The Michigan Legislature helped the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and General Motors conceal the amount of taxpayer dollars Michigan gives GM in the form of corporate welfare.

The Legislature went as far as to enact laws to ensure the amount given to GM remained a secret.

A lawsuit against the MEDC by Detroit resident David Sole challenged this secretive arrangement and asked the courts to force the state to reveal the numbers. Sole succeeded in the effort, and the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation played a part. The Michigan Supreme Court had asked the foundation to file an amicus brief in the case.

The foundation had argued that the tax credit agreement does more than wipe out the company’s tax liability in the hope that GM does not leave the state. Instead, the agreement uses a device known as a refundable tax credit to give the company money. The exact amount is based on a formula involving the number of employees retained, their compensation, and their benefits. When GM shows it has earned more than its tax liability, the state — Michigan taxpayers — will pay the company the difference.

The state high court relied on the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation’s amicus brief and ruled unanimously in favor of Sole, requiring the amount to be disclosed.

General Motors subsequently disclosed it will receive up to $3.8 billion. The state says it will most likely be paying on the agreement until 2030, according to MLive.

The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation brief asked questions such as: “What politicians are receiving campaign contributions from subsidy recipients or their executives? Is that influencing whether the agreements get modified and in what matter?”

The MEDC must report to the Legislature on how much the company receives. Only a few elected officials and agency employees are allowed to see how much corporate welfare is doled out to the company. To emphasize the secretive nature of the deal, the Legislature created a $5,000 penalty for anyone who leaks the information to the public.

“The Legislature shouldn’t attempt to hide these subsidies in the tax code. If politicians believe this is good public policy and these subsidies are necessary expenditures for Michigan economy, one would think that those politicians would be glad to have the public fully informed,” says Patrick Wright, vice president for legal affairs at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and director of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation.

Bipartisan legislation was introduced on March 1 that would prohibit employees of state or local governments from signing nondisclosure agreements about economic development projects.

GM had net income of $59.684 billion between the years 2014 and 2020.

How, in the thick of budget season, how did Michigan lawmakers find the time to ban the sale of fake urine?

Senate Bill 134 was passed in the Michigan House and Senate with more than the two-thirds support it would need to override a Gov. Gretchen Whitmer veto, if she were to veto it. The Michigan Legislature’s website indicates the bill was presented to Whitmer on Thursday morning, in the 11 a.m. hour.

Sen. Curtis VanderWall, R-Ludington, who sponsored the bill, told Michigan Capitol Confidential he expects Whitmer to sign the bill into law. VanderWall has said there’s no reason for someone to have fake urine, other than to get around a drug test. Senate Bill 134 looks to dry up the supply by punishing sellers.

In a state where 10 million people agree the damn roads are a problem, the 150 people we send to Lansing — between the House, Senate, governor and lieutenant governor — can never find a lasting solution.

Yet when it comes time to ban the sale of fake urine, the House agrees 96-10, and the Senate approves it 36-1, according to Michigan Votes. Bipartisanship in our time. How can this be?

VanderWall told CapCon his concern is for manufacturing businesses that use heavy and dangerous equipment. The belief is that a person who could pass a drug test legitimately would stay clean for work, and that someone who used fake urine is putting the company at risk.

“People were taking advantage of it and putting companies in harm’s way,” VanderWall said.

If the bill becomes law, sellers of fake urine could face misdemeanor charges — up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Support of the bill came from two corners: drug testing firm Quest Diagnostics and the Michigan Manufacturers Association.

“Since the use of the devices employed to provide a ‘clean’ urine specimen is not detectable by laboratory tests of specimen validity, individuals using these products are able to totally circumvent the testing process,” wrote R. H. Barry Sample, a senior science consultant at Quest Diagnostics, in May 19 testimony.

“As a scientist who has pursued drug test cheaters, I can tell you how frustrating it is to encounter technology being used to subvert the drug testing process,” Sample added.

“Reportedly, the incident of invalid specimens has doubled over the last 10 years,” reads a House Fiscal Agency analysis. But that’s a number given in testimony, which was not independently verified. Hence the modifier, “reportedly.”

Senate Bill 134 bill does not target buyers of fake urine, or drug users. It would not prevent anyone from getting fake urine from states where it is available.

“We believe it does fix the problem,” VanderWall told CapCon.

If companies don’t want to hire people whose drug tests come back “inconclusive,” no one is forcing them to. Could not companies merely require more frequent drug tests, rather than enlist the power of the state?

The people of Michigan are counting on their Lansing representatives to make their lives better. Does banning the sale of fake urine qualify?