A resolution to urge Jocelyn Benson to release all information in her possession related to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s operations, including any details concerning the organization’s alleged payments to individuals associated with extremist groups, and to publicly address her role in the organization.
House Resolution 313 is a nonbinding resolution that urges Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to disclose any information, documents, communications, or records she may have regarding the Southern Poverty Law Center’s operations, funding decisions, and use of paid informants. The resolution focuses on allegations described in the text that the SPLC secretly paid individuals associated with extremist groups and misled donors about how funds were used. It also asks Benson to publicly address her prior service on the SPLC Board of Directors and any knowledge or involvement she may have had in the organization’s decisions.
The resolution does not change Michigan law or create any new regulatory duties. Instead, it is a formal legislative request directed at a statewide elected official and copies are to be sent to federal law enforcement officials and Michigan’s congressional delegation. Its practical effect is political and informational: it seeks public disclosure, accountability, and a response from Benson regarding her past association with the SPLC and the allegations referenced in the resolution.
HR 313 would have no direct legal effect on state statutes, agency authority, or nonprofit regulation because it is a House resolution rather than a bill amending law. Its impact is limited to expressing the House’s position, requesting disclosure from Jocelyn Benson, and transmitting the resolution to federal and congressional recipients. The resolution targets public officials and the broader public record, not a statutory change.
The resolution appears strongly critical of Jocelyn Benson and the Southern Poverty Law Center, framing the issue as one of transparency, donor deception, and possible impropriety. Based on the text alone, the sentiment is accusatory and adversarial rather than bipartisan or neutral. No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded evidence here of broader legislative support or opposition beyond the sponsors listed in the resolution.
The main points of contention are the allegations against the SPLC, the claim that Benson may have had knowledge of or involvement in the organization’s funding decisions, and whether her prior role creates a conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety. The resolution also criticizes Benson’s transparency record, referencing a prior House contempt finding over election training materials. Supporters of the resolution appear to view disclosure as necessary for accountability, while likely critics would question the factual basis, relevance, and partisan motivation behind singling out Benson and relying on allegations contained in a federal indictment.