Pro-Stevens Ads Create False Impression of Obama Endorsement in Michigan Senate Primary

Lansing — Michigan voters are being flooded with political advertisements featuring former President Barack Obama praising U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, but one critical fact is often left unclear: Obama has not endorsed Stevens in the 2026 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.

The footage appearing in television, digital and mail advertisements is not from the current Senate campaign. It comes from an October 2018 Democratic rally in Detroit, when Obama supported Stevens during her first campaign for the U.S. House.

“She was a critical part of my team that helped the American auto industry come roaring back,” Obama says in the recycled footage.

The statement is authentic, but it is nearly eight years old and referred to Stevens’ work on the Obama administration’s auto task force and her 2018 congressional campaign — not the current Senate primary.

Obama has not publicly endorsed either Stevens or her Democratic opponent, former Michigan health director Abdul El-Sayed, in the Aug. 4 primary. Bridge Michigan reported that Obama has not intervened in the Michigan race and that his only public U.S. Senate endorsement during the 2026 election cycle has been in Texas. 

An endorsement without saying “endorsement”

The advertisements generally stop short of explicitly stating that Obama endorsed Stevens for Senate. Instead, they place footage of Obama alongside messages urging voters to send Stevens to the Senate.

That distinction may protect the advertisers from making a technically false statement, but it does not erase the impression created for voters.

One advertisement reportedly ends with the declaration, “If President Obama trusts her, so do I.”

The obvious objective is to transfer Obama’s popularity and credibility to Stevens without clearly informing viewers that his remarks were recorded during a different election eight years earlier.

Former Obama adviser David Axelrod publicly acknowledged the effect of the advertising. According to Bridge Michigan, Axelrod wrote that Michigan voters seeing the commercial would think Obama had endorsed Stevens, even though he had not. 

Reports from Michigan have documented voters saying they believed Obama was supporting Stevens because they saw him in the advertisements. That confusion is not an accidental side effect. Political commercials are carefully produced, tested and purchased to create specific impressions.

When a popular former president appears on screen praising a candidate while a narrator urges voters to elect that candidate to a different office, many viewers will naturally interpret it as a current endorsement.

Outside groups behind the advertising

The most heavily aired Obama advertisement was financed by United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, commonly known as AIPAC.

Because federal law prohibits super PACs from coordinating their spending with candidates, Stevens’ campaign is not legally responsible for creating or distributing United Democracy Project’s advertisements. That separation must be made clear.

However, Stevens has repeatedly promoted her association with the Obama administration and previously used the same Obama footage in campaign material, including the video announcing her Senate campaign. Her campaign also has defended the current ads as an accurate portrayal of Obama’s assessment of her work, while emphasizing that the advertisements never explicitly claim he endorsed her for Senate. 

That defense relies on a narrow technicality.

The controversy is not whether Obama once praised Stevens. He did. The controversy is whether footage from 2018 is being presented in a way designed to make voters believe Obama is backing her in 2026.

The answer is evident from the structure of the advertisements: Obama’s face, Obama’s voice, praise for Stevens and an immediate appeal to elect her to the Senate.

Tens of millions of dollars shaping the race

Outside organizations have poured extraordinary amounts of money into the Michigan Senate contest.

Bridge Michigan reported that United Democracy Project had spent nearly $15 million in the race as of mid-July, including approximately $9.3 million supporting Stevens and $5.7 million opposing El-Sayed. Another super PAC, A Stronger Michigan, reported spending more than $12 million supporting Stevens. 

Overall, roughly $28 million in outside expenditures had either supported Stevens or attacked El-Sayed, according to federal disclosures reviewed by Bridge Michigan. That gave Stevens an enormous advertising advantage and allowed supportive groups to broadcast the Obama footage repeatedly across Michigan’s largest media markets. 

The scale matters. A misleading impression repeated once may be corrected. An impression reinforced thousands of times through television, digital advertising and political mailers can become accepted as fact before many voters learn otherwise.

UAW also accuses pro-Stevens group of misleading voters

The Obama controversy is not the only dispute involving advertisements supporting Stevens.

The United Auto Workers issued a cease-and-desist demand to A Stronger Michigan after a pro-Stevens advertisement displayed the union’s recognizable wheel logo, even though the UAW endorsed El-Sayed.

The union called the advertisements “a deliberate attempt at misleading voters in Michigan,” including active and retired UAW members and their families. The UAW said it would not allow a corporate entity to undermine the union’s member-driven endorsement process. 

The union endorsed El-Sayed after he received the two-thirds vote required through its internal endorsement process. A Stronger Michigan, meanwhile, has spent more than $12 million promoting Stevens. 

As with the Obama footage, the UAW logo appears to capitalize on a trusted institution’s reputation without clearly explaining that the institution is supporting someone else.

Stevens’ legitimate auto-industry record

Stevens has every right to discuss her work in the Obama administration.

She served as chief of staff for the U.S. Auto Rescue Task Force during the financial crisis and helped coordinate between federal officials, automakers, suppliers, dealers and organized labor. Obama genuinely praised her role in that effort.

That history is relevant in Michigan, where the survival of General Motors and Chrysler protected hundreds of thousands of jobs and helped stabilize communities throughout the state.

But highlighting a candidate’s record is different from creating the appearance of a current endorsement.

A straightforward advertisement could tell voters that Stevens worked in the Obama administration and include an on-screen disclosure stating that Obama’s remarks were made in 2018 and that he has not endorsed a candidate in the 2026 Michigan Senate primary.

The groups financing the ads apparently chose not to provide that clarity.

Technically defensible, practically deceptive

Supporters of Stevens argue that the advertisements contain truthful footage. Obama made the comments, Stevens worked on the auto rescue and the advertisements do not use the specific word “endorsement.”

But political deception does not always require an outright lie.

An advertisement can use true statements, selective editing and omitted context to create a conclusion that is not true. In this case, the advertisements encourage voters to believe Obama is participating in the current campaign when he has remained publicly neutral.

The phrase offered by one Stevens supporter — that Obama has “not not endorsed her” — demonstrates the problem. A failure to endorse someone is not a form of endorsement. Silence cannot honestly be converted into support.

Obama either endorsed Stevens in the 2026 Senate primary or he did not.

He did not.

Voters deserve a clear disclosure

Michigan voters should not have to research the date of every video clip to determine whether an endorsement is current, expired or nonexistent.

At minimum, political advertisements using footage from previous elections should prominently disclose when and why the remarks were originally made. A small disclaimer identifying the sponsoring super PAC does not correct the larger visual message.

The issue is bigger than Stevens, Obama or one Democratic primary. Campaign organizations across the political spectrum increasingly use old footage, artificial intelligence, selective editing and institutional imagery to manufacture associations that may not exist.

Those practices weaken informed voting while allowing campaigns and outside groups to retreat behind carefully constructed technical defenses.

Haley Stevens has a legitimate record to present to Michigan voters. Her supporters should be able to make that case without allowing millions of dollars in advertising to create an Obama endorsement that does not exist.

As of July 17, 2026, Barack Obama has not endorsed Haley Stevens, Abdul El-Sayed or any other candidate in Michigan’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary.

Anything suggesting otherwise is an impression created by political advertising — not a statement made by the former president.

Michigan Governor's Race Faces Conflict-of-Interest Questions as Rx Kids Program Draws New Scrutiny

LANSING, Mich. — As Michigan's 2026 gubernatorial race intensifies, a growing web of political, financial, and ethical questions is emerging around Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, her husband Ryan Friedrichs, and the rapidly expanding Rx Kids cash assistance program.

While no evidence has established that any laws have been broken, critics argue the circumstances create the appearance of a significant conflict of interest that deserves public scrutiny.

At the center of the controversy is Ryan Friedrichs, Benson's husband, who serves on the Rx Kids Advisory Circle, a leadership body that helps guide fundraising, communications, policy development and strategic growth for the statewide program. His advisory role comes as Benson campaigns to become Michigan's next governor while simultaneously serving as the state's chief election official.

The timing has raised difficult questions.

Rx Kids began as a pilot program in Flint, providing direct cash payments to expectant mothers. What started as a relatively small initiative has since grown into a taxpayer-funded program receiving hundreds of millions of dollars and expanding into Democratic-leaning communities across Michigan.

Critics argue the program's expansion deserves heightened oversight because research associated with the program reported that Rx Kids participants voted at higher rates than comparable residents in the 2024 election.

According to research cited by supporters of the program, Rx Kids enrollees were nearly five percentage points more likely to vote than similar nonparticipants. While increased civic participation is not inherently improper, opponents argue that directing massive taxpayer-funded programs into politically favorable areas while a statewide candidate's spouse helps advise the organization creates an appearance that cannot simply be ignored.

The concern becomes more significant because Benson will oversee election administration while seeking the state's highest office.

Even if every action surrounding Rx Kids complied with the law, ethics experts have long argued that public confidence depends not only on actual fairness but also on avoiding situations that create the appearance of favoritism or political advantage.

The financial structure of the program has generated additional criticism.

Reports indicate that nonprofit partners and administrative organizations collected millions of dollars in management fees while distributing taxpayer-funded benefits. Although state officials have defended those expenses as allowable under grant rules, opponents question whether taxpayers are receiving sufficient accountability for the large sums being spent on administration instead of direct assistance.

Legislative Republicans have also criticized how funding for the program dramatically increased during budget negotiations, arguing that lawmakers received little opportunity to fully examine the expansion before approving hundreds of millions in additional spending.

Meanwhile, the advisory circle itself has become another focal point.

Publicly available information identifies advisors connected to organizations that advocate for guaranteed income programs, progressive political causes, labor activism, immigration policy reforms, voting initiatives and other left-leaning organizations.

Membership on an advisory board does not establish wrongdoing, nor does affiliation with advocacy organizations imply illegal conduct. Nevertheless, critics argue the concentration of politically aligned organizations surrounding a taxpayer-funded program expanding during a gubernatorial election cycle warrants far greater public transparency.

Friedrichs' own background has also drawn attention.

Before joining Related Companies as a vice president, he served in Detroit city government and previously worked as a lobbyist. More recently, he has been involved in efforts supporting a large proposed data center development in Saline Township, another project that has generated significant public controversy.

Taken individually, none of these facts prove corruption.

Collectively, however, opponents argue they present a troubling picture of overlapping political influence, taxpayer funding, election-year expansion and family connections involving one of Michigan's most powerful elected officials.

For many observers, the issue is no longer whether Rx Kids helps families.

The larger question is whether a statewide elected official should be allowed to seek higher office while her spouse serves in a leadership role for a taxpayer-funded program whose expansion could indirectly influence political participation in communities likely to support that candidate.

Those questions become even more important because public trust in elections depends upon citizens believing government programs are administered solely for public benefit—not for potential political gain.

As the 2026 campaign continues, lawmakers may face increasing pressure to examine the program's governance, financial oversight, advisory structure and safeguards against conflicts of interest.

Regardless of the outcome, Michigan voters deserve complete transparency regarding how taxpayer dollars are spent, who influences those decisions, and whether sufficient ethical protections exist to preserve public confidence in both government spending and the state's electoral process.

Michigan Revokes Antrim County Clerk’s Access to Voter Roll Amid Escalating Election Integrity Dispute

ANTRIM COUNTY, MI - A growing dispute between state election officials and Antrim County Clerk Victoria Bishop reached a new level this week when the Michigan Bureau of Elections suspended Bishop’s access to the state’s Qualified Voter File (QVF), citing what officials described as repeated violations of Michigan election law.

The move follows months of controversy surrounding Bishop’s efforts to review and alter voter registration records in Antrim County, a county that became nationally known after the 2020 presidential election due to claims of election fraud.

In a letter sent Friday, Michigan Director of Elections Jonathan Brater informed Bishop that her access to the statewide voter registration database was being revoked after a state review found she had taken actions that "do not comply with Michigan Election Law and fall outside the scope of your statutory authority."

Under Michigan law, responsibility for maintaining voter registration records belongs primarily to city and township clerks. County clerks have limited authority to access the system and may only make certain changes under specific circumstances, such as reporting deceased voters.

State officials allege Bishop exceeded that authority by directly altering voter records and sending registration notices to voters without proper authorization.

State Alleges Unauthorized Voter Registration Changes

The conflict dates back to March, when Bishop mailed notices to approximately 1,800 Antrim County voters asking them to verify their registration information. The county has roughly 25,000 residents, meaning the notices reached a significant portion of registered voters.

The Bureau of Elections contends those mailings should have been handled by local township and city clerks, not the county clerk's office.

According to reporting by Interlochen Public Radio and Votebeat, Bishop also changed the voter registration status of several residents to "cancel" within the Qualified Voter File. Journalists reviewing state records identified at least six voters whose registrations were changed to canceled status, while additional reports suggested more than a dozen modifications may have occurred.

Bishop has denied wrongdoing and has argued that she was elected with a mandate to clean up Antrim County's voter rolls.

Throughout her campaign for county clerk, Bishop frequently claimed the county's voter rolls contained deceased individuals and voters who no longer lived in the county. She promised to restore election integrity and remove ineligible registrations.

However, local clerks have challenged her claims.

Banks Township Clerk Julie Chellis previously questioned the methodology used to identify the voters targeted by Bishop's review, noting that some individuals on the list were active voters, including younger residents and absentee voters who were legally registered.

"The list doesn't make sense to me," Chellis said in earlier reporting. "There are people that are voting absentee, as we speak."

State Warned Bishop of Possible Criminal Consequences

The Bureau of Elections first formally warned Bishop in April that her actions were outside her legal authority.

In a strongly worded letter, Brater told Bishop that elected officials do not possess unlimited authority simply because they won office.

"You do not have unlimited authority to conduct any action you see fit simply because you were elected to office," Brater wrote.

The state demanded that Bishop stop altering voter records and provide explanations regarding changes that had already occurred.

According to reports, Bishop initially failed to properly respond to the state's inquiries. Election officials said responses were either incomplete or sent to incorrect email addresses and failed to answer key questions regarding which voter records had been modified and why.

The latest suspension order requires Bishop to complete election training, demonstrate compliance with Michigan election law, and fully answer the state's questions before her access to the Qualified Voter File can be restored.

Investigation Also Involves Husband's Access to Clerk's Office

The controversy has expanded beyond voter registration changes.

Michigan State Police have been investigating an incident involving Bishop's husband, Randy Bishop, a conservative radio host known throughout Northern Michigan as "Trucker Randy."

According to a state police report obtained through public records requests, a county employee observed Randy Bishop alone inside a secure section of the clerk's office on February 19 while Victoria Bishop attended a county commission meeting elsewhere in the building.

Investigators reported that Randy Bishop was using Victoria Bishop's office computer to watch a livestream of the public meeting.

The clerk's office contains access to election-related systems, including the Qualified Voter File.

The Bishops told investigators that Randy was merely waiting for an important phone call and wanted a quiet place to watch the meeting. Both denied that he accessed voter registration records or other sensitive election data.

Victoria Bishop told investigators that her husband did not know her login credentials and had not independently accessed her computer.

The Michigan Attorney General's Office has confirmed that the investigation remains ongoing.

No criminal charges have been filed against either Victoria or Randy Bishop.

Political and Legal Tensions Continue to Escalate

The dispute has become increasingly political.

Randy Bishop has used his radio program to defend his wife and criticize Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and state election officials. During several broadcasts, he denied that Victoria Bishop improperly removed voters from the registration rolls and promoted efforts to raise money for potential legal action against the state.

At one point, fundraising efforts were launched to support a lawsuit against Benson and election officials, though no lawsuit ultimately appears to have been filed.

Reports indicate only a few hundred dollars were raised before the fundraising effort was removed.

No Expected Impact on Upcoming Elections

Despite the suspension, election officials say voters should not experience disruptions ahead of Michigan's August primary elections.

Antrim County Deputy Clerk Annette Marcus continues to have access to the Qualified Voter File, and most voter registration maintenance is performed by township and city clerks rather than county officials.

State officials also say they have worked with local clerks to restore any voter registrations that may have been improperly altered.

Still, the dispute has intensified scrutiny of election administration in Antrim County, a jurisdiction that has remained at the center of election integrity debates since 2020.

With investigations ongoing and state officials continuing to review Bishop's actions, the controversy is likely to remain a major issue heading into the 2026 election cycle.

Cox Campaign Accuses John James of Deceptive Fundraising Texts in Michigan Governor’s Race

 

LANSING, Mich. — A new political flashpoint has erupted in Michigan’s already heated gubernatorial race, as the campaign of former Attorney General Mike Cox is accusing Republican rival John James of misleading voters through a controversial fundraising text message.

The dispute centers on a mass text sent to Michigan voters claiming to support efforts to “hold Michigan for Trump,” while promoting a so-called “10X impact” on donations. The message suggested that small contributions would be multiplied — for example, a $10 donation becoming $100 — and directed recipients to a fundraising link.

Cox’s campaign alleges that the message is deceptive, arguing that there is no actual donation-matching program in place and that funds raised through the link are directed solely to James’ campaign — not to any broader effort tied to former President Donald Trump or national party operations.

“This is not just misleading — it’s a bait-and-switch,” Cox allies said in statements posted online. “Voters are being led to believe their money is going toward a coordinated effort tied to President Trump, when in reality it appears to benefit only one campaign.”

Dispute Over “10X Impact” Claims

At the center of the controversy is the use of “matching” language — a common but tightly scrutinized tactic in political fundraising. According to guidance previously circulated by Trump-aligned fundraising committees and the Republican National Committee, campaigns are discouraged from using language that implies donations will be multiplied unless such programs are clearly defined and legitimate.

Cox’s campaign points to those guidelines, arguing that the “10X impact” messaging violates both the spirit and, potentially, the rules governing political fundraising solicitations tied to Trump’s name and likeness.

Screenshots shared by Cox’s team also show that the donation page linked in the text appears to route contributions directly to John James’ campaign, with no visible indication of a matching fund or broader allocation.

No Public Confirmation From Trump

Another key point of contention is the absence of any public endorsement or authorization from Trump or his affiliated committees for the fundraising effort described in the text.

Cox’s campaign argues that invoking Trump in the solicitation — without clear authorization or financial participation — creates a false impression of coordination.

“There has been no notice, no confirmation, and no evidence that President Trump or his team is involved in this,” Cox supporters claim. “That makes the message even more problematic.”

James Campaign Yet to Respond

As of now, the James campaign has not issued a detailed public response to the allegations. It remains unclear whether the campaign will dispute the claims, clarify the “10X impact” language, or defend the fundraising approach as standard political marketing.

Political analysts note that aggressive digital fundraising tactics — including urgent language, countdown timers, and matching claims — have become increasingly common across both parties. However, they also warn that such tactics can blur ethical lines if not clearly explained to donors.

Broader Implications in Tight Race

The controversy comes at a critical moment in the Michigan governor’s race, where fundraising and grassroots support are key indicators of campaign strength. Accusations of deceptive practices could carry political risk, particularly among core Republican voters who prioritize transparency and alignment with Trump.

Cox’s campaign is leaning into the issue, framing it as a matter of trust.

“If you received this text, you should know exactly where your money is going,” a campaign-aligned message stated. “Voters deserve honesty — not gimmicks.”

Whether the dispute gains traction with voters — or fades as another flashpoint in a contentious primary — may depend on how quickly and clearly the James campaign responds.

Michigan Demands Answers After Antrim County Clerk Accused of Improperly Altering Voter Records

 

ANTRIM COUNTY, Mich. — State election officials are investigating whether the Antrim County clerk improperly canceled or altered voter registrations, raising new concerns about election administration in a county that has remained under intense scrutiny since the 2020 presidential election.

According to the Michigan Bureau of Elections, Clerk Victoria Bishop may have taken actions that exceeded her legal authority by issuing voter cancellation notices and modifying records in the state’s Qualified Voter File, commonly known as the QVF.

In a formal letter sent earlier this month, Bureau Director Jonathan Brater stated that the agency had received reports from voters and local officials about “concerning activity” tied to Bishop’s office. A subsequent review of the QVF revealed what officials described as “sufficient irregularities” to warrant further investigation.

Allegations of Improper Cancellations

At the center of the dispute is whether Bishop improperly targeted voters who had not participated in recent elections. State officials say evidence suggests cancellation or confirmation notices were sent to individuals who missed one or two major election cycles.

Under Michigan law, however, voter registrations cannot be canceled solely for failing to vote.

The Bureau also alleges that Bishop may have:

• Changed voter statuses in the QVF to “Cancel” or “Reject” without proper authorization

• Failed to independently verify voter information before taking action

• Acted without delegation from city or township clerks, who are legally responsible for maintaining voter rolls

State officials emphasized that county clerks do not have unilateral authority to conduct voter maintenance or directly alter registration statuses in the statewide system.

Bishop Defends “Corrective Audit”

Bishop, a Republican elected in 2024, has defended her actions, describing them as part of a “corrective audit” aimed at improving the accuracy of voter rolls.

She argues that sending notices to voters was intended to prompt verification and ensure outdated registrations—such as those belonging to deceased individuals or people who have moved—are addressed. Bishop has also said that maintaining accurate voter rolls is essential to restoring public confidence in elections.

In public statements, she has framed her actions as a response to what she describes as past administrative failures, particularly during the 2020 election cycle.

Bishop is married to Randy Bishop, a conservative talk radio personality often known as “Trucker Randy,” who has publicly promoted claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

Potential Legal Consequences

The Bureau of Elections has ordered Bishop to provide a detailed explanation of her actions, including a list of affected voters and justification for any changes made in the QVF.

Failure to comply could carry serious consequences. State officials noted that:

• Election duties could be reassigned or removed

• Violations of lawful directives may result in misdemeanor charges

Michigan has previously taken similar action against local clerks accused of violating election law, including temporarily stripping authority in high-profile cases.

Antrim County’s Ongoing Election Spotlight

This latest controversy unfolds in Antrim County, a northern Michigan community that became nationally known following the 2020 election. At that time, a reporting error briefly showed incorrect presidential results due to a tabulator update issue, which was later corrected.

Despite the correction, the incident fueled widespread claims of election fraud and placed the county at the center of ongoing political and legal debates about election integrity.

Bishop campaigned on addressing those concerns, pledging to clean up voter rolls and strengthen confidence in the system. Her election reflected continued skepticism among some voters about the accuracy of election administration.

What Comes Next

The Bureau’s investigation is ongoing, and Bishop faces a deadline to respond with documentation and explanations of her actions. The outcome could determine whether the issue remains an administrative dispute or escalates into formal legal proceedings.

As Michigan prepares for upcoming elections, the case underscores the tension between efforts to ensure voter roll accuracy and the legal safeguards designed to protect voter access.