OK, in the last couple of days, I have railed on about transparency, and frankly have had to go on offense, in defense of Ruth Johnson's courageous suggestion. I will admit to being a little reactionary because of the dunderhead commentary of McNeilly and his faux front, "Freedom Fund,"(click on the link, its a tension breaker) but still hold to the standards described.  

That flatly, we should aspire to true openness.

The language added to exceptions of regulated monies under SB661 (Amending the Michigan campaign finance act) is clearly a push back on Johnson's intention to open those shuttered windows into shadowy financing and advocacy. The added exemption reads:

"(j) An expenditure for a communication if the communication does not in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate so as to restrict the application ofthis act to communications containing express words of advocacy of election or defeat, such as "vote for", "elect", "support", "cast your ballot for", "Smith for governor", "vote against", "defeat", or "reject".

It limits her statutorily.

Many on the conservative side are actually a little more concerned however about THIS little gem. Lines struck out from the MCFA read:

"(a) A house political party caucus committee or a senate political party caucus committee shall not pay a debt incurred by a candidate if that debt was incurred while the candidate was seekingnomination at a primary election and the candidate was opposed at that primary.
  (b) A house political party caucus committee or a senate political party caucus committee shall not make a contribution to or make an expenditure on behalf of a candidate if that candidate is seeking nomination at a primary election and the candidate is opposed at that primary."