Prop 2 won by an overwhelming margin in last Tuesday’s election. On the ballot the language for Prop 2 read as – A Proposed Initiated Law to Prohibit Campaign Contributions for Certain Regulated Utilites and Government Contractors and Apply Campaign Finance Laws and Regulations to Additional Types of Political Communications.
In Kent County 82.44% of voters said yes to Prop 2. In fact, there were 242,505 people in Kent County who voted for Prop 2, but only 51,641 voted against it, according to the Kent County Clerk’s office.
In addition, Prop 2 will do the following three things:
- Prohibit regulated electric and gas utilities, contractors with over $250,000 annually in government contracts, and people and organizations with substantial connections to these utilities/contractors from making direct or indirect campaign contributions to those who run for or hold offices that impact them.
- Expand laws regulating spending on political communications, including those requiring disclosing donor information, to apply to communications clearly identifying candidates or ballot questions, even if they do not expressly advocate voting for/against them.
- Expressly apply the law requiring disclosure of who paid for political communications to internet political communications.
However, the campaign for Prop 2 said Money Out of Politics, which is why there have been lots of people who thought all corporate money or PAC money would be banned from future elections in Michigan. Prop 2 is a good start, but corporate and PAC money will still wield tremendous influence in Michigan electoral politics.
For example, let’s look at the state races that were on the ballot in Kent County and how many candidates took money from members of the local oligarchy, corporate funds and PACs. I am listing just a few of the largest.
State Senator – 18th District
Anthony Pennock (D): MEA PAC $3,000, MI Rural PAC $500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/committee-to-elect-anthony-pennock-state-senator-0606448
Thomas A. Albert (R): Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $5,500, Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $3,600, Family Business Owners of MI PAC $3,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/thomas-albert-for-state-senate-520305-can
State Senator – 20th District
Dale Murney (D): McCann for Michigan Fund $2,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/committee-to-elect-dale-murney-0612975
Chris Moraitis (R): Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $5,500, Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $5,000, TGIF Victory Fund $5,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/chris-moraitis-for-state-senate-0608612
State Senator – 29th District
Abbie Groff-Blaszak (D): Grand Rapids Firefighters Union PAC $2,500, Lee – Texas PAC $2,450, Michigan League for Conservation Voters PAC $2,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/abbie-groff-blaszak-for-state-senate-0611665
Brady A. Middleton (R): No PAC or corporate money
State Senator – 30th District
Carol Glanville (D): International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC $25,250, The PAC for America’s Future Michigan $24,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/friends-of-carol-glanville-0610967
Mark E. Huizenga (R): Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $24,500, MI Assoc of Community Bankers of Michigan PAC $8,500, Small Business Association of Michigan $8,500, Moving Michigan Forward Fund $7,350 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/mark-huizenga-can
State Senator – 33rd District
Stan Opal (D): Local 324 PAC $10,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/committee-to-elect-stan-opal-to-state-senate-0613125
Gina Johnsen (R): Michigan Families First PAC $24,000, Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $7,400, Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $6,500, Family Business Owners of MI PAC $3,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/gina-johnsen-can
State Representative – 78th District
Rachel Gross (D): Michigan Nurses Association PAC $1,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/rachel-gross
Brandon Strong (R): Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $1,750, Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $1,500, Michigan Electric Cooperatives PAC $1,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/brandon-strong
State Representative – 79th District
Zach Abbott (D): Michigan Rural PAC $500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/committee-to-elect-zach-abbott-0610444
Angela Rigas (R): Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $4,000, Family Business Owners of MI PAC $1,500, Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $1,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/angela-rigas
State Representative – 80th District
Lily Cheng-Schulting (D): Michigan League for Conservation Voters PAC $1,000, MEA PAC $500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/lily-cheng-schulting
Doug Lee (R): No PAC or corporate money
State Representative – 81st District
Stephen Wooden (D): Elevate Michigan $12,250, Puri PAC $12,250, Meijer PAC $9,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/stephen-wooden
Holly DeBoer (R): No PAC or corporate money
State Representative – 82nd District
Kristian Grant (D): Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $12,500, Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $7,000, Michigan League for Conservation Voters PAC $7,000, Meijer PAC $6,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/kristian-grant
Ryan Malinoski (R): No PAC or corporate money
State Representative – 83rd District
John Fitzgerald (D): Comcast Corporation and NbcUniversal PAC $6,500, Automobile Club of Michigan PAC $6,000, Health Care Association of Michigan PAC $5,000, Dte Energy Company PAC $3,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/john-fitzgerald
Cindy Ramirez (R): TGIF Victory Fund $5,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/the-committee-to-elect-cindy-ramirez-0612434
State Representative – 84th District
Khristian Silvis (D): Emilys List Michigan $12,250, Building Bridges PAC $5,000, Grand Rapids Firefighters Union PAC $3,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/khristian-silvis
Drew Jake Robbins (R): TGIF Victory Fund $12,250, Grand Rapids Police Officers Assoc PAC $5,000, Michigan Realtors SuperPAC $1,500
State Representative – 89th District
Meegan Zickus (D): No PAC or corporate money
Joe Moss (R): TGIF Victory Fund $5,000, Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $1,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/joe-moss
State Representative – 90th District
Rachel Crowther (D): No PAC or corporate money
Lynn Afendoulis (R): Michigan Society of Anesthesiologists PAC $10,000, Family Business Owners of MI PAC $3,500, Cms Energy Corp Employees for Better Government $2,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/committee/lynn-afendoulis-for-state-representative-0612849
State Representative – 91st District
Frank Lafata (D): Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters PAC $5,000 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/frank-lafata
Pat Outman (R): Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Assoc PAC $7,500, Comcast Corporation and NbcUniversal PAC $5,000, Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers State PAC $4,500 https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/candidate/patrick-outman-can
In looking at the state races that were specific to Kent County you can see that nearly $200,000 in PAC money was contributed for the ones that I listed. As I stated earlier, Prop 2 was a good start, but we need to eliminate PAC money, corporate contributions and significantly limit the amount that those with deep pockets can contribute to candidates. This is why electoral politics, particularly at the federal and state level looks less like a democracy and more like an oligarchy.
Learning from the past: 41 years ago Calvin students and faculty won a divestment campaign in the international South African Anti-Apartheid campaign
The South African Anti-Apartheid movement was a global movement that took decades to dismantle the legal system of apartheid in South Africa.
The anti-Apartheid movement used numerous strategies and tactics, which were primarily driven by direct actions, boycotts, divestments, disruptions and tens of thousands of people engaging in civil disobedience. People did not vote to end apartheid in South Africa, it ended because of a mass global movement, something we should not lose site of if we are serious about working towards structure change in the present.
In Grand Rapids, there were several anti-Apartheid campaigns that were successful, including the Grand Rapids Public Schools and the City of Grand Rapids. Both of those entities adopted resolutions and put in place practices to divest from companies profiting off of the racist system of Apartheid in South Africa.
A third campaign was led by students from what was then called Calvin College. The students would then recruit Calvin faculty to be part of the campaign, which was eventually successful. What follows is a letter from one of the student organizers to Calvin administrators, a letter that was dated early November, 1985.
Dear Priorities Committee Member,
The following is a copy of a motion passed unanimously by Student Senate at its October 28 meeting. Part of the request was that the faculty join the Student Senate in making this resolution. This resolution now comes before the Priorities Committee for our discussion regarding its presentation to the entire faculty.
In the summer of 1984, the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church condemned the Biblical defense of apartheid as heresy. The the autumn of 1985 apartheid remains the official policy of the South African government. Under this system of racial segregation, the injustice of minority oppression continues. Therefore, in keeping with the spirit of the Synod’s decision, we the Student Senate of Calvin College, resolve to commit ourselves to take the following action as a manifestation of our strong disapproval of the policy of apartheid and as an expression of our sincerest desire to see the system of apartheid dismantled and replaced by a system that recognizes the equality and oneness of all people before God their Creator: The Student Senate strongly urges Calvin College to divest itself of all holdings in corporations currently doing business in South Africa or transacting business with the government of South Africa.
Student Senate also mandates the Student Senate Executive Committee to draft letters to the companies from which we are recommending the divestment of Calvin College’s holdings expressing Student Senate’s concern regarding involvement in South Africa and explaining the reasons for our action.
Student Senate urges the Faculty to join us in making this resolution.
Very Truly yours,
Craig Knot
Student Body President
Coverage of the Anti-Apartheid efforts at Calvin can be found in the student newspaper, The Chimes, over a several year period. One can see that there were ongoing efforts to educate the campus community on the issues centered around South African Apartheid, but most of the coverage was about the actual campaign of divestment.
Students and faculty had begun a campaign to get Calvin College to divest from any company profiting off of racist Apartheid policies. The Student Senate had done the research looking into how much money Calvin College had invested in companies doing business in South Africa and in a letter to the college president in October of 1985, they provide a breakdown of this money. (page 13)
One can see that the amount was not very large, especially when compared to larger colleges and universities across the country, but the amount was not relevant to the students organizing around the campaign. in fact, the students deeply involved in the campaign had very well thought out arguments in response to those who questioned the efficacy of divestment (pages 16 – 21)
This well organized campaign paid off, when the finance committee of the Board of Trustees decided to divest Calvin College funds from two companies in November of 1986. The Chimes article (page 9) on this action states, According to President DeWit, “These two companies were right on the verge of the legitimate classification in the Sullivan system. It was proper, rather than to press the point, to sell them.”
It was the efforts of people at institutions such as Calvin College, using the tactic of divestment, which eventually dismantled the Apartheid policies of South Africa.
For more information on the Grand Rapids anti-Apartheid Movement, especially source material, go to this link. For coverage by the Calvin student newspaper go here.
Post Election analysis: Kent County Sheriff response to the millage defeat for the Kent County Jail
On Election Day voters in Kent County voted against the millage for the Kent County Jail, which appeared on the November 3rd ballot with this title – Kent County Millage Renewal and Increase Corrections and Detention Facilities.
I wrote about this millage effort, along with the organized effort to defeat said millage. The no vote on this millage is a clear indication that taxpayers do not have confidence in the Kent County Sheriff’s Office, that they reject government surveillance and that they oppose racial injustices perpetrated at the jail, especially their collaboration with ICE by engaging in detainers for ICE.
According to the Kent County Clerk’s office there were 174,341 votes (60.05%) against this millage, with 115,998 votes (39.95%) in favor. If you want to look at how the vote went in all 226 precincts you can see that breakdown at this link.
The day after the election the Kent County Sheriff’s Office posted a statement in response to the defeat of the millage. You can read the statement in its entirety here, but I wanted to point out two parts of the statement.
First, the statement says:
“Our corrections facility serves law enforcement agencies throughout Kent County. Its central intake operations provide shared booking, screening, custody, and care services. Helping residents understand those responsibilities and how they are funded will remain part of our work. We remain hopeful about our community’s continued partnership with the Sheriff’s Office.”
This part of the Sheriff’s Office statement is misleading in that it creates a narrative about how they want the public to view what they do. The language used in the above portion of the statement is administrative, but omits a great deal of the realities of what the Sheriff’s Office does, especially the role of the Kent County Jail. They also state they want continued partnership from the community. Lets be honest here, the only real partnership is with the other police departments in Kent County. The community at large does not partner with the Sheriff’s Office, especially since they have no say in the the funding, something that is decided by the Kent County Commission.
The second part of the statement I wanted to address states:
“I am proud of our deputies and staff, who do demanding work every day with professionalism, compassion, and dedication,” said Sheriff Bryan Muir. “We will continue supporting this team, working to provide the services our community expects and keeping the public informed as we plan for the future.”
Again, the language here is vague and clinical, with no indication that the Sheriff’s Office has a plan to truly engage the community to better understand what concerns the public has since the majority voted the millage down.
If the Kent County Sheriff’s Office really wants to know why 60% of voters voted against the millage then they might look at the three main objections to the millage that were part of the Urban Core Collective’s Power Fund, the group that ran the Vote No campaign.
There were three main objections to this millage:
Increased cost to taxpayers – An increase in taxes shows that the Sheriff’s Office has mismanaged public funds to run the jail, plus with the increased cost of living it is a kick in the teeth to the public to ask them to pay more for the Kent County Jail.
Racial Injustices that the jail perpetuates – The Kent County Sheriff’s office detains people for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as stated in their 2025 Policy and Procedures. In Kent County, Black people only make up 11.1% of the total population, but 47.5% of the incarcerated population. In 2025, 82% of charges at the time of booking at the Kent County Jail were for non-violent offenses; in other words, an overwhelming majority of people being held at the jail were being held for non-violent offenses. 53% of the charges at time of booking were for crimes of poverty.
Government surveillance – In February 2026, $750,000 of our tax dollars were used to develop the Real Time Intelligence Center (RTIC). The RTIC, which is housed in the Sheriff’s office, processes videos and information from Flock cameras and other Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR). They are using our tax dollars to surveil us without our consent. We didn’t vote for this. According to the Sheriff’s office, 63% of people are detained at the jail for 47 hours or less, indicating that the Kent County Jail serves as a turnkey operation, detaining a majority of people for a short time frame when they could be back in the community.
These are the reasons why people voted against the millage, elements that are completely absent from the Kent County Sheriff’s Office statement. The public needs to keep pressuring the Kent County Commission on these matters and demand that the county conduct a year-long process for participatory budgeting so that anyone living in the county can determine how we want our tax dollars to be spent.
History of US Immigration Policy: Summary of GRIID Class week #7 – The US Immigration Deportation System
For anyone who could not join the class tonight or who couldn’t find time to be part of this class, I want to share a summary of what was discussed. I also want to provide links and resources for anyone who wants to do their own investigation on the history of US immigration policy.
As with each of the 8 weeks of this class we will rely on the Popular Education resource I created and update regularly. The Popular Education resource provides an important overview of this history, along with a list of books and online resources that can help us with developing a robust analysis of the history of US immigration policy and how to frame it.
In week #1 we relied heavily on the book, No One is Illegal: Fighting Racism and State Violence on the US/Mexican border, which look at the way that Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, Jewish and even German immigrants have been treated since the mid-1800s.
In week #2 we the responded to the question about why so many immigrants were coming, especially those who were risking their lives to enter the US/Mexican border at unsanctioned border points.
For week #3 I focused heavily on the anti-immigrant narrative or the xenophobic narrative(s) about immigrants that politicians and US news media companies use when talking about undocumented immigrants.
In week #4 we talked about why people are taking the risk of coming to the US without documentation and what the root causes of displacement are. We all read an overview article on the history of US interventions in Central America and discussed the motives of the US government for their support of US corporate interests and regional control of Central America. We then did a more detailed account of the US History with Guatemala.
For week #5 we continued our discussion on the root causes of why people are fleeing Central America and Mexico and taking the risk to come to the US as undocumented immigrants. In week #4 we talked about the history of US foreign policy in that region, along with economic factors, but for week #5 we discussed Climate Change and the so-called War on Drugs as factors of displacement.
First we all read part of Todd Miller’s book, Storming the Wall: Climate Change, Migration and Homeland Security. We also read an interview with Miller about the same topic, but with additional information and analysis.
Second, we read an article from Dawn Paley, an article that beautify summarizes her book, Drug War Capitalism. Paley’s article is entitled, Militarization & Economic Transformation in Colombia & Mexico. In that article she states:
Reconsidering the so-called drug wars requires — in part — evaluating how they have encouraged the expansion of foreign direct investment and extractive industries in Colombia, Mexico and Central America.
Paley discusses how the US used the same model to fight the so-called War on Drugs in Mexico that was used in Colombia.
For week #6 we discussed the ICE detention system in the US. First, we read a chapter from the book Immigration Detention Inc.: The Big Business of Locking up Migrants. This chapter covered the growth of the ICE detention system from the Reagan years through the Biden years, demonstrating how the ICE detention system has always had bipartisan support and how it has continued to grow over the past 45 years.
We also discussed two articles from The Intercepted, one on private detention companies getting bank loans for expansion and one on the use of bounty hunters to track down immigrants for ICE.
In addition, we looked at the data on the GEO Group from OpenSecrets, which shows how much money they contribute to political campaigns and how much they spend on lobbying. Then there was an article on the rapid growth of the detention system that was from August of this year that NPR did. Lastly, we looked at the GEO Group site and their map of detention center locations.
In week #7 we focused on the system of deportation that the US government has used since the late 19th century. The primary text we used was a chapter from Adam Goodman’s book, The Deportation Machine: America’s Long History of Expelling Immigrants.
Two important aspects of the chapter from Goodman’s book were the increase in deportations and the bipartisan nature of deportation as policy.
“Between fiscal years 1986 and 2013, the number of formal deportations (known in bureaucratic parlance as “removals”) rose from around 24,600 to a historic high of around 433,000, while the number of voluntary departures (or “returns”) dropped from more than 1.58 million to just under 179,000. By 2011, formal deportations outnumbered voluntary departures for the first time in seven decades; five years later, they made up three out of every four expulsions from the United States. During this period, formal removals came to resemble voluntary departures in their expedited nature and their restrictions on due processbut they carried much harsher consequences. This shift in how officials deported people represented aradical break from the past century of immigration enforcement policy and practice.”
As for the bipartisan nature of US deportations, the author states:
“In his second term, some migrant activists and advocates took to calling Barack Obama the “Deporterin-Chief.” The moniker stemmed from the fact that formal deportations reached unprecedented levels during his presidency.85 But total expulsions dropped. Assigning responsibility to a particular president or solely focusing on how many people he expelled does not explain immigration enforcement’s punitive turn. It is only by examining the cumulative policy changes under both Republican and Democratic administrations since 1986 -from the unprecedented spending on enforcement, militarization of the border, and increased reliance on expedited formal deportations to the criminalization of migration, externalization of migration control, and expansion of immigration detention-that we can begin to understand the recent transformation of the deportation machine.”
The other resource on deportation we used for week #7 was the site https://mappingdeportations.com/. There are several good videos on this site, along with excellent data and analysis.
Other great resources of information on the https://mappingdeportations.com/ site are the timelines of deportation, maps and the excellent visuals they have created to communicate the realities of who is most impacted by deportation from the US in recent decades, which is reflected in the graphic below.
We have now passed the November 3rd Election date, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be thinking about politicians who are up for re-election in 2028.
One such politician is Grand Rapids Mayor David LaGrand. LaGrand will shortly complete year two of a four year term. As I have been documenting over the past two years Mayor LaGrand has enabled the Grand Rapids Power Structure to continue with development projects using massive amounts of public funding, has justified ongoing GRPD brutality by voting to fund whatever the GRPD want, and he has failed to listen to and adopt the 6 sanctuary policy demands of Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE, along with refusing to meet with them to have an open and honest conversation about how ICE is terrorizing immigrants, taking between 3 – 6 people every day in recent months.
However, this post is primarily about campaign finance documentation for David LaGrand. When LaGrand won the Mayoral position in 2024, he had raised $192,850.40, according to the County Clerk’s campaign finance data. As I noted in a 2024 post, David LaGrand received substantial funds from entities outside of Grand Rapids, developers, police apologists, members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure and other business people.
As of his most recent campaign finance reporting from 10/26/2026, LaGrand has already raised $36,731.97. During the past year of campaign finance data he continues to receive campaign contributions from various PACs, business people and members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure, such as Johnny Brann.
Another group of people that have made significant contributions to LaGrand’s 2028 re-election bid are lawyers. Of the 32 people who contributed to LaGrand’s campaign and are included in the July 2026 campaign finance report, 29 of them are lawyers, with 1 judge, 1 financial advisor and 1 retiree.
Maybe this group of lawyers who contributed to LaGrand’s re-election campaign went to law school with him or maybe they are people he has a connection with because LaGrand is also a lawyer, but either way these people are not representative of the majority of the people who live in Grand Rapids. While Mayor LaGrand has presented himself as progressive, very little of what he has done over the past 22 months as Mayor of Grand Rapids should be considered progressive.
Follow the Money: Campaign Finance data for Prop 1 & 2 in Michigan
In my continuing look at campaign finance data, I want to turn our attention to both of the statewide ballot initiatives, Prop 1 and 2.
Prop 1, is listed on the ballot as – A Proposal to Convene a Constitutional Convention for the Purpose of Drafting a General Revision of the State Constitution. There is no single entity that has spent signifiant funds to promote a yes on Prop 1, according to a recent Bridge Michigan article.
There is however, a politically diverse group of organizations seeking to defeat Prop 1, which you can find listed here. The coalition is called Protect MI Constitution From Special Interests. According to TransparencyUSA they have raised $4,404,861 and spent $4,423,680.
Here is a list of the top contributors, including the amount from each contributor:
- The Fairness Project – $3,080,000.00
- American Opportunity Action – Federal – $825,000.01
- ACLU Michigan – $251,455.23
- Global Impact Social Welfare – $175,000.00
- National Education Association – $50,000.00
- Michigan Disability Rights Coalition – $21,287.00
Prop 2 is listed on the ballot as – A Proposed Initiated Law to Prohibit Campaign Contributions for Certain Regulated Utilites and Government Contractors and Apply Campaign Finance Laws and Regulations to Additional Types of Political Communications
The entity that is supporting Prop 2 is the group known as Michiganders for Money Out of Politics Ballot Committee. According to TransparencyUSA they raised a total of $9,339,334 and spent $8,327,844.
Here is a list of the top contributors, including the amount from each contributor:
- All Hands on Deck Network Inc. – $3,155,000.00
- Michigan Action United – $1,233,635.91
- Pro-Democracy Campaign – $750,000.00
- Sixteen Thirty Fund – $700,000.00
- Movement Voter Project – $402,500.00
- Tides Foundation – $380,000.00
- Clean Water Action – $283,279.20
- Detroit Action – $269,423.39
- Working Families Organization – $250,000.00
- Boom – $239,988.84
- Voters Not Politicians Ballot Committee – $221,588.41
- Green Advocacy Project – $200,000.00
The group attempting to defeat Prop 2 is known as Protect MI Free Speech. According to TransparencyUSA they raised a total of $834,000 and spent $810,278.
Here is a list of the top contributors, including the amount from each contributor:
- Inc Mita – $125,000.00
- Michigan Citizens for Better Health – $120,000.00
- Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan PAC – $115,000.00
- CMS Energy Corp Employees for Better Government – $115,000.00
- Michigan Energy First – $100,000.00
- Comcast Financial Agency Corp – $65,000.00
- Delta PAC – $40,000.00
- Priority Health PAC – $30,000.00
How much money the DeVos family spent to influence State Elections in Michigan alone
The DeVos family has been the single largest campaign contributor to State Elections in Michigan at least since 1990. This year (2026) is no different with the DeVos family collectively contributing $10,165,750.00, according to https://www.transparencyusa.org/mi/contributors.
- Daniel DeVos – $4,008,225.00
- Pamela DeVos – 2,521,550.00
- Maria & Doug DeVos – $1,242,325.00
- Suzanne Cheryl DeVos – $1,185,750.00
- Betsy DeVos – $606,575.00
- Dick DeVos – $601,325.00
Total DeVos family campaign contributions – $10,165,750.00
Other members of the GR Power Structure
- Richard Hayworth – $1,083,825.00
- JC Huizenga – $783,000.00
- Daniel Hibma – $515,025.00
- John Kennedy III – $505,800.00
- Michael Jandernoa – $400,700.00
- Hendrick Meijer – $375,000.00
- Mark Meijer – $331,225.00
- Matthew Hayworth – $318,275.00
- Ethelyn Haworth – $221,950.00
- Nancy Kennedy – $205,050.00
Total – $4,739,850.00
This means that between the DeVos family and other members of the Grand Rapids Power Structure, they collectively contributed $14,905,600.00. That is a veritable boat load of money to influence the elections in Michigan, with the end goal of influencing public policy. This is what an oligarchy looks like.
Grand Rapids City officials once again are dismissive of the Cosecha led campaign to get sanctuary policies adopted
Once again there were several dozen people who specifically spoke about the 6 sanctuary policy demands that Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE have been demanding since January of 2025. And once again two elected officials were dismissive in their comments, Commissioner Belchak and Mayor LaGrand.
Commissioner Belchak said that since 2017 the City has already had in place policies to address ICE and immigration. This is false, since the GRPD’s Foreign National Policy was not even adopted until 2019 and the only reason that happened is because of how racist the GRPD acted in regards to the case of Jilmar Ramos Gomez.
Both Commissioner Belchak and Mayor LaGrand made comments about activists not listening to them, by not sticking around for their closing comments, but the reality is that despite efforts to have real conversations with Grand Rapids City Officials, only Commissioner Kilgore has met with Cosecha. Cosecha has been trying to meet with Mayor LaGrand since June when he said during a commission meeting that he would be willing to meet with Cosecha. Cosecha held a Press Conference to address the failure on the part of Mayor LaGrand to meet with them in August and at the end of August I wrote an article that included Email exchanges between the Mayor’s office and Cosecha and how the Mayor was not willing to meet the immigrant-led group on their terms.
As always, Mayor LaGrand has a great deal to say, which you can watch from the video beginning at the 3:35:55 mark.
Mayor LaGrand said that he has been working with the ACLU on discussions on how to do things that can benefit undocumented immigrants. “The ACLU document says draft all over it, which shows that you don’t do things immediately,” said LaGrand. This is misleading, since it was Cosecha that has been meeting with the ACLU since the beginning of 2026 to work with them to craft a draft of an ordinance that could be presented to City officials. Mayor LaGrand conveniently leaves out the role that Cosecha has had in the draft ordinance document, which you can find here.
Mayor LaGrand went on to say in his comments last Tuesday, “Every time someone says they want us to adopt the 6 sanctuary policies, I say, yeah us too. The heart of those sanctuary policies were adopted a number of years ago. They are on the website and people can go look at it.”
I have responded to what the City website says in response to the Cosecha 6 sanctuary policy demands. I am listing them here with a response to some of them in bold.
- The City does not operate a detention facility or jail. Kent County operates the county jail. The Trump Administration has been pushing detention centers in abandoned warehouses and GR has several of those. Cosecha is demanding that the City adopt a policy to never allow vacate buildings/warehouses to be used as detention centers.
- The City does not have a 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The City currently does not, but the Cosecha demand is to adopt a policy that says Grand Rapids will never sign a 287(g) agreement with ICE.
- The City does not enforce immigration detainers. This is true, but Kent County does. When the GRPD arrests immigrants for non-violent offenses they end up in the county jail and then the Sheriff’s Office holds them for ICE.
- GRPD is prohibited from conducting investigations or making arrests based solely on a person’s immigration status.
- GRPD’s Foreign Nationals Policy prohibits collaboration with ICE on investigations. The GRPD’s Foreign Nationals Policy does provide language that says, “The policy allows officers to provide assistance to federal immigration authorities when there is an emergency that poses an immediate danger to public safety or federal agents.” In addition, Cosecha and GR Rapid Response to ICE have first hand accounts and photo evidence of GRPD assisting ICE during ICE arrests.
For a brief period Mayor LaGrand shifts to talk about snow removal suggestions.
Then beginning at 3:41:00 in the video Mayor LaGrand said that something “snapped” for him. LaGrand then explained that he spent a day with an immigrant who had an appointment at an ICE office in GR to make sure that person got in and out safely. The person thought he had a work visa but didn’t, since it was on appeal. This is the kind of work that GR Rapid Response to ICE does every week, which they have shared at City Commission meetings, with no response and no affirmation of the work.
Mayor LaGrand then went on to say, “The real issue is that the federal government has a broken immigration system. Work visas and a reasonable clear path to citizenship. The presence of ICE in Grand Rapids makes him sick, but the real problem is getting rid of those unjust (immigration laws), that make no sense and that we have been trying to fix for 30 years.This is all a federal elected problem, it’s not a problem for the GR City Commission. I hope you will starting demanding better from federal elected officials,” said Mayor LaGrand.
I’m glad the Mayor came to this realization about how the US immigration system doesn’t work for most immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants. However, for the Mayor to say that people have been trying to fix these unjust immigration laws for the past 30 years is a bit misleading. US Immigration Policy has always been rooted in white supremacy and xenophobia, which I have studied for decades, which are reflected in my Popular Education Class slides – History of US Immigration Policy. I also have been doing an 8 week class on this very topic since 2019 on an annual basis, just like the class I am doing right now that has completed 6 of the 8 weeks.
However, the larger problem of why US immigration policy fails immigrants is not just the policies that are unjust by design, it is the fact that US military and economic policies create the displacement and desperation of immigrants who enter the US through the US/Mexico border without documentation, which are addressed in week #4 and week #5 of the class on the History of US Immigration Policy.
Lastly, the most important point to make here is that Mayor LaGrand evades taking any responsibility for not adopting policies that would reduce the harm to immigrants, particularly when it comes to the ongoing GRPD collaboration with ICE. Mayor LaGrand wants us all to think the city has nothing to do with it, since it is solely the fault of the federal government. Failure to act when families are being separated every day is not leadership, it is abdication.
History of US Immigration Policy: Summary of GRIID Class week #6 – The US Immigration Detention System
For anyone who could not join the class tonight or who couldn’t find time to be part of this class, I want to share a summary of what was discussed. I also want to provide links and resources for anyone who wants to do their own investigation on the history of US immigration policy.
As with each of the 8 weeks of this class we will rely on the Popular Education resource I created and update regularly. The Popular Education resource provides an important overview of this history, along with a list of books and online resources that can help us with developing a robust analysis of the history of US immigration policy and how to frame it.
In week #1 we relied heavily on the book, No One is Illegal: Fighting Racism and State Violence on the US/Mexican border, which look at the way that Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, Jewish and even German immigrants have been treated since the mid-1800s.
In week #2 we the responded to the question about why so many immigrants were coming, especially those who were risking their lives to enter the US/Mexican border at unsanctioned border points.
For week #3 I focused heavily on the anti-immigrant narrative or the xenophobic narrative(s) about immigrants that politicians and US news media companies use when talking about undocumented immigrants.
In week #4 we talked about why people are taking the risk of coming to the US without documentation and what the root causes of displacement are. We all read an overview article on the history of US interventions in Central America and discussed the motives of the US government for their support of US corporate interests and regional control of Central America. We then did a more detailed account of the US History with Guatemala.
For week #5 we continued our discussion on the root causes of why people are fleeing Central America and Mexico and taking the risk to come to the US as undocumented immigrants. In week #4 we talked about the history of US foreign policy in that region, along with economic factors, but for week #5 we discussed Climate Change and the so-called War on Drugs as factors of displacement.
First we all read part of Todd Miller’s book, Storming the Wall: Climate Change, Migration and Homeland Security. We also read an interview with Miller about the same topic, but with additional information and analysis.
Second, we read an article from Dawn Paley, an article that beautify summarizes her book, Drug War Capitalism. Paley’s article is entitled, Militarization & Economic Transformation in Colombia & Mexico. In that article she states:
Reconsidering the so-called drug wars requires — in part — evaluating how they have encouraged the expansion of foreign direct investment and extractive industries in Colombia, Mexico and Central America.
Paley discusses how the US used the same model to fight the so-called War on Drugs in Mexico that was used in Colombia.
For week #6 we discussed the ICE detention system in the US. First, we read a chapter from the book Immigration Detention Inc.: The Big Business of Locking up Migrants. This chapter covered the growth of the ICE detention system from the Reagan years through the Biden years, demonstrating how the ICE detention system has always had bipartisan support and how it has continued to grow over the past 45 years.
We also discussed two articles from The Intercepted, one on private detention companies getting bank loans for expansion and one on the use of bounty hunters to track down immigrants for ICE.
In addition, we looked at the data on the GEO Group from OpenSecrets, which shows how much money they contribute to political campaigns and how much they spend on lobbying. Then there was an article on the rapid growth of the detention system that was from August of this year that NPR did. Lastly, we looked at the GEO Group site and their map of detention center locations.
Cop Apologist chastises activists for disrupting City Commission meeting, calls them children
This past Tuesday, during the Grand Rapids City Commission meeting, someone spoke during the public comment to praise the GRPD for what they do and to chastise activists who have been critical of the GRPD and disrupted recent city commission meetings.
The person, shown here in the photo above, is Jennifer Franson, the Founder and Executive Director of the pro-police group iCI Nation.
I have been writing about iCI Nation since 2021, a group which formed to defend policing around the same time that the Movement for Black Lives and the 2020 uprisings happened all across the country in response to cops killing Black people.
Franson was interviewed by the Grand Rapids-based far right Think Tank the Acton Institute in 2023, where she talked about working with local police and sheriff departments, along with collaborating with the FBI.
iCI Nation was also instrumental in getting the GRPD to start a program called Clergy on Patrol, where faith leaders do ride alongs with the GRPD and work to get community support for that department.
During Tuesday’s Grand Rapids City Commission meeting the iCI Nation Executive Director made some of the following comments (Franson’s comments begin at 2:19:00 into the video):
- People at the City Commission meeting that were there during the last public comment are like a dysfunctional family.
- The GRPD are like family members that only get criticized.
- Maybe the GRPD should start off every commission meeting talk about all the good things they do in this city.
- She says that activist are the children throwing a temper tantrum, so the the family leaves the room. She also suggested that these activists/children should be put in timeout.
What the police apologist Jennifer Franson was expressing was almost comical, when in fact it is scary and reflects the notion that the public should be submissive to those in authority – commissioners and cops.
For all her talk about family and love, Franson, like the Grand Rapids City Commission fails to grasp that what activists with Cosecha and GR Rapids Response to ICE have been saying for nearly two years is that the GRPD is collaborating with ICE to do harm against the immigrant community and that Grand Rapids City officials are not responding to or putting in place policies and procedures that would reduce the harm being directed at immigrants.
I looked at the faces of City Commissioners after her comments, with several smiling in support, just like Mayor LaGrand was smiling with Franson at the going away party for Eric Winstrom, the former GRPD Chief who left Grand Rapids because there was too much anti-cop sentiment.
Based on the fact that Franson wants to chastise activists who disrupt city commission meetings, she would no doubt do the same thing if Civil Rights activists like Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Angela Davis or the thousands of other Civil Rights activists that engaged in disruptive actions for decades.
