Michigan GOP files campaign finance complaint against Secretary of State
Benson formally announced her bid for governor last week in a press conference held in the lobby of the Richard H. Austin Building, a building that houses Secretary of State offices on its fourth floor.
The MIGOP alleges that this choice of venue violated Michigan election law and submitted a complaint under of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which requires that the Secretary of State investigate these allegations. As Benson and her campaign are directly involved, the law also requires that this complaint be referred to the Department of Attorney General.
'We call on the Bureau of Elections to take this complaint seriously and to hold Jocelyn Benson accountable for her flagrant abuses of the public's trust. We also request that the Bureau of Elections enjoin Secretary Benson and her campaign from future violations and fine them the maximum amount permitted by law,' said Tyler Henningsen, Political Director of the Michigan Republican Party. 'The integrity of our public office holders must be maintained, and the misuse of taxpayer-funded resources for personal political gain will not be tolerated.'
6 News attended the aforementioned press conference, and the choice of venue was brought up by those in attendance multiple times.
When asked why the conference was held inside instead of out on the steps, Benson replied 'It's cold, so we didn't want you all to stand outside in the hall, so we are in here.'
She was then asked if other candidates for office could use the lobby for their press events, to which Benson responded 'Of course.'
When an attendee said holding a campaign press conference inside the building had not been permitted before, Benson replied: 'Well that's good to know. It's certainly never come to my attention, but again, this was an effort to make sure that no one's getting frostbite.'
A release from the MIGOP says that the Richard H. Austin Building, funded by Michigan Taxpayers is not a space open to all but an office under Benson's control as Secretary of State.
However, the Benson campaign released a statement to 6 News contradicting this, saying 'As the Secretary said last Wednesday, the lobby space used is a public space where First Amendment activity can occur as long as it doesn't interfere with the operation of the building. Any candidate is welcome to use it, and anyone saying otherwise is playing a political game.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Bob Vylan US visa revocation ‘a sideshow': Bari Weiss
Journalist Bari Weiss said Monday that punk rap duo Bob Vylan's U.S. visa revocation was less about free speech and more of an effort to address a growing cultural movement against Zionism. 'It's a sideshow. Of course, this punk rocker Bob Vylan, who I'd never heard of before, has every right to get up and say, you know, death to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]…,' Weiss said during a Monday evening appearance on NewsNation's 'Cuomo.' 'That's really though, not what this is about,' she added. 'This is about calling out clearly a cultural ideological movement that is trying to purge Jews from institutional spaces, from cultural spaces.' Weiss, who is Jewish, railed against the band and the U.K. for not addressing the music group's weekend chants against Israel's military amid the unrest in the Middle East, which were broadcasted across the world. The Israeli Embassy condemned the chants as 'inflammatory and hateful rhetoric.' Still, Weiss acknowledged that the UK does not have a First Amendment clause and is ultimately governed by 'different principles' than the U.S. 'What we are seeing happening is a active ideological movement, not just to demonize Israel, not just to demonize the Israeli military, not just to demonize the war that began on October 7, but to demonize Jews 'from the river to the sea,'' she told host Chris Cuomo, referring to the 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas. 'Palestine will be free. That's part of it.' 'Part of it is about erasing Israel from the map,' Weiss continued. 'But the larger movement happening here that I don't think people are yet alive enough to and I know that you are, and I know you talk about it so much on this show, is erasing Jews from the moral map.' Despite her statements and criticism from Republican lawmakers, Bob Vylan defended their on-stage comments in a post online. 'We are not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of people. We are for the dismantling of a violent military machine,' the duo wrote Tuesday on social platform X. 'A machine whose own soldiers were told to use 'unnecessary lethal force' against innocent civilians waiting for aid. A machine that has destroyed much of Gaza,' the group continued, referencing the nearly two-year war in the Gaza Strip. 'We, like those in the spotlight before us, are not the story. We are a distraction from the story.' They added, 'And whatever sanctions we receive will be a distraction.'
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme court to hear case that could further erode campaign spending limits
The US supreme court agreed on Monday to hear a case that could further erode restrictions on money in politics, in a challenge that comes in part from Vice-President JD Vance. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, Vance and Steve Chabot, a former Republican congressman from Ohio, are challenging limits set on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates. The case was filed when Vance was a senatorial candidate, in 2022. The court's landmark Citizens United ruling in 2010 threw away limits on outside spending on elections, allowing corporations and unions to inject unlimited money into elections as a matter of free speech. The current challenge from Republicans makes a similar argument, claiming that limits on how much spending can be coordinated with a campaign impede their first amendment rights. It also comes at a time where unfettered outside spending has become a norm in US politics. The case is challenging limits to what is called 'coordinated' spending between a party and the campaign, while independent expenditures, those often made by political action committees, have been unlimited since Citizens United. The limits themselves vary depending on population and which office a candidate is seeking. On the low end, a candidate for the US House of Representatives in a state with multiple representatives would be limited to $63,600, while a Senatecandidate in a state with a large voting age population would be nearly $4m. The US court of appeals for the sixth circuit upheld the limits based on a prior supreme court ruling in 2001 on coordinated spending, but the plaintiffs have argued this 2001 decision is outdated given other more recent campaign finance decisions. The Trump administration filed a brief in the case that aligned with Republicans, and the justice department called on the supreme court to consider the case. Democratic groups have asked to intervene to defend the existing limits. The case will be heard in the court's next term, which starts in October. ScotusBlog, the much-watched website written by lawyers and legal scholars, says the case 'may be the first potential blockbuster of October term 2025'.
Boston Globe
17 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court will hear challenge to limits on political party spending
'It would at a minimum open up more opportunities for political parties to work with their campaigns,' Pildes said. 'More expansively, it could lead to political parties regaining some of the ground they lost to the Super PACs over the last 20 years.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The national Republican senatorial and congressional committees, joined by then-Senator JD Vance, Republican of Ohio, and then-Representative Steve Chabot, Republican of Ohio, filed a lawsuit over the limits in 2022, saying they conflict with the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Advertisement The Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled against the Republicans, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling upholding the limits, but it acknowledged the high court 'has tightened the free speech restrictions on campaign finance regulation' in more recent decisions, so the issue may be ripe for revisiting. Advertisement In the 2001 case, the high court upheld the restrictions on coordinating spending by political parties in a 5-4 ruling, finding they 'minimize circumvention of [individual] contribution limits.' The GOP committees urged the justices to overturn that decision in a filing, arguing that the restrictions have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' fueling the rise of super PACs and a decline in the power of political parties and contributing to 'a spike in political polarization and fragmentation across the board.' 'Congress has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them,' the petitioners wrote. 'That is the campaign 'equivalent of prohibiting communication between a coach and quarterback late in a tied game.'' Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a filing in the case that the Trump administration will not defend the restrictions on party spending. The move is unusual because the solicitor general typically defends federal law. The high court is allowing the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to intervene in the case to defend the contribution limits, which the groups say are an essential part of trying to restrict the influence of wealthy donors on the political process. The Democratic groups argued in a brief filed with the courts that removing the limits could lead to corruption by 'blow[ing] open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates through party committees' coordinated expenditures.' For 2025, the Federal Election Commission limited how much parties are able to spend in coordination with a Senate nominee to between about $127,000 and $3.9 million, depending on the size of a state's voting-age population. For House candidates, the limits are between about $63,000 and $127,000. Parties face no limits on expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates. Advertisement The high court's decision to accept the case was a major blow to advocates for campaign finance regulation. Since the court's landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which opened the door to unlimited contributions by corporations and unions, the conservative majority has consistently viewed limits on campaign spending as unconstitutional limits on free speech. If the court strikes down the current restrictions on coordinated spending by political parties — as expected by activists on both sides of the debate — it will be the latest ruling that erodes the campaign finance regulations enacted in the wake of Watergate to guard against the potentially corrupting influence of money in politics. 'This case is part of a long line of cases in which this court has set out to eviscerate campaign finance laws passed over decades to protect the American people from corruption,' said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan group that backs stronger regulation of campaign spending. 'This court is on a path that is completely hostile to campaign finance laws.' Most states don't restrict the amounts that parties can spend in coordination with candidates, said David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, which filed a brief supporting the Republican committees' request for the high court's involvement. 'This case is a complete outlier, and this is long overdue,' Keating said. 'There is no evidence that it will lead to corruption, so I think it's extremely unlikely the court will uphold this restriction.' Advertisement The case is one of seven that the justices added Monday to their calendar for the term that begins in October. The court also agreed to take up a major copyright dispute between Cox Communications and a group of music labels seeking to hold the internet service provider accountable for alleged illegal downloading of music by Cox customers.
