Michigan House committee debates bill to require litigation spending reports by AG’s office

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee called a bill to require the Michigan Attorney General’s office to report to the Legislature on any litigation where expenditures exceed $250,000, a question of increasing transparency in state government. 

Democrats on the committee called it a partisan attack against Attorney General Dana Nessel. 

“These reports must, going forward, include a full accounting of the spending and explanation of the case and justification for why Michigan taxpayers are footing this bill,” state Rep. Jason Woolford (R-Howell), who sponsored the bill, said in his testimony to the committee. “This is taxpayer dollars footing the bill for these lawsuits. So this is basic accountability, nothing more.”

He repeatedly stated throughout the hearing that the bill was not partisan — that it would apply not only to Nessel for the remainder of her term, which ends at the start of 2027, but also to future attorneys general, regardless of their party. 

But he also took several hits at Nessel’s track record in the position, saying that she has treated the office as “her own personal political slush fund.” 

“She has eagerly gone after private citizens, concerned parents and organizations that dare disagree with her extreme agenda, all while sending the bill to you and I,” he said. “These politically motivated lawsuits aren’t about justice, they’re about headlines, revenge and scoring points with their political base.”

When Rep. Kelly Breen (D-Novi) called this out to Woolford, he responded, “She happens to be holding the office. Who do you want me to blame?”

Nessel’s office did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication. 

Repeatedly referenced throughout the hearing was the “false electors” case — a suit brought by Nessel against the slate of 2020 electors who were accused of attempting to cast the state’s electoral votes for Donald Trump even though he had lost to former President Joe Biden. The case was dismissed in state district court, as the judge ruled there was not sufficient evidence that those involved had criminal intent. Woolford asked representatives on the committee if any of them knew the dollar amount spent on that prosecution, using it as an example of litigation that the attorney general might have to submit a report on. 

Later on in the hearing, however, Breen said that Nessel’s office had spent $3,430.79 on that particular case, according to information she said had been provided to Rep. Angela Rigas (R-Alto) in April — well below the threshold that would be established in Woolford’s bill, though Republican members of the committee audibly laughed at that estimate for the total cost. 

Breen, though, did raise the question of how many lawsuits from the attorney general would actually be impacted or require such reports, which Woolford said was exactly the nature of the legislation — he does not know how much Nessel’s office spends on each lawsuit that it takes on. 

As disagreements between Breen and Woolford about the needs and the intentions behind the bill continued, other Republican members steered the conversation towards questions of government accountability. 

“Wouldn’t this just fall under the category of more transparency?” Rep. Gina Johnsen (R-Portland) asked. “It’s not a scary, awful thing, either way.”

This bill comes months after a package of bills passed through the Judiciary committee that would limit the state Attorney General’s powers, especially in county-level circuit courts. Though the bills passed the Republican-led House, they have not moved in the Democratic-controlled Senate since being referred to the Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety.