Problems with the state's defective attempt to bring transparency to officials' interactions with lobbyists is compounded because many of the lawmakers who took the most freebies refuse to discuss why they accepted hundreds of free meals and trips worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

Despite the flaws in the system, Eye On Michigan found that lobbyists lavished more than $6.3 million on state lawmakers and officials between 2001, the first year for which data is available, and 2023, the last full year for which data is available. 

Public records show that each of the Top 25 Takers accepted more than $16,000 in freebies. But those numbers don’t come close to revealing how much lobbyists really spent to influence lawmakers over the last 23 years because of the $6.3 million lobbyists spent on lawmakers and state officials during that period, more than $3.9 million — or nearly two-thirds of all spending — was classified as “group food & beverage,” making it impossible to determine how much each lawmaker actually received in free meals. 

None of these figures are adjusted for inflation. 

Some of the group expenditures were in the tens of thousands, such as the $18,613 the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association spent on lawmakers on May 2, 2023. The information the association reported to the Michigan Secretary of State provides no details on where the “MLBA Lobby Day” event was held or who attended beyond “senators, representatives, department directors.” The association’s website says the trade group “presents a loud, unified voice in Michigan's beverage alcohol industry” and claims the association gives bar, restaurant and tavern owners “the necessary clout to make an impact on issues affecting your business and the industry.” 

Experts agree far more is spent on food and travel to influence elected officials than the public will ever know. One reason is state law does not require lobbyists to disclose expenditures under $75, trips that cost less than $1,000 or financial transactions with lawmakers with a value of less than $1,550.  

Eye On Michigan’s analysis of lobbyist expenditures reveals that no elected official took more than Randy Richardville, a former Republican Senate Majority Leader who accepted more than $43,000 in freebies during his 14 years in the legislature. Lobbyists reported making 193 expenditures on Richardville, who said the meals and trips did not have undue influence on how he voted. 

But there’s no way of knowing, because unlike some other states, lobbyists in Michigan don’t have to say which issues or bills they are working on while treating lawmakers. They also are not required to reveal the identity of the clients for whom they are advocating, or even when or where they bought a lawmaker a meal. 

There also is no oversight on lobbyist spending and, until this year, Michiganders could only rely on the word of lobbyists themselves since there was no way to determine whether they reported all the tabs they picked up. That's because, unlike other states, Michigan lawmakers weren’t required to partake in the reporting process at all.  

In 2022, Michiganders overwhelmingly voted to force legislators to report the same meal and travel information that lobbyists have been required to disclose. After much debate and delay, lawmakers finally passed legislation on Nov. 1, 2023, to provide at least a modicum of verification. The law went into effect this year. 

Still, a gap in state law prevents Michiganders from knowing about every free perk lawmakers accept. That’s because there is no requirement for lawmakers to report meals, gifts or trips they receive from people or entities who are not registered as lobbyists. 

Other states require both lawmakers and lobbyists to report their interactions. California has a “two hamburgers and a Coke” rule that forbids lobbyists from spending more than $10 a month on public officials. Santa Monica College Professor Robert Stern, who in 1974 co-authored the Golden State’s stringent lobbying rules, is considered “the godfather of modern political reform in California.” 

“You guys are 50 years behind the times,” he said of Michigan’s lobbyist disclosure requirements. 

Matt Grossman, a Michigan State University political science professor and director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, said Michigan’s financial disclosure laws are lax. 

“By most standards, there are very low reporting requirements,” Grossman said, adding that experts who study state disclosure laws “rate us 40th (out of 50 states) or below.” 

The Center for Public Integrity in 2015 rated Michigan as the 43rd worst state for lobbying disclosure and gave it an F. Among the reasons the center cited for issuing the failing grade was a lack of "effective monitoring of lobbying disclosure requirements" and a lack of "requirements for the regular auditing of lobbying disclosure records." 

Eye On Michigan contacted 25 current and former lawmakers who took more free meals and travel than any others who served between 2001 and 2023. Reporters left phone messages, sent emails, spoke to relatives and even tracked four lawmakers down at the Capitol. Most of them failed to respond to the messages or declined to discuss the freebies they accepted. 

Stern said he was not surprised. 

“Why would they talk?” he said. “All it does is get them in trouble.” 

When an Eye On Michigan reporter asked Frank Foster, a Petosky Republican, to explain why he accepted $16,715 in freebies from lobbyists, he said: “Good luck, buddy,” and hung up. 

Foster, who served in the Legislature from 2011 to 2015, now works as a lobbyist. 

The top three for freebies 

Spending on Richardville, a Monroe Republican, ranged from $6.50 for a meal to $5,648 for travel and lodging at a conference where Richardville was a speaker and panelist.  

“Rarely was there a lot of arm-twisting or ‘You owe me this’ kind of thing,” Richardville told Eye On Michigan. “It’s more about the information on the issue.” 

Richardville, who took more free meals and trips than any other lawmaker or state official between 2001 and 2023, said he is analytical and not easily persuaded. 

“There’s always a race to get to the front of the line to influence you to look at something one way or another. And that costs both time and money, of course,” he said. “The fact that you develop a reputation as somebody who can get things done in a way that’s understanding for other people, you become somebody that somebody wants to invest in from a legislative standpoint.” 

Richardville and Barb Farrah, who is now president of Governmental Consultant Services Inc., one of Lansing's largest lobbying firms, were the only former lawmakers to agree to an interview with Eye On Michigan. Farrah, who ranked 12th on Eye On Michigan’s list of lawmakers who took the most freebies, is a former Democratic state representative from Southgate who left the Legislature at the end of 2008 due to term limits.  

“The easiest time to get with somebody is lunch,” Farrah said. “People somehow have this view of it as … big, fine dining. And that's not really the case.” 

“If you know what downtown Lansing is like, it's a lot of Jimmy John's in the office,” she said, adding lobbyists may take lawmakers out at night to build relationships or to get to know new members.  

“Fine dining would be P.F. Chang's or Mitchell’s.” 

Asked to address concerns that lawmakers’ votes are for sale, Farrah said: “Oh, it’s absolutely not true.”  

Former Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, who ranked second in Eye On Michigan's Top 25 Takers, accepted 129 meals and trips during her 14 years in the legislature totalling more than $39,000. Records show that in 2016 and 2017 the Consumer Technology Association paid for Warren to attend the "Leaders in Technology program during the CES annual conference," which is held in Las Vegas. Warren did not return messages seeking comment. 

Former state Rep. Jim Lilly, R-Park Township, who ranked third on Eye On Michigan's list of top takers, declined to discuss the more than $34,000 in meals and trips he took from lobbyists in less than six years in the legislature. 

“I’m not interested in talking about my experience as a lawmaker in my current capacity,” said Lilly, who resigned from the legislature in 2022 — before the end of his term — to become a lobbyist. 

Lilly declined to answer further questions until he received an email he could share with his bosses. He did not respond even after receiving the email he requested or to follow-up phone messages. 

Eye On Michigan made multiple efforts to contact the top recipients of meals and travel paid for by lobbyists to discuss what impact the freebies had on their decisions as lawmakers. Beginning in April 2023, reporters made multiple calls, sent emails and messages via social media and even spoke to the parents and spouses of some lawmakers. 

Those messages were not returned. 

Even after reporters tracked down the four members of the Top 25 Takers still serving in the Legislature — Sen. Aric Nesbitt, R-Porter Township; Sen. Mike Webber, R-Rochester Hills; Rep. Pauline Wendzel, R-Bainbridge Township; and Rep. Curt VanderWall, R-Ludington — they declined to discuss their interactions with lobbyists. Only Wendzel answered questions, most of which she dismissed as of more interest to the media than to the public. 

Partners in public policy 

Businesses employed more than 1,400 lobbyists in 2022. Joe Schwarz, a former congressman and state senator who serves on the board of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, sees lobbying as a core element of legislative work. 

“If you don’t want to be lobbied; if you don’t want lobbyists working against something that you’re supporting, you probably don’t belong in the Legislature,” Schwarz said.  

Interest groups from every point on the political spectrum seek time with lawmakers, discussing legislation that impacts Michiganders’ day-to-day lives — from healthcare to energy to law enforcement.  

The nuts and bolts of the role of lobbyists in the legislative process remain murky to many voters, though. 

“When I became a lobbyist, even my own mother did not really understand what a lobbyist was,” said Farrah, the former state lawmaker. “But when I told her the Catholic Church has a lobbyist, she was fine with it.” 

Farrah and Richardville, the former Senate Majority Leader, referred to lobbying as a form of relationship building. Farrah called it an “educational process,” and dismissed concerns free meals and trips put a lawmaker's vote up for sale.  

“It's not so much about money as it is about knowing,” said Richardville, who admits there is a level of lobbyist spending some Michiganders might consider “abusive.”  

Richardville said he doesn’t think lobbyist expenditures directed at him were out of line, though “there may have been a time or two” he could have learned about an issue without costing as much money.  

Access to the legislative body comes with winners and losers, according to Richard Hall, a political science professor at the University of Michigan’s Ford School for Public Policy. Hall said the disparity between groups that can or cannot afford lobbyists can make all the difference in policymaking.  

“It's win-win for the legislators and the lobbyists," Hall said, "but there are losers.” 

“The loser here is the person who's not in the room," he added. "And those are organizations that don't have the resources to spend to gain access.” 

Lobbying is direct communication with elected and state officials to influence their decisions.   

Schwarz said lobbying is a legal part of the process, giving organizations and companies access to voting members of the legislative body.  

Grossmann, the political science professor, said the appeal of a lobbyist buying a meal for a lawmaker lies in the opportunity to have a conversation in a pseudo-social setting. 

“Just as you’re trying to convince a friend or something, you might say let’s go have a beer — same principle for lobbying,” he said. 

Quick conversations over a beer or cheap meal don't even have to be reported, because they clock in below Michigan’s required reporting threshold of $75. So, a lobbyist could treat lawmakers to dozens of inexpensive meals while gaining valuable access without having to report the transactions. As a result, the public often doesn’t see how much money is actually spent on lawmakers’ decision-making.  

The Michigan Secretary of State’s office agreed that disclosure here depends on trust.  

A representative for the Secretary of State said officials responsible for overseeing lobbying activity “don’t know what they don’t report'' unless a complaint is filed. What is written down in a report can be as simple as “‘we lobbied for or against issues that affect our organization.’” 

In disclosure reports, lobbyists can exclude where a meal was held, the meeting’s purpose and who employs them. In the event a report is filed late, there is a fee of $31 — and according to the Department of State, late reports are common. For example, in the summer of 2023, there were roughly 92 late fees issued to lobbyists.  

Besides late fees, enforcement extends to seeking an investigation from the Michigan Attorney General. Additional regulations imposing harsher penalties would have to be passed by the lawmakers who were reluctant to adopt voters' mandate for more disclosure. 

A gold standard in the Golden State 

California's stringent lobbying disclosure laws are a stark contrast to the rules in Michigan.  

California’s Political Reform Act of 1974 and Fair Political Practice Commission (FPPC) — responses to the government corruption exposed in the Watergate scandal — were the first policies in America to mandate lobbyist transparency at the state level.  

The strictness of California’s system, Stern said, can be attributed to the fact it wasn’t created by a legislature. Stern co-authored the state-wide referendum that voters passed to create California's lobbying regulations. He said if Californians had left it up to lawmakers to make the rules governing their interactions with lobbyists, they wouldn't be nearly as stringent. 

“People want to preserve their power, and that's the way it is everywhere,” Stern said. “And if you give them the chance to preserve their power, they're going to.” 

Lobbyists or lobbying firms in California have to register and submit quarterly reports that include details from each meeting with a lawmaker, such as which policies were discussed, their employer and expenses. They also have to attend an ethics course once every legislative session, given by California’s Secretary of State. In addition to these rules, there is an advice hotline for lobbyists and the public.  

Stern said the foundation of California’s rules is consistent accountability. The state conducts yearly audits of 10 percent of its lobbyists on a rotating basis, so government oversight is constant.  

“I think the fact that (lobbying firms) know they're coming in, and they have a 10 percent chance of them coming in to audit you, I think that really helps,” Stern said. 

The Center for Responsive Politics ranks Washington and Maine as the top states for lobbyist transparency.  

Shruti Shah, president and CEO of the Coalition for Integrity, said Washington has an independent ethics agency. She said Michigan could improve its lobbying regulations by giving officials subpoena power. 

Informed that Michigan lawmakers recently passed laws requiring them to begin reporting some freebies, Stern said simply: “You have a long way to go.” 

Eye on Michigan is a student investigative reporting program based in Detroit and East Lansing. Our mission is to recruit and train the next generation of watchdog reporters, provide high-quality investigations to Michigan news organizations at no charge and to increase diversity in investigative reporting by engaging and inspiring high school students in under-served communities. To support our work, please consider making a donation.