Civil rights: sexual orientation discrimination; certain references in the Michigan campaign finance act; make gender neutral. Amends sec. 61 of 1976 PA 388 (MCL 169.261). TIE BAR WITH: HJR F'25
House Bill 4627 amends section 61 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, which governs the state campaign fund and the income-tax checkoff that allows taxpayers to designate $3.00 of their tax liability to that fund. The bill updates the statutory language to make the provision gender neutral, replacing references such as "husband and wife" with "spouses" and changing other wording to more modern, inclusive phrasing. It also retains the existing structure for how the fund is created, how the tax return designation must be displayed, and how money is appropriated and distributed for campaign finance purposes.
The bill does not fundamentally change the campaign finance program itself. It preserves the $3.00 taxpayer designation, the annual appropriation from the general fund, the rule that unused money generally remains in the state campaign fund, and the requirement that funds be reserved to support general election candidate distributions before primary election distributions. It also keeps the existing $10 million cap on amounts that may remain in the fund after a gubernatorial general election, and the special one-time transfer provision for fiscal year 2006-2007.
The bill is tied to a proposed constitutional amendment, meaning it would not take effect unless the related joint resolution becomes part of the Michigan Constitution. That tie-bar indicates the legislation is part of a broader package and is contingent on voter or constitutional approval of the companion measure. As a result, its practical effect depends on the success of that related constitutional change.
The overall sentiment appears procedural and low-conflict, with the bill framed as a technical and civil-rights-related cleanup rather than a substantive policy overhaul. The caption indicates the purpose is to make certain references in the campaign finance act gender neutral and to address sexual orientation discrimination-related language, suggesting support for modernizing statutory terminology. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no evidence in the available materials of significant opposition or debate.
The main point of contention, insofar as one is implied by the bill text, is the tie-bar to the companion constitutional resolution, which makes the bill dependent on a separate constitutional change. Beyond that, the bill appears largely noncontroversial and administrative in nature, affecting taxpayers who use the campaign fund checkoff, the state treasurer who administers the fund, and candidates who receive campaign finance distributions.
HB4627 would amend the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, specifically MCL 169.261, to update the state campaign fund checkoff language and related provisions. The bill would affect the wording on state income tax returns, the administration of the state campaign fund by the state treasurer, and the statutory rules governing how designated funds are appropriated, retained, and distributed to qualifying candidates. It also preserves the existing fiscal mechanics of the fund, including the pro rata distribution rule when money is insufficient and the $10 million year-end lapse threshold after a gubernatorial general election.
Based on the bill caption and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the bill appears to have been presented as a technical, modernizing measure with a civil-rights framing rather than as a controversial policy change. The language change to gender-neutral terminology suggests a generally supportive or at least routine legislative posture toward updating outdated references. No direct opposition is documented in the provided materials.
The most notable issue is the bill’s tie-bar to a companion constitutional resolution, making enactment contingent on separate constitutional action. That dependency could be a point of procedural concern for legislators who prefer standalone statutory changes or who object to linking the bill’s fate to a broader constitutional package. Otherwise, the bill text itself does not reveal substantive policy disputes; it largely preserves the existing campaign finance structure while updating terminology.