From:  
Sheree Ritchie  
To:  
MDOS-Elections-PublicComment  
Cc:  
Bryanna Vitale  
Subject:  
Date:  
Attachments:  
PIME Statement on Rule Set 2022-22 ST Campaign Finance General Provisions  
Saturday, June 6, 2026 9:46:19 AM  
PIME Opposition Statement RS 2026-22.pdf  
CAUTION: This is an External email. Please report suspicious emails via the "Report  
to Abuse" button in Outlook  
Please accept the attached comment regarding Rule Set 2026-22, with public hearing on  
Monday, June 8, 2026, 10:00 AM in Room 1100 of the Binsfeld Office Building, 201 Townsend  
St. Lansing, MI 48933.  
Respectfully submitted,  
(by Sheree Ritchie) on behalf of Pure Integrity Michigan Elections (PIME)/Patrice Johnson,  
Chair  
Pure Integrity Michigan Elections (PIME)  
Comprehensive Legal Analysis  
Rule Set 2026-22 ST  
Campaign Finance General Provisions  
Submitted by:  
Pure Integrity Michigan Elections (PIME)  
Patrice Johnson, Chairman  
Email: pime2021@protonmail.com  
Phone: 517-299-8002  
Website: https://www.pureintegritymichiganelections.org  
May 2026  
Status: Rule Set 2026-22 ST – Pending Implementation  
Link to Rule Set: Provided in the Michigan Administrative Code proposed additions (R  
168.501–R 168.506)  
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
Declaratory rulings and interpretive statements are the primary mechanism by which  
the public, candidates, committees, and organizations obtain official guidance on  
Michigan’s Campaign Finance Act (MCFA), MCL 169.201–169.282. These tools ensure  
uniform application of the law, promote transparency, and prevent arbitrary enforcement of  
campaign finance rules. MCL 169.215(2) establishes a mandatory, detailed process for  
issuing these rulings and statements, with strict timelines and public-comment  
requirements.  
Rule Set 2026-22 ST (R 168.501–R 168.506) systematically dismantles these  
statutory rights through legally unauthorized restrictions. The rules exceed the  
Secretary of State’s limited rulemaking authority under MCL 169.215 and the  
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), MCL 24.201 et seq. They create new barriers to public  
access to legal guidance at the exact moment when the Secretary is a declared candidate  
for governor and will administer the very election in which her own campaign finance  
compliance will be at issue.  
Three Fatal Flaws  
Rule Set 2026-22 ST fails every APA test for valid administrative rulemaking (Clonlara,  
Inc. v. State Bd. of Educ., 442 Mich. 230 (1993)):  
1. LEGALLY UNAUTHORIZED  
- R 168.506(4) + R 168.501(c): The Department may refuse both a declaratory ruling  
and an interpretive statement on expansive new grounds (anonymous, “frivolous” per a  
newly invented three-part definition, indefinite, duplicative, lacks specificity, or outside the  
Act).  
- This directly contradicts MCL 169.215(2), which requires that if a declaratory ruling  
is refused for insufficient facts, the Department shall issue an interpretive statement. The  
statute contains no authority to refuse the fallback interpretive statement.  
- The new “frivolous” definition (harassment, no reasonable basis for facts, or  
relitigation) has no basis in the MCFA or APA and was never authorized by the Legislature.  
2. CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM  
- R 168.505(3): The filing official “shall not provide informal interpretation” of any  
publicly filed report or statement except to individuals listed on the committee’s statement  
of organization. This gag rule on public inquiries about public documents violates the  
First Amendment right to petition for redress, due process, and the MCFA’s  
transparency purpose.  
- Vague and overbroad refusal standards in R 168.506 chill protected political  
speech and association by denying candidates, parties, and the public clear guidance on  
campaign finance compliance during an election cycle in which the Secretary herself is a  
candidate.  
3. ADMINISTRATIVELY UNJUSTIFIED  
- No Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) or other evidence demonstrates any  
problem with the existing statutory process or prior rules that these changes attempt to  
solve. The October 2024–2025 election cycle operated successfully without these  
restrictions. The rules add barriers without necessity, while the Secretary administers  
the election in which her own campaign will be subject to the very rules she controls.  
These rules represent an impermissible executive expansion of power that  
restricts the public’s statutory right to official legal guidance on campaign finance—  
precisely when such guidance is most critical.  
Immediate Action Required  
Written comments must be submitted by the deadline established for this rule set  
(currently scheduled public hearing: June 8, 2026, 10:00 AM). After the comment period,  
avenues remain for JCAR objection, state court challenge (ultra vires, APA violations, First  
Amendment), and federal review given the Secretary’s conflict of interest.  
SECTION I: MAJOR VIOLATIONS – DETAILED ANALYSIS  
A. Legally Unauthorized Overreach – Declaratory Rulings and Interpretive  
Statements (R 168.506(4) + R 168.501(c))  
MCL 169.215(2) mandates a specific process:  
- A person may request a declaratory ruling on an “actual statement of facts.”  
- If the facts are insufficient for a declaratory ruling, “the department shall instead  
issue an interpretive statement providing an informational response.”  
Rule 168.506(4) authorizes refusal of either a declaratory ruling or an interpretive  
statement on grounds never authorized by the Legislature (anonymous requests, “frivolous  
on its face,” duplicative, lacks specificity, etc.). The newly invented “frivolous” definition in  
R 168.501(c) adds three subjective criteria with no statutory basis.  
This is classic ultra vires rulemaking. Agencies may not add substantive restrictions or  
barriers the Legislature deliberately omitted. Clonlara, 442 Mich. at 239.  
B. Legally Unauthorized Gag on Informal Interpretations (R 168.505(3))  
The rule states: “The filing official shall not provide informal interpretation of the  
contents of any report or statement except to individuals associated with the committee  
that filed the report or statement.”  
Nothing in the MCFA or APA authorizes the Secretary to prohibit her own staff from  
answering routine public questions about publicly filed campaign finance documents.  
This directly undermines the transparency purpose of the Act and the public’s right to  
understand compliance with election law. It creates a two-tiered system: insiders get  
guidance; the public gets silence.  
C. Failure to Implement the Full Statutory Process (R 168.506(3))  
The rule vaguely references “the timeline in section 15,” but omits the detailed public-  
comment requirements (48-hour posting of the full request, 10-day public comments,  
proposed response, additional 5-day comments, etc.). This procedural shortcut violates  
the APA’s meaningful public participation mandates.  
D. APA Violations  
- Lack of Necessity (MCL 24.245a): No evidence of problems under the prior system.  
- Arbitrary and Capricious: Unexplained reversal of longstanding practice allowing  
informal guidance and mandatory interpretive fallback.  
- Failure to Coordinate with Applicable Law (MCL 24.245a(8)): Ignores First  
Amendment implications and MCFA transparency mandates.  
- No Cost Analysis: Burdens on the public and filers are unquantified.  
SECTION II: CONSTITUTIONAL AND SEPARATION OF POWERS  
VIOLATIONS  
- First Amendment: The rules operate as a prior restraint and viewpoint-based  
restriction on political speech and petition rights by limiting access to official guidance on  
campaign finance compliance.  
- Due Process / Vagueness: The new “frivolous” standard and refusal criteria provide  
no objective notice and invite arbitrary enforcement.  
- Separation of Powers: The executive cannot, through rulemaking, narrow or  
eliminate rights and procedures the Legislature expressly created in MCL 169.215(2).  
Clonlara standard violated.  
The timing—promulgated while the Secretary is a candidate for governor—creates an  
acute conflict of interest. The same office that will enforce campaign finance rules against  
all candidates (including the Secretary) is simultaneously restricting the public’s ability to  
obtain binding guidance on those rules.  
SECTION III: CONCLUSION AND CALL TO ACTION  
Rule Set 2026-22 ST exceeds statutory authority, contradicts express legislative  
mandates in MCL 169.215(2), violates the APA, and burdens constitutional rights without  
any demonstrated necessity. It must be invalidated.  
Immediate Action Required:  
- Submit written comments opposing the rules by the public comment deadline.  
- Attend the public hearing (June 8, 2026, 10:00 AM).  
- Support JCAR objection and/or state/federal court challenge as ultra vires and  
unconstitutional.  
Poll challengers and the public rely on clear, accessible campaign finance guidance  
to ensure compliance and accountability. Rule Set 2026-22 ST transforms this statutory  
right into a state-controlled privilege subject to arbitrary denial. Courts must act where the  
Legislature’s oversight mechanisms have failed.  
Rule Set 2026-22 ST is legally unauthorized, constitutionally infirm, and  
administratively unjustified. It must be declared null and void.  
Respectfully submitted,  
Pure Integrity Michigan Elections (PIME)  
Patrice Johnson, Chairman  
---  
APPENDIX (to be attached if submitting full package)  
Exhibit A: Applicable Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL 169.215 – full text of §15 of the  
MCFA)  
Exhibit B: Full text of Rule Set 2026-22 ST (R 168.501–R 168.506)  
Exhibit C: Any available Regulatory Impact Statement or public notice  
PIME takes no position on any candidate or party; we oppose only unauthorized restrictions  
on statutory rights and election transparency.  
;