Paid Political Posts Disclosure Rules

Summary#

SB 1199 would amend the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (1976 PA 388) and add a new section on paid social media posts. Its stated goal is to require disclosure of who funded certain political posts and to report payments made through agents or contractors. It is introduced and is not law; passage is uncertain.

  • A paid post that supports or opposes a candidate or ballot question would have to identify the committee, agent, or independent contractor funding it, as applicable.
  • The disclosure would have format rules: for example, it must be visible in a graphic and spoken in audio; a video with audio must include both.
  • If an agent or contractor pays someone to post political content on social media, that agent or contractor must give the person’s full name and street address to the committee. The committee must file an amended campaign statement listing each person paid.
  • A committee that pays someone to post must tell that person about the disclaimer requirement.
  • Violating the post-disclosure rule could bring a civil fine of up to $250 for a first violation or up to $1,000 for a later violation. Each violating post distributed or aired to the public counts separately.

What it means for you#

  • People paid to create or post political content: If you create, first publish, or first distribute a covered paid post, it must carry the required disclosure. The bill defines a social media post as a post supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot question that a committee paid for, directly or through an agent or contractor.
  • Committees: You must notify a person you pay to post about the disclosure rule. If an agent or contractor pays someone else to post, you must file an amended campaign statement with that person’s full name and street address.
  • Agents and independent contractors: If a committee pays you and you pay another person to support or oppose a candidate or ballot question on social media, you must provide that person’s full name and street address to the committee.
  • Distribution platforms: The bill describes an exception for platforms that routinely carry news and commentary of general interest and meet written-policy and notice conditions. Satire and parody posts are also excluded.
  • General public: The bill adds disclosure duties; it does not ban paid political posts or create a new benefit. The current Act was not supplied, so the existing rules and how much this changes them could not be verified.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided in the available material.

  • The bill requires committees to file amended campaign statements in some cases, but gives no estimate of staff or filing costs.
  • A person responsible for a disclosure violation may be ordered to pay up to $250 for a first violation or up to $1,000 for each later violation. The bill does not estimate fine revenue or enforcement costs.
  • The bill does not state an appropriation, fee, or new funding source.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not give a start date.
  • It does not define terms such as “clear and conspicuous” or explain how to handle formats beyond the specific graphic, audio, and video-with-audio rules.
  • It does not explain how responsibility is determined when several people create, publish, or distribute a post.
  • The platform exception and its separate protection from liability are not fully explained in the supplied text.
  • The current version of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act was not supplied, so the existing duties and penalties could not be checked against these changes.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to help people identify who paid for political social media content.
  • Requiring committees to report payments made through agents or contractors could make those payment chains more visible.
  • Format-specific rules could make disclosures easier to notice in images, audio, and video.

Case against#

  • A disclosure may be required for each covered post, and each violating post can count separately; this could create repeated compliance duties and fines.
  • Requiring a paid person’s street address in a campaign statement raises a privacy concern.
  • The bill leaves some important details—such as what counts as “clear and conspicuous”—open, which could make compliance uncertain.