Michigan House Bill HB5506

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/26
• Refer: 2/5/26

Caption

Public employees and officers: ethics; certain local officials acting as lobbyists outside of the course and scope of the official's office; prohibit. Amends 1978 PA 472 (MCL 4.411 - 4.431) by adding sec. 6b.

Summary

House Bill 5506 would amend Michigan’s lobbying law to prohibit certain local officials from serving as paid lobbyists or lobbyist agents outside the course and scope of their official duties. The bill applies to county officials and to officials in cities, villages, and townships with populations of 20,000 or more, as measured by the most recent federal decennial census. In practical terms, it creates a conflict-of-interest restriction aimed at preventing local officeholders from using their public positions to engage in compensated lobbying work on the side. The bill also establishes a criminal penalty for violations. A local official who acts as a lobbyist or lobbyist agent for compensation in violation of the new restriction would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The measure would be added to 1978 PA 472, the state’s lobbying regulation act, and would expand the act’s ethics and enforcement framework to cover this category of local officials.

Impact

HB 5506 would add a new section to Michigan’s lobbying statute, 1978 PA 472, creating a specific legal prohibition on compensated lobbying by covered local officials. It would affect county officials and officials in larger municipalities, while leaving other local officials outside the bill’s defined scope. The bill would also give the state an additional misdemeanor enforcement tool for conduct that is currently not expressly barred in this way under the cited act.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as an ethics and good-governance reform rather than a controversial policy expansion. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s structure suggests a straightforward anti-conflict-of-interest approach intended to limit dual roles for local officials.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the scope of the restriction and who is covered. The bill applies only to county officials and officials in cities, villages, and townships with populations of 20,000 or more, which could raise questions about why smaller jurisdictions are excluded. Another possible issue is the criminal penalty, since opponents of ethics legislation sometimes object to misdemeanor sanctions for conduct tied to outside employment. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided record.