business taxes at the individual income tax level,” Fisher said, adding it was critically important to include language noting the potential effect on small business owners. “The current language is misleading and somewhat deceptive. Michigan citizens deserve to know all the facts about this proposed amendment so that they can make an informed, unbiased decision.”

Randy Gross, associate general counsel for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, echoed other business groups that a large majority of small businesses would be affected, which should be noted in the language.

“We think it’s imperative to include the term graduated income tax, because that’s what it is,” Gross said, adding that it is a significant tax change hitting small businesses. “It’s a graduated income tax and it includes a new tax bracket at 9.25%.”

Peri Stone-Palmquist with the Student Advocacy Center of Michigan pushed back on the Michigan Chamber’s assertions. She said it is not a graduated income tax but a new tax that only affects wealthier earners.

“We are concerned that these inaccuracies seem designed to diminish support for this ballot initiative, while masquerading as unbiased information,” Stone-Palmquist said.

Anne Kuhnen, Kids Count policy director with the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the 5% tax applies only to individuals, not small businesses.

“This surcharge does not enact a graduating income tax,” Kuhnen said. “Instead, it proposes a new separate tax at a simple flat rate.”

West Michigan Policy Forum President and Chief Executie Officer Bolger said money from the School Aid Fund could be directed by the Legislature could be moved elsewhere, including to teacher pensions and higher education.

“I ask that you please make clear that these funds would go to the School Aid Fund, but would be subject to decisions of the Legislature,” Bolger said.

Liedel at several points while addressing the board referred to the arguments being made by business groups opposing the proposal as being “shiny objects.”

Houskamp at one point took exception to that classification.

“These are real people who are writing checks every year to the state. Those aren’t shiny objects,” Houskamp said.

Liedel said that he was not calling the taxpayers shiny objects but was referring to the arguments being made, which he said were an attempt to distract the panel from its responsibility to approve a summary.

Lawmakers should be prepared to patch a billion dollar hole in the governor’s executive budget proposal following federal tax and spending changes passed earlier this month, the Citizens Research Council of Michigan said in an analysis released Tuesday.

Its analysis focused on the effects of the federal budget bill signed into law on July 4. Between a reduction in Corporate Income Tax revenue and elimination of the insurance provider assessment as part of the Medicaid program, the shortage for the upcoming fiscal year was projected to be about $1.1 billion.

“This will add an extra hurdle to a budget process already well-behind the state’s typical budget timelines and still facing a major challenge in resolving partisan differences on the issue of how to add additional revenues for road infrastructure,” the analysis states.

In its analysis, the Citizens Research Council noted the recent House Fiscal Agency report stating that the federal budget bill could result in a $677 million reduction in revenue for the upcoming 2025-26 fiscal year (See Gongwer Michigan Report, July 22, 2025). The HFA projected the revenue shortage would come from federal changes to what businesses pay in Corporate Income Tax. The shortfall would fall to $46 million by the 2033-34 fiscal year.

The lion’s share of the Citizens Research Council analysis focused on the Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

It estimated that the federal tax law changes would also eat into about 40% of Michigan’s General Fund revenue growth by fiscal year 2032.

Under the federal law, existing Medicaid provider taxes cannot be increased, and no new ones can be established. Michigan has four such taxes in place, for hospitals, nursing homes, health insurers and ambulance providers. Only the hospital and health insurer taxes would be affected by the federal law since they are above the 3.5% cap enacted by the federal law.

This would have a significant effect on the Michigan Quality Assurance Assessment Program, the largest provider tax in the state. The rate reduction of the provider taxes begins to be reduced in fiscal year 2029, from 5% and lowering by 0.5% increments yearly down to 3.5% percent in fiscal year 2032.

A portion of the provider tax known as the state retainer, which offsets General Fund dollars, would see a decline of $21 million in 2029 before rising to $63 million in fiscal year 2030, $112 million in 2031, and $165 million in 2032.

The amount of tax-supported Medicaid payments to hospitals would all begin to grow beginning in fiscal year 2029, with a reduction of $221 million. This would rise to $672 million in fiscal year 2030 and to $1.16 billion in 2031 and $1.72 billion in 2032.

“Faced with this new fiscal reality, state policymakers will have to make a major decision impacting Medicaid funding to hospitals in the coming years,” the analysis states. “Policymakers will need to decide the extent to which hospitals will have to endure this Medicaid revenue loss through lower reimbursements.”

General Fund spending would be necessary to avoid hospital payment reductions.

To hold hospitals harmless, $66 million General Fund would be needed in fiscal year 2029 before growing to $202 million in 2030, to $348 million in 2031, and $515 million in 2032.

This would amount to $680 million General Fund needed by fiscal year 2032 to cover lost retainer savings and hospital reimbursements through the Michigan Quality Assurance Assessment Program to fully cover against losses.

For SNAP, states may have to pay up to 15% of benefits beginning in fiscal year 2028. This will depend on a state’s SNAP error rate, which is determined each year by a quality control process that reviews a sample of SNAP cases to determine accuracy of eligibility and benefit amount determinations.

If the error rate were less than 6%, the state would not pay more. For states with an error rate between 6% and 7.99%, the state must pay 5% of the SNAP benefit share. When the error rate is between 8% and 9.99%, the state share rises to 10% and if a state’s error rate exceeds 10%, the state must pay 15% of the SNAP benefits.

The cost to Michigan if it had to pay 5% of SNAP benefit costs would be $155 million per year, which would rise to $310 million if it had to pay 10% of the benefit costs and $465 million if it had to pay 15%.

Michigan’s SNAP error rate in fiscal year 2022 was 13% but fell to 10.7% in 2023 and 9.5% in 2024.

The analysis states the Legislature and governor’s office have a tough task ahead to determine how it will address the shortfall in finalizing the budget this fall.

Developing a new consensus revenue estimate is needed, the Citizens Research Council recommended. Traditionally, the state holds revenue conferences in January and May while crafting a budget. In 2020 there was also a rare August Consensus Revenue Estimating Conference due to uncertainty over revenues in the early months of the coronavirus pandemic.

The analysis also suggested holding back $450 million from the General Fund to account for the likely loss of insurance provider assessment funding. Further, it said discussions on road funding need to be shaken up due to the changes in federal tax policy.

“For years since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Michigan experienced an unexpected state revenue high driven largely by federal stimulus initiatives,” the analysis states. “Michigan now faces an added budget challenge that will be particularly severe over the next few budget cycles. State lawmakers should get to work on developing a budget plan that takes into account these new realities.”

Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Sen. Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, in a statement said her office has been monitoring the actions of President Donald Trump’s administration, which she called reckless.

“The recent report from the Citizens Research Council – projecting a more than $1 billion hit to our state budget – confirms what we’ve feared all along: devastating consequences for families across our state,” Anthony said. “While Speaker Hall follows Washington Republicans’ lead in putting politics over people, Senate Democrats remain at the negotiating table, committed to deliver a fiscally responsible budget that ensures Michiganders do not bear the brunt of these dangerous federal cuts.”

House Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. Ann Bollin, R-Brighton, said she and her caucus have been reviewing the potential effects of the federal budget bill and the Citizens Research Council analysis is in line with what was expected.

The changes will require the state to revaluate how taxpayer dollars are spent. Bollin said she believed by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse while targeting funding toward top priorities including roads, schools and health care, the state will be able to complete a structurally sound budget.

“I do think it’s radically going to change things,” Bollin said of the federal changes. “I think we will move forward with a plan that funds all of our top priorities.”

Department of Technology, Management, and Budget spokesperson Lauren Leeds in statement said the federal law is still under review.

“The State Budget Office will continue working with department and agency partners to fully understand the impacts of this legislation on the state and our residents,” Leeds said. “We look forward to working with the Legislature to pass a balanced and bipartisan budget that prioritizes the core services that Michiganders rely on each day.”

Since the legislative term started in January, the House and the Senate have delivered just six bills to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer‘s desk over the course of nearly eight months despite each chamber passing more than 100 bills that could potentially be considered by the other side.

Bipartisan bills are being caught up in legislative gridlock, a Gongwer News Service analysis showed.

A total of 145 bills passed the Senate, some of which House leadership has declared they are uninterested in pursuing. The House has taken up three Senate bills in committee so far this term.

The House has passed 152 bills. Of those, only 21 have been taken up by the Senate for a hearing.

Among those bills passed by the Senate are SB 1  and SB 2, which is the latest Senate version of legislation to expand the Freedom of Information Act to include the Legislature and governor’s office, which some exemptions.

Hall previously has called the Senate FOIA bills watered down, adding he does not plan to take them up (See Gongwer Michigan Report, Jan. 30, 2025).

Only three Senate bills, other than those that have become public acts, have been heard by House committees so far this session. All three were introduced by Senate Republicans.

The first is SB 41, a memorial highway designation. Another, SB 71, would designate the Mackinac Bridge as critical infrastructure, while SB 303 would update the interstate medical licensure compact.

“There’s kind of a logjam of bills that each chamber already has sent each others’ way … from the Senate Democrats’ perspective, it’s all hands on deck,” Sen. Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, said in an interview with Gongwer News Service.

Brinks said it has been frustrating to see the lack of movement so far this session compared to the high volume of items that were able to be worked on and moved last session under full Democratic control of the Legislature.

“It’s just been a very frustrating first six months,” Brinks said. “There could be a better record of working together to get things done.”

It is also frustrating for other members, she said, who came to Lansing to get things done and see some priorities get across the finish line rather than seeing a long period of legislative gridlock.

With the budget being the top priority, she said her hope is that once that is complete there can be more collaboration between the two chambers.

Of the 21 House bills that have been heard by Senate committees, nine were taken up for testimony only by the Senate Appropriations Committee . The bills make up the House’s $3.1 billion road funding plan (HB 4180, HB 4181, HB 4182, HB 4183, HB 4184, HB 4185, HB 4186, HB 4187,  and HB 4230), which Republicans said could be funded within the existing budget but drew questions from Democrats (See Gongwer Michigan Report, April 16, 2025)

Several House bills that have been heard by Senate committees are ones with potentially broad bipartisan support.

Four bills heard by the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety Committee are examples. The committee has heard bills that would eliminate the sunset on the sales and use tax exemption on firearm safety devices (HB 4025 and HB 4026 ) and a ban on nonconsensual creation or dissemination of AI-generated sexual images (HB 4047 and HB 4048 ).

The Senate Health Policy Committee  has also heard four House bills in committee: HB 4101, HB 4103, HB 4104,  and HB 4380, which deal with enacting a physical therapy licensure compact.

Two bills have been taken up by the Senate Local Government Committee : HB 4081 and HB 4090. The first bill would enable municipalities to divide land into additional parcels or tracts if the land met standards established by the municipality. HB 4090 is now PA 6 of 2025 and allows the state to convey a parcel of land that hosted the Mound Correctional Facility and the Ryan Correctional Facility.

Two memorial highway bills have been reported by the Senate Veterans and Emergency Services Committee and are waiting on floor votes.

Another bill, HB 4065, sponsored by Rep. Joe Aragona, R-Clinton Township, would make it easier for Macomb Community College to obtain a liquor license for scheduled events at its conference space.

In the Senate, Sen. Paul Wojno, D-Warren, introduced a Senate version of the bill, SB 73.

The House bill passed its bill in March 101-7 and was sent to the Senate Regulatory Affairs Committee. The Senate has not taken it up.

The Senate bill was introduced in February and passed at the end of June, 35-1. It was sent to the House Regulatory Reform Committee.

“There’s been a bit of a gridlock, but once that gridlock breaks, one of them is ready to go – either mine in the Senate or his over on my side,” Aragona said of the legislation. “I would have brought his up by now if it was in Reg on my side and at least had a hearing. If nothing else, we could have brought more light to the situation.”

Aragona had high praise for Wojno and his bill.

“Paul’s worked hard on it, and he’s done a great job,” he said. “He represents Macomb County well. We work well together. He does well for Macomb County. He’s a good guy, but hopefully we can get it done sooner rather than later. At this point, it’s probably going to be something more for next season, unfortunately.”

Aragona said the lack of movement is beyond partisan and speaks to the broken relationship between the chambers right now.

“It can’t be a partisan thing,” Aragona said. “Will Snyder had a bill that there’s no deals cut or anything. I just looked at it. It’s a good bill. Got sponsored by a member of the minority here, but it was a good bill, so took it up a couple of months ago, helped him get it off the floor here, sent it over to the Senate, and for some reason the Senate still isn’t taking it up. … I’m assuming leadership over there just doesn’t like it because it’s a House bill.”

That discord, in Aragona’s view, is rooted in leadership, but rank-and-file memberships are catching strays.

“When we’re clearly sending Democrat bills over that aren’t tie barred to Republican bills, I mean, how are you not taking up your own caucuses bill that are bipartisan bills,” Aragona said. “If you’re Winnie Brinks, you can’t really look at Hall and say, how dare you send this bill over. … For them to hold up stuff like that, that’s not good governance.”

House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, said Democrats were at fault.

“I find it very perplexing how fractured Democrats are,” Hall said. “It’s the House Democrats and the Senate Democrats that are blocking. I put forward a plan to fix our roads without raising taxes but putting people above corporations. If you just stop doing all the giveaways to corporations, you can fix our roads without raising taxes … whether it’s on this, on the roads or on the proposed education, it’s really throwing a lot of things into turmoil here in Lansing as we’re trying to move forward on a proposed solution and important policies.”

If the Senate had sense, Hall said, they would be voting on the big policy initiatives the House wants to pass.

“We’re moving a lot of big things, and many are bipartisan, but these legislative Democrats are holding these things out for political reasons,” Hall said. “And the public’s going to suffer because of that.”

House Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri, D-Canton Township, pointed to disfunction within the House Republican Caucus.

“They have a bigger vote cushion than we did last term, and yet they still are unable to get votes across the finish line,” Puri said. “And I think the conversation should be about why we were in for a day of session, seven hours or something, of not a single vote actually getting across the finish line.”

Sen. Sam Singh, D-East Lansing, said a large majority of bills the Senate has sent over to the House have some level of bipartisan support, so it is disappointing to see Hall’s refusal to take up policy bills.

He pointed to the negotiations earlier this session to amend paid sick time and minimum wage laws, saying bipartisan work is possible when all parties are interested in coming to the table.

Singh took aim at Hall over the lack of negotiations on the budget, adding Senate Democrats have passed their budget proposals and stand ready to sit down, set targets and begin talks.

“There’s a strong level of control from the speaker’s office,” Singh said, adding Hall is exerting a high level of control over what committees can move on from the budget to policy items.

He said his hope is that Hall at some point realizes that he needs to work with others to get things done and a more collaborative spirit can take hold in the Legislature.

“There’s a point when people have to decide … whether they want to govern,” Singh said.

Rep. Matt Maddock, R-Milford Township, said during a recent appearance on WKAR’s Off the Record that the less the Legislature gets done in Lansing, the better.

“Democrats aren’t going to do anything good for Michigan,” Maddock said. “The handful of bills that have passed have been nonpartisan.”

Although Maddock may be celebrating the lack of activity, his opinion may not be the guiding philosophy for the House Republican Caucus.

Hall, during a press conference last week, said House Republicans were trying to move legislation, but again, faulted Democrats.

“I just wish we had more good partners to work with,” he said.

Aragona said that the quality of the bills was more important than the quantity.

“If we pass 20 bills, great. If we pass 200 bills, great. It should just be good governance,” Aragona said. “We have a system set up that the bills, or I should say the laws, actually get signed. It’s a slow and arduous process. … I don’t think it should be more or less. I think it should be quality, and it should be process.”

Education leaders had a simple message for lawmakers during a Tuesday round table: come back to Lansing and pass a budget – now.

District administrators and statewide education advocates stressed the impact of the Legislature not reaching a budget deal by the July 1 deadline on local schools and students, saying lawmakers have forced educators to make impossible financial decisions without the necessary information.

Almost a month after the deadline, the lack of a budget is still a thorn in the side of the education community – but adding insult to injury, advocates said, is the renewed conversation among lawmakers and the governor’s office about tying any budget to a road funding deal.

“We need a budget that is sustainable, significant, and one that invests in programs that serve Michigan’s most vulnerable students. To be clear, we do not have a budget because of this manufactured crisis,” Michigan Alliance for Student Opportunity Executive Director Peter Spadafore said. “The fact that the legislature broke the law and missed the deadline is not because of a lack of resources or outside factors. Holding up the budget to pave the way for a road deal is unacceptable, and every day that ticks by only makes the situation worse, and real consequences are already being felt across the state.”

Some of those consequences, Spadafore said, include districts having to release or not renew agreements with contracted employees like literacy coaches or school resource officers, or being unable to fill vacancies in staff positions until a budget is passed.

“We are putting concrete over kids. It’s been stated that we will not see a school budget until we see a roads budget,” Van Dyke Schools Superintendent Piper Bognar said. “We are building roads on the backs of our children. Think about that. Think about your children being second place to roads. This is not potholes versus preschoolers here, we’re talking about our most valuable resource in the state.”

Spadafore said previous iterations of road funding plans have included methods to backfill losses to the School Aid Fund under sales tax changes, but as more and more legislative priorities depend on pulling money from schools, lawmakers have shuffled Michigan students to the back burner.

“Now it has become a situation where, as more and more dollars come out of the School Aid Fund to pay for higher education, to remove the sales tax on fuel, to pay for roads, to talk about paying for other non K-12 related functions, the policymakers here in Lansing have set up that false choice between roads and students, and that’s why we’re here to say, ‘don’t do that,’” he said. “Get the job done, get our budget done right, and then figure out what’s left to cover up the other resources that are necessary. We’ve long since advocated that there aren’t enough resources in the state to do everything, and I think that’s becoming painfully clear as lawmakers continue to add to the list of their number one priorities and don’t have the resources to cover them.”

Currently, to meet the deadline of their own fiscal calendar, school districts around the state formed their budgets for the upcoming school year around last year’s per-pupil foundation allowance. However, administrators said, even if there was movement on a budget in recent weeks, the distance between House and Senate versions of what the School Aid Fund should look like only enhances the uncertainty.

“We’re not just talking about the fact that we don’t have a budget, but we’re also talking about the fact that the proposals of the way that the budget would be allocated are significantly different, and we have not had a situation in Michigan where we have no categoricals,” Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals Director Wendy Zdeb said of the budget House Republicans passed earlier this summer.

“That’s a whole different mindset and a way of approaching it, and it’s going to create winners and losers, because essentially, you’re going to have districts that have a higher proportion of high-need students, that are English language learners, that are special education that have significant at-risk factors,” Zdeb continued. “And if those factors aren’t being accommodated by the budget, those districts probably aren’t going to see the kind of funding that they have in the past to be able to support those students.”

With the uncertainty and delay in the budgetary process, coupled with near-constant back-and-forth in the courts regarding President Donald Trump’s sweeping changes to education at the federal level, Zdeb said members of her organization have reported that they’re planning for larger class sizes and fewer individual course offerings this school year.

“We know parents don’t want large class sizes,” Zdeb said. “We know that parents want their kids to be able to have those individual course offerings that really meet their needs, and we can’t provide that if we don’t know what to anticipate in terms of funding. So, it’s both a staffing and a programming perspective that’s concerning to us.”

Michigan Association of Superintendents and Administrators Executive Director Tina Kerr said funding questions at both the state and federal levels have the potential to create a perfect storm of devastation for public schools.

“In addition to the uncertainty in Lansing, we’re dealing with uncertainty in the threat of funding cuts from Washington, D.C.,” Kerr said. “The administration has proposed a budget cut for next year that would cut funding by 15% and there’s no certain certainty that (the state Legislature) will avoid a government shutdown in September, (so) we’re looking at a true nightmare scenario in September, the first full month of the school year, where Michigan public schools are looking and having no idea if they will receive state and federal programs or funding.”

Many of the programs supported by state and federal funds, Spadafore said, help service the state’s highest need students or ensure school districts can comply with statute and implement programs passed by the Legislature.

“I’ve talked to several of my members that they’re waiting to sign contracts for things like safety, school resource officers, paraprofessionals, literacy coaches, things like that that have been specialized funding categories because there is such a large amount of daylight between what the Governor proposed, what the House proposed, and what the Senate proposed,” he said. “We have no idea how to budget for that, so money you may have typically earmarked for school safety and mental health, you now have to hold off to even know if that’s going to be there in the budget.”

As lawmakers continue to hold session with no attendance and no voting, or decline to come to Lansing entirely, the educators said making students a bargaining chip in the negotiations for a road funding plan stand to only prolong the process and put schools in the lurch come September.

“Public education was created to be the great equalizer, not a pawn,” Bognar said. “We need to make sure that we are serving our students and again, not throwing aside our babies for roads. We need to put our resources into schools and keep that school aid money in our schools.”

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan dominated first-quarter fundraising in their gubernatorial campaigns, raising a combined $6.7 million, and are now entering the next phase of the campaign with nearly equal cash on hand figures that outpace Benson’s primary competitors and the Republican primary field.

Duggan and Benson raised $3.2 million and $3.5 million, respectively, during the period, which covered the first six months of 2025. Duggan has $2.3 million on hand while Benson has $2.4 million.

On the Republican side, Sen. Aric Nesbitt, R-Porter Township, and U.S. Rep. John James, R-Shelby Township, were neck-and-neck. Nesbitt raised $2.29 million and has $1.94 million in cash on hand.

James raised $2.27 million and finished the period with $1.86 million. His figures included $750,000 from his congressional committee. And, as he noted in a statement, a political action committee funded by $5 million from two members of the DeVos family is also backing his candidacy.

Former attorney general Mike Cox raised $1.4 million and former House Speaker Tom Leonard, who has only been in the race since June, raised $646,000 with over $462,000 from his campaign for attorney general in 2018.

On the Democratic side, Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist II raised more than $750,000 and Genesee County Sheriff Chris Swanson said he raised $1 million.

Benson ends the period with $2.4 million on hand, having raised $3.5 million, $1.2 million of which was transferred from her secretary of state campaign committee.

Benson’s largest donation was $60,000 from the Michigan Legacy PAC, which she helped found in 2023 with the aim of supporting “progressive, pro-democracy, voter driven victories in Michigan.” She also received donations from the End Citizens United PAC, the United Food and Commercial Workers Active Ballot Club, Deldin Law PAC, and the Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters and Millwrights PAC.

Benson’s individual donations totaled over 27,000, 95% of which her campaign said were under $100.

“The numbers make it clear: Jocelyn Benson is the best candidate to take on any candidate, Republican or Independent, in November 2026,” Benson Campaign Manager Nikki Goldschein said in a statement. “This record-breaking haul not only showcases the strength of this campaign, but it tells the story of the movement we are building. Supporters from every corner of our state are on board with Jocelyn’s vision … They want a governor with a track record of getting things done – and never backing down from a tough fight. They want a governor who will stand up to the bullies and the billionaires who threaten our rights and freedoms. They want a governor who is accountable to the people – not the corporations. And they know that person is Jocelyn Benson.”

Of his $3.5 million haul, Duggan spent $934,239 over the period. Upwards of $300,000 of that went towards various media and fundraising consultants. He ends the period with $2.3 million on hand.

Chris DeWitt, a political consultant, said Duggan’s money can go further than the candidates who are competing in traditional primaries.

“Duggan’s fundraising totals give him two major advantages over the other candidates: First, he doesn’t have to spend money in a primary,” DeWitt said. “Second, due to his positive name recognition in southeast Michigan he can use his funds to bolster his name/record in the much cheaper out-state media markets.”

Duggan led the field in PAC dollars with a total of $195,000 in PAC contributions, including the Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters and Millwrights PAC, which donated $45,000 after the union endorsed Duggan earlier this summer. The People’s PAC represented Duggan’s largest contribution, of $75,000, but the background of the entity is unclear. Duggan also received donations of $25,000 each from Rocket PAC, the political wing of the Detroit-based lending behemoth Rocket Mortgage, and the Michigan Health Access Alliance.

“As an independent campaign, we can’t rely on party infrastructure for our fundraising. We had to build everything from the ground up,” Duggan campaign manager Ed Duggan said in a statement. “Our numbers are a sign of the incredible grassroots energy we’re feeling on the campaign trail. We couldn’t be more grateful for all our supporters who made this possible.”

In a Friday interview with Gongwer News Service, Duggan said although his campaign needs to build up its small-dollar donor operation, he feels the support he’s received through fundraising events around the state shows people are ready to step outside their party preferences and vote for him.

“Every place we go, people are fed up with the two parties,” he said. “Every time you guys write another story about what’s going on in the Legislature, I get more and more people who are coming up saying, ‘I’m ready for something different.’”

What’s next, Duggan said, is putting together an online donor apparatus and growing small-dollar support in the run-up to the general election so his campaign can keep pace with the Democratic and Republican nominees and the support they’ll receive once party backing kicks in.

“The next thing that we have to do is build up our internet, small donor fundraising operation, which we don’t have yet, (get it) up and running in the next quarter,” Duggan said. “We’re still doing things to catch up with the major parties in their infrastructure. But basically, we had events where people were very generous. I couldn’t tell you offhand, but I’m sure we’re going to have fewer small dollar donations (in our filing) because we don’t have our online fundraising operation up and running.”

Gilchrist raised $768,291 over the quarter and finishes with just $312,194 on hand. His largest contribution was from his Stand Tall PAC, which gave $50,000. He also received a donation from the Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association PAC.

Gilchrist said this week on MichMash, the podcast partnership between Gongwer News Service and WDET Detroit Public Radio, that the average grassroots donation to his campaign was $17, showing the people at the individual, household level are excited about his campaign.

“We have been able to build something really extraordinary,” he said. “I am really proud to have support from Michiganders from every single county in the state of Michigan. … I am also really proud that this is a campaign where the dollars are built not from MAGA or Wall Street billionaires, but from people who are working hard every day and want to invest in the future of the state.”

The remaining Democratic candidate, Genesee Sheriff Chris Swanson, said his campaign raised $1 million during the period. A report was not immediately available for Swanson by the time of publishing.

The filing from James showed he transferred $750,000 from his congressional campaign committee to his gubernatorial committee. James raised $1.5 million in direct contributions.

He spent $415,000 with $1.85 million left on hand.

In a statement, James touted over $7 million raised by his campaign and its supporting organizations since launching in April.

“When you’ve flown combat missions and have grown a business, you learn that success takes experienced leadership, a strong team, and a passion for service,” James said in a statement. “We have a clear vision and in just three months are quickly building the resources necessary to accomplish the mission of restoring the American Dream for every Michigander. I’m humbled by the support and fired up to reestablish academic excellence, revitalize our economy, and restore law and order across Michigan.”

James received 8,715 contributions, which includes all contributions, like the transfers, not just individual donations.

James’ opponent, former attorney general Mike Cox, called for James to return the $750,000 he “stole” from his congressional account, specifically so he can retain “the Trump majority after James abandoned his swing congressional seat,” according to a press release from Cox’s campaign on Friday.

The release said James would have never received this money unless he was running to “hold a targeted seat” and that it was “not John’s money.”

“John James was dishonest,” Brandon Moody, Cox’s campaign’s general consultant, said in a statement. “He fooled the House Leadership into raising him hundreds of thousands of dollars and then moved it to his campaign for Governor. These are hard to raise dollars that rightfully belong to the nominee for Michigan’s 10th congressional district and James should return every penny he stole from the Trump majority.”

In his own filing, Cox reported over $1.3 million in direct contributions.

Cox spent around $490,000, leaving just under $1.9 million in cash on hand. Cox filed 369 contributions.

For Nesbitt, around $166,500 came from two separate Nesbitt Majority Funds, $114,215 from Aric Nesbitt for State Senate and $83,250 from Nesbitt for Michigan.

Another $83,000 came from the Fight Back Fund, $83,250 from the Central Michigan Conservative Leadership, another $83,250 from Defending Michigan Values, $37,000 from the Maintaining Majority Fund, $50,000 from the COMM PAC, and $20,000 from Friends of Matt Hall PAC.

Around $83,250 came from the Growing Michigan Majority Fund, and then another $65,000 from Growing Michigan.