The short answer: they might.
In opposition to electoral reform, Ann Arbor voters have now received one deceptive mailer from a dark money operation in Lansing, another deceptive mailer (featuring Trump) that was funded by the same PAC that supports our current elected government, and numerous texts and messages of other distortions and mischaracterizations.
A veritable avalanche of misinformation has been spewed in the last month, funded by outside interests and directed by people who are happy to exploit a universal challenge: a well publicized lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has gotten its pants on.
Friends tell me that one of the most compelling lies was the recent message that reform initiatives are funded by landlords, PACs and money from out of town. The idea is that these electoral reforms are funded and supported by people with a policy agenda and that is why you should oppose them.
What’s remarkable about this particular lie: it quite accurately describes the anti-reform coalition. MLive has now written about it, confirming the facts.
https://www.mlive.com/politics/2024/10/see-whos-behind-over-385k-poured-into-fight-over-ann-arbor-props-c-and-d.html
You can find more facts at the websites below:
”LANDLORDS”
Anti-reform messaging last week included the whopper that Prop C & Prop D was primarily supported by “landlords” including one specific “landlord” who gave over $80,000. The truth? He is “landlord” to an antiquarian bookstore and an ice cream shop. That’s his whole “landlord” portfolio. A significant amount of his donated support for Prop C & D was in-kind, because he owns and runs a nationally recognized, award winning ad agency. He has a history of taking up causes where profit interests and big money have outsized influence that negatively impact the community.
E.g. In 2023, he invested his own time and resources in raising awareness about illegal mining operations in Ann Arbor township.
https://www.michiganpublic.org/environment-climate-change/2023-10-04/ann-arbor-township-files-lawsuit-against-three-mining-companies
Earlier this year, he was instrumental in raising awareness about City Council plans to develop a conference center on City-owned property previously designated for affordable housing. He exposed months of private meetings between City staff and a development team that was looking for public subsidy and tax breaks for their “Sports Illustrated Resorts” project. Public exposure effectively shamed Council into abandoning the plan.
https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2024/01/sports-illustrated-resorts-withdraws-proposal-for-downtown-ann-arbor-lot.html
MLive refers to a couple donors to Prop C & Prop D as “landlords”, but collectively they own fewer than twenty residential units. The supporters of Prop C & D are not the “landlords” working to increase rents and make money by reducing the supply of rental housing in the city of Ann Arbor. It’s important for everyone – and especially students- to understand: the current government and the anti-reform initiatives are supported by the landlords who ARE increasing rents and prioritizing profits over housing.
ANTI-REFORM LANDLORDS & SPECIAL INTERESTS
Anti-reform donors include Jeff Hauptman, CEO of Oxford Companies, who is one of the largest property owners in the City and also provides rental management services to other landlords, promising to help them simultaneously reduce costs and increase rents.
Hauptman is a former republican candidate for City Council whose family has donated over $23,000 to the mayor and current elected members of City Council. He donated an additional $5000 to oppose Prop C. In 2022, Mayor Taylor appointed an executive employee of Oxford Companies to the city’s Planning Commission (he is now chair). Oxford Companies requests so many zoning and ordinance changes at the City Planning commission that its executive has had to recuse himself twenty times since his appointment two years ago.
Another anti-reform donor: Heidi Poscher, a property investor who famously threatened to sue the City in order to get loopholes in the City’s Airbnb regulation ordinance. Poscher and her partner have donated directly to members of City Council and gave an additional $5000 to the Mayor’s PAC (which was distributed to Council Members). Poscher contributed $6,000 to this year’s anti-reform campaigns.
In 2021, current Council Members Radina, Eyer, Briggs, Disch, and Song plus Mayor Taylor approved the ordinance loopholes that now protect Poscher’s portfolio of Airbnb units that displace long term renters. In 2023, City Council unanimously approved Poscher’s request for a rezoning to develop even more dedicated full-time Airbnb.
Shortly after achieving a unanimous City Council, the Mayor and Council Member Radina attempted to appoint Poscher to the Renters Commission. Members of that commission asked that her nomination be withdrawn and it was. (Mayor Taylor then appointed another of his campaign donors, also a landlord.)
This year, City Council granted Poscher exclusive rights to negotiate the purchase of a City-owned property, outside of a competitive bidding process.
https://a2elnel.com/post/415-w-washington-a-unique-opportunity-for-a-campaign-donor/
To learn more about the profit interests above, see these videos:
PACs
The electoral reform campaigns for Prop C & D have received no money from PACs. Proposal D, a groundbreaking campaign finance reform (the first in Michigan) received a $35,000 grant from the nonprofit Piper Action Fund:
“Piper Action Fund’s vision is a healthy democracy that works for everyone. It supports reform campaigns to defend democratic institutions and diminish the influence of corporate and special interest money on our political and judicial systems.”
https://www.proteusfund.org/piper-action-fund/
In contrast, the anti-reform campaign collected significant funds from PACs: $75,000 in total, including $35,000 from the same PAC that sent a deceptive mailer claiming that Trump supports Prop C & D.
OUTSIDE INTERESTS & SELF-INTEREST
Apart from the Piper Action Fund grant, all of the money in support of electoral reform came from City residents or long-time City boosters who live just outside the City. We are a coalition of progressive democrats who support democratic candidates and have worked locally to promote affordable housing, environmental cleanup, voting rights, and reproductive freedoms.
Anti-reform messages insinuate that non-local, “landlord” money is attempting to direct policy through the electoral reforms. This idea is absurd on its face. Prop C will allow many more people – including thousands of students – to participate in choosing City leaders. Candidates for City offices will be accountable to students in a way that they have not been for about twenty years. Prop D will create a path for ANY candidate with meaningful local support to leverage a competitive, grassroots campaign with small, local donations. Prop D would allow a student to leverage a competitive campaign for local office when a constituency of students is in town to support them. Prop C and Prop D are about process, not policy.
Anti-reform messaging also suggests that Ann Arbor would be an outlier in conducting nonpartisan City elections without a winnowing primary. This argument is either uninformed or intentionally deceptive. At least fifteen other Michigan municipalities elect representative city leaders in nonpartisan, high turnout November elections without a primary: Troy, Westland, Farmington Hills, Kalamazoo, Royal Oak, Battle Creek, East Lansing, Saginaw, Port Huron, Madison Heights, Auburn Hills, Birmingham, Mt. Pleasant, Monroe, Ferndale, Trenton, Wayne, Mt. Clemens, and Traverse City.
November elections (Prop C) and a small donor matching fund (Prop D) create opportunity for student participation as both voters and potential candidates. It is a huge shift toward more inclusion and accessibility in a town that is overwhelmingly liberal/left leaning. Anti-reform messaging suggests that including the constituency of UM students in our City elections is going to pave the way for republicans and right-wing extremists. This is an insult to the student community.
Low turnout elections flooded with money is how the current City government was elected. Not surprisingly, elected leaders have donated their own campaign funds – much of which came from PACs and non-local sources – to fight electoral reform. Current elected leaders donated over $25,000 to preserve elections that exclude students and fight campaign finance reform that would support grassroots candidates.
The reforms in Prop C & D address the stranglehold that a shared network of big money has on low turnout elections— the system that has effectively created a unanimous Council. To the extent that including more voters might lead to the election of someone outside of this closed system, potential dissent can be expected to come from the left, not the right. Most importantly: a voice of dissent is likely to push back on the outsized influence of big donors. That is what the current Council fears most.
CONCLUSION
In considering the electoral reforms in Prop C and Prop D, who do you trust to explain them? Do you trust an anti-reform coalition funded by special interests, the same ones who tried to deceive you with a Trump mailer? Do you trust the elected leaders who desperately want to preserve the system that put them in office and are CURRENTLY allowing landlords and outside special interests to direct City policy? These are the questions that students and residents alike need to ask themselves.
I will confess that I continue to be astonished by the effectiveness of misinformation in a town that should think more critically. It is concerning that so many elected leaders embrace the strategy of deceiving residents and students in our community.