Legal Opinion · Dissent

Michigan Education Ass'n v. Secretary of State

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided August 28, 2008No. Docket 280792Published

1DissentWhitbeck, J.

I respectfully dissent. The majority posits the issue before us as whether under the *490Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA) “advance reimbursement for the costs of a payroll deduction system prevents what is otherwise an illegal expenditure from ever becoming an ‘expenditure.’ ”1 The majority concludes it does not. I disagree. Under the particular, and peculiar, definitions contained in the self-contained looking-glass2 world of the MCFA, the costs of such payroll deduction systems are not “expenditures” at all. Thus, the trial court reached the right result, although for the wrong reason. I…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Tryc v Michigan Veterans’ FacilityMichigan Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. StateMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Lash v. City of Traverse CityMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Johnnie F Shinholster v. Annapolis HospMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Paschke v. Retool IndustriesMichigan Supreme Court · 1994

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API