Lawmakers are taking a minimalist approach to implementing Proposal 1, the transparency in government measure passed by voters in the 2022 general election.

The draft legislation offered by the Democratic majority is more notable for what it doesn’t do than what it does.

Inexplicably absent from the draft legislation is a requirement that lawmakers disclose trips and other perks they receive while in office. They would not have to reveal trips paid for by anyone who is not a registered lobbyist.

The proposal also would not strengthen the nearly non-existent disclosure demands on non-profit organizations formed by lawmakers and other elected officials, or their supporters. These entities have been linked to recent scandals.

And now Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has weighed in, offering her criticism of including spouses of officials under the disclosure requirements.

What’s left on the table doesn’t come close to fixing all of the ethical and accountability issues and lifting Michigan from its failing grade for transparency.

Clearly, the intent of lawmakers is to adopt the least amount of disclosure necessary to satisfy the demands of Prop 1.

Voters were not ambivalent about the transparency ballot initiative. They passed Prop 1 last November with two-thirds of the vote, signaling their strong desire for lawmakers to be more accountable.

There’s no defense for lawmakers offering up such a lame response.

The full disclosure of all trips, tickets, dinners, gifts and other perks, regardless of whether they come from a registered lobbyist or a “friend” with interest in the business of the Legislature, should be taken for granted as a first step toward transparency.

Likewise, the non-profit accounts maintained by elected officials have too frequently been used and abused to buy and sell influence. They serve no good government purpose.

Witness the investigations of former GOP House Speakers Lee Chatfield and Rick Johnson. Johnson was just sent to prison for taking bribes in exchange for medical marijuana licenses. Chatfield is under investigation for operating what prosecutors call a “criminal enterprise.”

In both cases, non-profit accounts play a major role.

Without including spousal disclosure, the transparency measures are useless. Assets and gifts an officeholder wants to hide can easily be shifted to a spouse to keep them secret.

Whitmer has thrown up a sexism smoke screen to support her objection, arguing such disclosure will more likely handicap women seeking office than men.

That’s a reversal of her earlier position that legislation should mimic federal disclosure rules, which do cover spouses. And it doesn’t hold water. Lobbyists can buy influence just as easily through wives as they can husbands.

Prop 1 demanded the Legislature adopt a financial disclosure law by the end of this year. With the Legislative session likely to end in just a few weeks, the temptation will be to rush through a law that isn’t near as sweeping as needed.

Michigan is one of just two states without a financial disclosure law. The goal of lawmakers should be to produce a law that ranks as the toughest in the nation.

— Detroit News