HB4064 would amend Michigan’s lobbying law to prohibit members of the Michigan Senate and House of Representatives from receiving any compensation, other than their lawful legislative compensation, for directly communicating with executive-branch or legislative-branch officials for the purpose of influencing legislative or administrative action. The restriction applies not only to communications with Michigan officials, but also to officials in the executive or legislative branches of other governments.
The bill also creates a criminal penalty for violations: a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The act is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026, and would add a new section 6c to 1978 PA 472, the state law governing political activity, lobbyists, and lobbying activities.
Impact
HB4064 would add a new ethics and lobbying restriction to Michigan law by limiting outside-paid lobbying or advocacy by sitting state legislators when they communicate directly with government officials to influence legislative or administrative action. It would affect members of the Michigan Senate and House of Representatives, and it would be enforced through the state’s existing lobbying statute, 1978 PA 472 (MCL 4.411 to 4.431). Violations would be treated as misdemeanors, creating a criminal enforcement mechanism in addition to the professional and ethical constraints already in place.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported, though not unanimously. It was reported from committee without amendment on a 3-0 vote, and later passed the House on third reading by a wide margin of 103-6, indicating broad agreement with the bill’s ethics-focused purpose. The immediate-effect vote also suggests legislative interest in moving the measure forward quickly.
Contention
The main point of contention is the scope of the restriction on legislators receiving compensation for direct communications intended to influence government action. Supporters appear to favor the bill as a conflict-of-interest and ethics safeguard that prevents lawmakers from being paid for lobbying-like activity while serving in office. Potential concerns likely center on whether the ban is too broad, how it applies to communications with other governments, and whether criminal penalties are an appropriate enforcement tool for this conduct. The narrow committee vote and small number of House nays indicate some opposition, but the bill’s overall reception was strongly favorable.