One of the most consequential and most frequently misunderstood decisions in government affairs is whether to pursue your policy goal through the legislature or through the regulatory process.
Both paths can lead to meaningful change. But they operate on different timelines, require different relationships, and carry different risks. Choosing the wrong lever doesn’t just slow you down; it can actively harm your position.
Here’s how to think through the choice.
Understanding the Difference
The Legislative Path
Legislation creates statutes, permanent changes to state law that require affirmative action by the full legislature (both chambers) and the Governor to enact, amend, or repeal. Legislative changes are durable and provide the strongest form of legal protection for your position. They are also the hardest to achieve, the most public, and the most politically exposed.
The Regulatory Path
State regulatory agencies in both Ohio and Michigan have broad authority to write, amend, and repeal administrative rules and, in many cases, to issue guidance, no-action letters, and policy interpretations that function like rules without going through formal rulemaking.
Regulatory changes are generally faster to achieve than legislation (though formal rulemaking can still take 12–24 months), less politically visible, and can often be accomplished with executive branch relationships rather than legislative ones. The tradeoff is that durability, a friendly Governor’s successor can reverse regulatory policy far more easily than they can repeal a statute.
When to Choose the Legislative Path
Legislation is the right choice when:
- You need permanent, durable protection: If your goal is to create a right, obligation, or prohibition that survives changes in executive administration, you need a statute.
- Your issue requires funding: Appropriations are inherently legislative. If your organization needs a budget allocation, a grant program, or a tax credit, the legislature is the only path.
- You need to override existing regulatory authority: If a state agency is exercising authority against your interests and you want to constrain that authority, only the legislature can do it.
- You have a strong political champion and a favorable environment: Legislation requires political will. If you have a committed champion with leadership relationships and a receptive majority, the legislative path may be more achievable than waiting for a friendly executive.
- You need public visibility for coalition or branding purposes: Sometimes the legislative process itself — the hearings, the debates, the votes creates public awareness and political pressure that serves your advocacy goals even apart from the outcome.
When to Choose the Regulatory Path
The regulatory path is often the right choice when:
- Speed matters: Formal rulemaking is faster than legislation in most circumstances. An informal regulatory engagement meeting with agency staff, requesting guidance, participating in the public comment process, can be initiated immediately.
- Your issue is technical: Regulatory agencies have subject matter expertise that legislators often lack. Complex technical issues, environmental standards, licensure requirements, and insurance regulations are often better resolved at the agency level, where staff understand the nuances.
- You have executive branch relationships: A well-connected government affairs firm with relationships in the Governor’s office and with agency leadership can often accomplish in months what the legislative process takes years to achieve.
- You want a lower political profile: Not every advocacy goal benefits from a public legislative battle. Regulatory engagement can achieve significant policy changes without triggering the kind of organized opposition that a legislative fight would attract.
- The legislature is hostile: If the current legislative majority is unreceptive to your issue, the executive branch may still be persuadable, particularly if the Governor’s office has a different political alignment.
One of the most common mistakes we see in government affairs is organizations defaulting to the legislative path because it’s what they understand, even when the regulatory path would be faster, cheaper, and more likely to succeed.
The Combined Strategy: When to Use Both
Sophisticated government affairs operations often pursue regulatory and legislative strategies simultaneously, not as alternatives but as mutually reinforcing approaches.
Consider this scenario: an industry is facing an adverse regulatory ruling from a state agency. The immediate response is engagement with the agency through the administrative process, comments, meetings, and formal reconsideration requests. Simultaneously, the organization pursues legislation to constrain the agency’s authority or clarify the statute the agency is interpreting.
The regulatory engagement creates a record, demonstrates good faith, and sometimes produces a negotiated outcome. The legislative threat gives the agency an incentive to negotiate. The combination is more powerful than either approach alone.
Practical Considerations for Ohio and Michigan
Ohio
Ohio’s Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) gives the legislature meaningful oversight of the regulatory process. If a state agency issues rules that the legislature finds objectionable, JCARR can invalidate them. This creates an important dynamic: the regulatory and legislative paths are more intertwined in Ohio than in many states.
Ohio’s executive branch has also historically exercised significant regulatory discretion. The Governor’s office, the Lieutenant Governor’s office (which oversees many regulatory agencies), and the Governor’s cabinet all have leverage over the rulemaking process that can be accessed through the right relationships.
Michigan
Michigan’s regulatory landscape is shaped by a strong administrative law tradition and an active Office of Regulatory Reinvention. Michigan also has a legislative review process for administrative rules, though the mechanism differs from Ohio’s. Understanding which agencies have jurisdiction over your issues and the political relationships within those agencies is essential to Michigan’s regulatory strategy.
How Statesman Limited Navigates Both Paths
Our government affairs practice is built to operate effectively in both the legislative and regulatory environments in Ohio and Michigan. When we assess a new policy priority, the first question we ask isn’t “which committee should we target?” It’s “what’s the fastest, most durable, most cost-effective path to your goal?” Sometimes that’s a bill. Sometimes it’s a meeting with an agency director. Often it’s a carefully sequenced combination of both.
Trying to decide between a legislative and regulatory approach? Statesman Limited can help you build the right strategy. Contact us for a consultation.
Regulatory vs. Legislative Strategy: Knowing Which Lever to Pull
One of the most consequential and most frequently misunderstood decisions in government affairs is whether to pursue your policy goal through the legislature or through the regulatory process.
Both paths can lead to meaningful change. But they operate on different timelines, require different relationships, and carry different risks. Choosing the wrong lever doesn’t just slow you down; it can actively harm your position.
Here’s how to think through the choice.
Understanding the Difference
The Legislative Path
Legislation creates statutes, permanent changes to state law that require affirmative action by the full legislature (both chambers) and the Governor to enact, amend, or repeal. Legislative changes are durable and provide the strongest form of legal protection for your position. They are also the hardest to achieve, the most public, and the most politically exposed.
The Regulatory Path
State regulatory agencies in both Ohio and Michigan have broad authority to write, amend, and repeal administrative rules and, in many cases, to issue guidance, no-action letters, and policy interpretations that function like rules without going through formal rulemaking.
Regulatory changes are generally faster to achieve than legislation (though formal rulemaking can still take 12–24 months), less politically visible, and can often be accomplished with executive branch relationships rather than legislative ones. The tradeoff is that durability, a friendly Governor’s successor can reverse regulatory policy far more easily than they can repeal a statute.
When to Choose the Legislative Path
Legislation is the right choice when:
When to Choose the Regulatory Path
The regulatory path is often the right choice when:
The Combined Strategy: When to Use Both
Sophisticated government affairs operations often pursue regulatory and legislative strategies simultaneously, not as alternatives but as mutually reinforcing approaches.
Consider this scenario: an industry is facing an adverse regulatory ruling from a state agency. The immediate response is engagement with the agency through the administrative process, comments, meetings, and formal reconsideration requests. Simultaneously, the organization pursues legislation to constrain the agency’s authority or clarify the statute the agency is interpreting.
The regulatory engagement creates a record, demonstrates good faith, and sometimes produces a negotiated outcome. The legislative threat gives the agency an incentive to negotiate. The combination is more powerful than either approach alone.
Practical Considerations for Ohio and Michigan
Ohio
Ohio’s Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR) gives the legislature meaningful oversight of the regulatory process. If a state agency issues rules that the legislature finds objectionable, JCARR can invalidate them. This creates an important dynamic: the regulatory and legislative paths are more intertwined in Ohio than in many states.
Ohio’s executive branch has also historically exercised significant regulatory discretion. The Governor’s office, the Lieutenant Governor’s office (which oversees many regulatory agencies), and the Governor’s cabinet all have leverage over the rulemaking process that can be accessed through the right relationships.
Michigan
Michigan’s regulatory landscape is shaped by a strong administrative law tradition and an active Office of Regulatory Reinvention. Michigan also has a legislative review process for administrative rules, though the mechanism differs from Ohio’s. Understanding which agencies have jurisdiction over your issues and the political relationships within those agencies is essential to Michigan’s regulatory strategy.
How Statesman Limited Navigates Both Paths
Our government affairs practice is built to operate effectively in both the legislative and regulatory environments in Ohio and Michigan. When we assess a new policy priority, the first question we ask isn’t “which committee should we target?” It’s “what’s the fastest, most durable, most cost-effective path to your goal?” Sometimes that’s a bill. Sometimes it’s a meeting with an agency director. Often it’s a carefully sequenced combination of both.
Trying to decide between a legislative and regulatory approach? Statesman Limited can help you build the right strategy. Contact us for a consultation.