Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
Administrative Rules Division (ARD)  
MOAHR-Rules@michigan.gov  
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT  
and COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (RIS)  
AGENCY INFORMATION:  
Department name:  
State  
Bureau name:  
Elections & Campaign Finance  
Name of person filling out RIS:  
Jenny McInerney  
Phone number of person filling out RIS:  
517-331-7825  
Email of person filling out RIS:  
McInerneyJ1@michigan.gov  
RULE SET INFORMATION:  
ARD assigned rule set number:  
2026-11 ST  
Title of proposed rule set:  
Campaign Finance Complaints and Investigations  
COMPARISON OF RULE(S) TO FEDERAL/STATE/ASSOCIATION STANDARDS  
1. Compare the proposed rules to parallel federal rules or standards set by a state or national licensing agency  
or accreditation association, if any exist.  
There are no parallel federal rules or standards.  
A. Are these rules required by state law or federal mandate?  
Yes. MCL 169.215 provides: The secretary of state shall do all of the following: (e) Promulgate rules and issue  
declaratory rulings to implement this act in accordance with the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA  
306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328.  
B. If these rules exceed a federal standard, please identify the federal standard or citation, describe why it  
is necessary that the proposed rules exceed the federal standard or law, and specify the costs and  
benefits arising out of the deviation.  
The rules do not exceed a federal standard.  
2. Compare the proposed rules to standards in similarly situated states, based on geographic location,  
topography, natural resources, commonalities, or economic similarities.  
Wisconsin has a similar complaint process, in which staff can initially dismiss a complaint (if there is no jurisdiction in  
Wisconsin; if the complaint is frivolous, illegible, or unsigned, etc., in Michigan); staff determines whether a violation  
may have occurred (reasonable suspicion in Wisconsin; may be reason to believe a violation may have occurred in  
Michigan); and attempts to resolve the matter (settlement negotiation in Wisconsin WIS. STAT. § 19.49(1)(b);  
conciliation in Michigan). Minnesota similarly has two stages of review: a prima facie decision and a probable cause  
determination. This is similar to the process in Michigan, in which there is the possibility of a summary dismissal (if the  
complaint is frivolous, illegible, unsigned, etc.) or a later dismissal (if, following a preliminary review, it determines  
there is no reason to believe an allegation is true). Minnesota’s board may also enter into a conciliation agreement  
with the respondent.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 2  
A. If the rules exceed standards in those states, please explain why and specify the costs and benefits  
arising out of the deviation.  
The rules do not exceed the standards in other states.  
3. Identify any laws, rules, and other legal requirements that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the  
proposed rules.  
The rules do not conflict with or duplicate any laws, rules, or other legal requirements. The proposed rules may  
overlap with existing state, federal, and local laws to the extent that there are existing state, federal, and local laws  
that also address campaign finance. However, to the extent that the proposed rules overlap, they are coordinated to  
avoid any actual duplication, as discussed in answer 3(A). The proposed rules would codify existing manuals and  
appendices from the Secretary of State.  
A. Explain how the rules have been coordinated, to the extent practicable, with other federal, state, and  
local laws applicable to the same activity or subject matter. This section should include a discussion of  
the efforts undertaken by the agency to avoid or minimize duplication.  
The proposed rules are coordinated with state law in that they seek to mirror the definitions and provisions in  
the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, 1976 PA 388, MCL 169.201 to 169.282, and existing instructions from the  
agency. No other state laws are applicable to the same activity or subject matter. The proposed rules are not  
coordinated with federal law even though there are federal campaign finance laws because the federal laws,  
rules, or other legal requirements apply to different filers: federal filers are governed by federal law and state  
law governs state filers. As such, no federal laws, rules, or other legal requirements completely overlap with or  
duplicate the proposed rules. No federal, state, or local laws, rules, or other legal requirements conflict with the  
proposed rules.  
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RULE(S)  
4. Identify the behavior and frequency of behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter.  
The rules generally will not alter the behavior or frequency of behavior for filing officials, staff, or filers. However, they  
will codify existing instructions in the campaign finance complaint manuals. The rules would codify a campaign finance  
determination regarding sanctions for submitting a false certificate. That issue was an issue of first impression when it  
was considered in March 2023 and has not occurred in the intervening three years, so it is unlikely the rules would  
alter the behavior or frequency of behavior, but it is possible. Additionally, the rules will provide guidance regarding  
the complaints portal being created by the Department. Use of the portal will be a change in behavior for filers and the  
Department, but that change is not initiated by and is separate from the proposed rules.  
A. Estimate the change in the frequency of the targeted behavior expected from the proposed rules.  
It is not anticipated there would be a change given that campaign finance violations are and will continue to be  
regulated by the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.  
B. Describe the difference between current behavior/practice and desired behavior/practice.  
There would be no difference between current behavior/practice and desired behavior/practice. However, to  
the extent that behavior/practice is currently guided by manuals and appendices, going forward they would be  
guided by the Department’s administrative rules.  
C. What is the desired outcome?  
The desired outcome is greater understanding and knowledge of existing behavior/practice.  
5. Identify the harm resulting from the behavior that the proposed rules are designed to alter and the likelihood  
that the harm will occur in the absence of the rule.  
Currently, campaign finance rules are outdated and may be confusing to filers, individuals seeking to file complaints,  
and Department staff. Updated rules are intended to streamline the complaint and investigation process, and to  
provide clearer and more timely resolutions to complaints.  
A. What is the rationale for changing the rules instead of leaving them as currently written?  
The existing rules range from 25-46 years old and do not account for statutory changes in the Michigan  
Campaign Finance Act, as well as case law and changes in interpretation over time. The proposed rules intend  
to modernize the rules so they mirror current practice.  
6. Describe how the proposed rules protect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens while promoting  
a regulatory environment in Michigan that is the least burdensome alternative for those required to comply.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 3  
The proposed rules would reflect current practice and provide an easier to understand and navigate complaint  
process.  
7. Describe any rules in the affected rule set that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be rescinded.  
There are no obsolete or unnecessary rules in the rule set that can be rescinded because these rules create a new  
rule set and there is no existing rule set.  
FISCAL IMPACT ON THE AGENCY  
Fiscal impact is an increase or decrease in expenditures from the current level of expenditures, i.e., hiring  
additional staff, higher contract costs, programming costs, changes in reimbursements rates, etc. over and  
above what is currently expended for that function. It does not include more intangible costs for benefits, such  
as opportunity costs, the value of time saved or lost, etc., unless those issues result in a measurable impact on  
expenditures.  
8. Please provide the fiscal impact on the agency (an estimate of the cost of rule imposition or potential savings  
for the agency promulgating the rule).  
It is not expected that the promulgation of rules will have a fiscal impact on the agency promulgating the rules.  
9. Describe whether or not an agency appropriation has been made or a funding source provided for any  
expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
No agency appropriation has been made, and no funding source has been provided, as it is not anticipated that the  
Department of State will have any expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
10. Describe how the proposed rules are necessary and suitable to accomplish their purpose, in relationship to  
the burden(s) the rules place on individuals. Burdens may include fiscal or administrative burdens, or  
duplicative acts.  
The proposed rules will largely codify current practice and are not expected to place any additional fiscal or  
administrative burdens on individuals.  
A. Despite the identified burden(s), identify how the requirements in the rules are still needed and  
reasonable compared to the burdens.  
There are no identified burdens.  
IMPACT ON OTHER STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS  
11. Estimate any increase or decrease in revenues to other state or local governmental units (i.e., cities,  
counties, school districts) as a result of the rule. Estimate the cost increases or reductions for other state or  
local governmental units (i.e., cities, counties, school districts) as a result of the rule. Include the cost of  
equipment, supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs in both the initial imposition of the rule and  
any ongoing monitoring.  
There are no estimated increases or decreases in revenue to other state or local governmental units. There are no  
estimated increases or reductions in cost to other state or local governmental units.  
12. Discuss any program, service, duty, or responsibility imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school  
district by the rules.  
The proposed rules do not change any duty or responsibility imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school  
district.  
A. Describe any actions that governmental units must take to be in compliance with the rules. This section  
should include items such as record keeping and reporting requirements or changing operational  
practices.  
It is not anticipated that governmental units would need to take any additional actions under the proposed rules.  
13. Describe whether or not an appropriation to state or local governmental units has been made or a funding  
source provided for any additional expenditures associated with the proposed rules.  
An appropriation has not been made because additional expenditures associated with the rules are not anticipated.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 4  
RURAL IMPACT  
14. In general, what impact will the rules have on rural areas?  
The proposed rules are not expected to impact rural areas.  
A. Describe the types of public or private interests in rural areas that will be affected by the rules.  
The proposed rules are not expected to have any impact on public or private interests in rural areas.  
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT  
15. Do the proposed rules have any impact on the environment? If yes, please explain.  
The proposed rules will not have an impact on the environment.  
SMALL BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT  
16. Describe whether and how the agency considered exempting small businesses from the proposed rules.  
Small businesses will not be governed or impacted by the proposed rules so the agency did not consider small  
businesses.  
17. If small businesses are not exempt, describe (a) the manner in which the agency reduced the economic  
impact of the proposed rules on small businesses, including a detailed recitation of the efforts of the agency  
to comply with the mandate to reduce the disproportionate impact of the rules upon small businesses as  
described below (in accordance with MCL 24.240(1)(a-d)), or (b) the reasons such a reduction was not lawful  
or feasible.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
A. Identify and estimate the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rules and the probable  
effect on small businesses.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
B. Describe how the agency established differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for  
small businesses under the rules after projecting the required reporting, record-keeping, and other  
administrative costs.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses and will not have an impact on their reporting  
requirements.  
C. Describe how the agency consolidated or simplified the compliance and reporting requirements for  
small businesses and identify the skills necessary to comply with the reporting requirements.  
The agency did not consolidate or simplify the compliance and reporting requirements for small businesses as  
the proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
D. Describe how the agency established performance standards to replace design or operation standards  
required by the proposed rules.  
The proposed rules do not apply to performance, design, or operation standards in relation to small businesses.  
18. Identify any disproportionate impact the proposed rules may have on small businesses because of their size  
or geographic location.  
The proposed rules will have no impact on small businesses.  
19. Identify the nature of any report and the estimated cost of its preparation by small businesses required to  
comply with the proposed rules.  
There are no estimated costs for small businesses as the proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
20. Analyze the costs of compliance for all small businesses affected by the proposed rules, including costs of  
equipment, supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs.  
The proposed rule set will have no impact on small businesses and require no compliance from small businesses.  
21. Identify the nature and estimated cost of any legal, consulting, or accounting services that small businesses  
would incur in complying with the proposed rules.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 5  
The proposed rule set will have no impact on small businesses and require no legal, consulting, or accounting  
services on behalf of small businesses.  
22. Estimate the ability of small businesses to absorb the costs without suffering economic harm and without  
adversely affecting competition in the marketplace.  
There are no estimated costs for small businesses as the proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
23. Estimate the cost, if any, to the agency of administering or enforcing a rule that exempts or sets lesser  
standards for compliance by small businesses.  
There are no estimated costs to the agency for administration or enforcement against small businesses as the  
proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
24. Identify the impact on the public interest of exempting or setting lesser standards of compliance for small  
businesses.  
The proposed rules do not apply to small businesses so there will be no impact on the standards of compliance.  
25. Describe whether and how the agency has involved small businesses in the development of the proposed  
rules.  
The agency has not involved small businesses in the development because the proposed rules do not apply to small  
businesses.  
A. If small businesses were involved in the development of the rules, please identify the business(es).  
No small businesses were involved because the proposed rules do not apply to small businesses.  
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF RULES (INDEPENDENT OF STATUTORY IMPACT)  
26. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the rule amendments on businesses or groups.  
It is not anticipated that there will be any statewide compliance costs.  
A. Identify the businesses or groups who will be directly affected by, bear the cost of, or directly benefit  
from the proposed rules.  
The new rules will update the current rules regarding campaign financing, most of which have not been  
amended since 1979. Complainants, respondents, and Michigan Department of State (MDOS) regulatory staff  
will be affected by and benefit from the revisions, as they account for intervening updates to the MCFA and  
more efficient complaint processing procedures. Additionally, the rules will codify questions that have arisen and  
been dealt with informally in the Department’s manuals, appendices, declaratory rulings, and interpretive  
statements. No businesses or groups are anticipated to bear a cost associated with the rules.  
B. What additional costs will be imposed on businesses and other groups as a result of these proposed  
rules (i.e., new equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping)? Please identify the types and  
number of businesses and groups. Be sure to quantify how each entity will be affected.  
There will be no costs imposed as a result of the proposed rules. It is anticipated that the rules can be followed  
with the current funding appropriated to county clerks and MDOS staff.  
27. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the proposed rules on individuals (regulated individuals or  
the public). Include the costs of education, training, application fees, examination fees, license fees, new  
equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping.  
There will be no additional statewide compliance cost. The proposed rules largely codify current practice and would  
be incorporated into existing training. They are not anticipated to impose any additional training costs, and no  
additional costs are anticipated.  
A. How many and what category of individuals will be affected by the rules?  
Complainants and respondents will be affected minimally by the rules, as the rules codify current practice but  
revise some terminology. The Department receives approximately 150-500 complaints annually, for a total of  
approximately 300-1000 complainants and respondents. Approximately five MDOS regulatory staff members  
process complaints and will also be affected.  
B. What qualitative and quantitative impact do the proposed changes in rules have on these individuals?  
Complainants, respondents, and MDOS staff rely on the rules to understand aspects of the campaign finance  
complaint process that are not clearly defined in the MCFA. It is not anticipated that the rules would have a  
quantitative impact.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 6  
28. Quantify any cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or governmental units as a  
result of the proposed rules.  
It is not anticipated that there would be any cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or  
governmental as a result of the proposed rules.  
29. Estimate the primary and direct benefits and any secondary or indirect benefits of the proposed rules. Please  
provide both quantitative and qualitative information, as well as any assumptions.  
The primary and direct benefits of the proposed rules are qualitative and are to provide clarity and direction on the  
rules regarding campaign finance complaints and investigations. A secondary or indirect benefit is both qualitative and  
quantitative: there will be less confusion about the applicability of the MCFA to a certain fact pattern, and fewer  
individuals will be confused about the stages of the campaign finance complaint process. The assumption being made  
is that better clarity and direction improves quality and that if there is greater understanding there will be fewer  
requests for guidance.  
30. Explain how the proposed rules will impact business growth and job creation (or elimination) in Michigan.  
The proposed rules will not impact business growth and job creation (or elimination) in Michigan.  
31. Identify any individuals or businesses who will be disproportionately affected by the rules as a result of their  
industrial sector, segment of the public, business size, or geographic location.  
It is not anticipated that individuals or businesses will be disproportionately affected by the rules as a result of their  
industrial sector, segment of the public, business size, or geographic location.  
32. Identify the sources the agency relied upon in compiling the regulatory impact statement, including the  
methodology utilized in determining the existence and extent of the impact of the proposed rules and a cost-  
benefit analysis of the proposed rules.  
The agency relied upon the Department of State's current practice and on agency staff and its regulatory experience  
to formulate estimates and assumptions and determine the need for the proposed rules. The agency also reviewed  
administrative rules and practices for similarly situated states, specifically Wisconsin and Minnesota.  
https://ethics.wi.gov/Resources/FlowchartComplaintProcess.pdf  
https://ethics.wi.gov/Resources/EthicsCommissionComplaintProcedures.pdf  
Minnesota Statute 10A.022 VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT  
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/10A.022#stat.10A.022.5  
A. How were estimates made, and what assumptions were made? Include internal and external sources,  
published reports, information provided by associations or organizations, etc., that demonstrate a need  
for the proposed rules.  
The agency relied upon agency staff and its regulatory and administrative experience to determine the impact of  
the proposed rules. The agency also sent the rules to the Michigan Association of County Clerks and relied on  
their feedback and expertise. Because the proposed rules largely codify current practice, the agency can  
reasonably assume their implementation will not cause any major change to the processes associated with  
campaign finance reporting. The agency assumes that having the administrative rules reflect current law and  
practice will be beneficial and eliminate any confusion that currently exists.  
ALTERNATIVE TO REGULATION  
33. Identify any reasonable alternatives to the proposed rules that would achieve the same or similar goals.  
The reasonable alternative would be to amend the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. However, the Department cannot  
amend the law, so this is not a reasonable alternative that is within the Department’s control.  
A. Please include any statutory amendments that may be necessary to achieve such alternatives.  
The rules are not inconsistent with the MCFA but incorporating them into the MCFA would require amendments  
to MCL 169.215 and 169.216.  
34. Discuss the feasibility of establishing a regulatory program similar to that proposed in the rules that would  
operate through private market-based mechanisms. Please include a discussion of private market-based  
systems utilized by other states.  
There are no private market-based mechanisms available to address the needs covered by the proposed rules. The  
agency is not aware of a private market-based system, as opposed to a state regulatory body, for these purposes that  
is utilized in other states.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
RIS-Page 7  
35. Discuss all significant alternatives the agency considered during rule development and why they were not  
incorporated into the rules. This section should include ideas considered both during internal discussions  
and discussions with stakeholders, affected parties, or advisory groups.  
Due to the nature of regulating campaign finance, no significant alternatives to reasonable regulation were considered  
during the development of the proposed rules. The proposed rules are intended to codify the current legal  
requirements and practices.  
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION  
36. As required by MCL 24.245b(1)(c), please describe any instructions regarding the method of complying with  
the rules, if applicable.  
The rules explicitly inform persons of requirements and methods of compliance.  
MCL 24.245(3)  
;