For decades, politicians from both parties have defended the Michigan Economic Development Corporation with the same promise: targeted incentives and subsidies will attract jobs, revive communities, and create prosperity. It sounds appealing. If government can selectively help businesses expand, why not use that power to strengthen the state’s economy?
The problem is that after years of experiments and billions in incentives, taxpayers should ask a simple question: why are we still relying on this model?
Consider the Fay Beydoun case. Beydoun, who served on MEDC’s executive committee, was connected to a $20 million state grant for Global Link International that was administered through the state’s economic development apparatus. Investigators later alleged that grant funds intended for economic development were diverted to personal expenses and unrelated spending. Prosecutors have alleged forged documentation, improper expenditures, and false reporting, while the attorney general described the process as one with minimal oversight and unusual political connections.
Then there is the Clare Complete Health Park project. A project that many of our readers in Mid-Michigan are very familiar with. A $25 million earmark for a health and recreation complex was awarded to a nonprofit created shortly before funding was approved. State officials later suspended payments after identifying red flags, including allegations involving self-dealing and undisclosed financial relationships. The founder, Clare native Dave Coker now faces felony charges related to the handling of grant money.
These examples involve different people, different regions, and different political circles. One grew from Detroit-area business networks; another emerged from legislative relationships in rural Michigan. Yet they raise the same question: why does Michigan continue relying on systems where politically connected projects can receive tens of millions of taxpayer dollars before basic warning signs are detected?
The issue is larger than any individual scandal. It is whether government should continue operating an economic development model that concentrates public money, discretion, and influence in ways that can reward access rather than results.
The MEDC represents a philosophy of economic development that assumes government officials can identify tomorrow’s winners and steer public money toward them. But economies rarely work that way. Growth is usually driven by entrepreneurs, workers, small businesses, and market demand—not by state agencies deciding which companies deserve special treatment.
Programs built around tax credits, grants, and incentives create an uneven playing field. Large corporations with lobbyists and political connections often have advantages in navigating these systems, while small businesses operating on Main Streets across Michigan receive little benefit. The local manufacturer with twenty employees does not have a team of consultants pursuing state incentives. The family-owned restaurant, contractor, or startup often pays taxes that help fund benefits awarded elsewhere.
There is also a fairness question. Government should create rules that apply equally to everyone, not distribute selective advantages. When one company receives subsidies, every other business effectively competes against a rival backed by public resources.
Supporters argue that without these incentives, Michigan would lose jobs to other states. But that raises a larger issue: if every state competes by offering bigger subsidies, taxpayers end up financing a race where corporations hold the leverage and governments write the checks. The result is often less like economic development and more like a bidding war.
Imagine redirecting that energy and money toward broad improvements that benefit everyone: lower taxes, better roads, stronger schools, workforce development, and streamlined regulations. Those investments do not depend on predicting which companies will succeed. They create conditions where all businesses can grow.
Abolishing MEDC would not mean abandoning economic development. It would mean redefining it. Government’s role should be to build a stable foundation, not pick winners and losers.
Michigan’s future economy will not be engineered from conference rooms and incentive packages. It will be built by people taking risks, creating businesses, hiring workers, and investing in their communities.
The state should trust them to do it.
Consider the Fay Beydoun case. Beydoun, who served on MEDC’s executive committee, was connected to a $20 million state grant for Global Link International that was administered through the state’s economic development apparatus. Investigators later alleged that grant funds intended for economic development were diverted to personal expenses and unrelated spending. Prosecutors have alleged forged documentation, improper expenditures, and false reporting, while the attorney general described the process as one with minimal oversight and unusual political connections.
Then there is the Clare Complete Health Park project. A $25 million earmark for a health and recreation complex was awarded to a nonprofit created shortly before funding was approved. State officials later suspended payments after identifying red flags, including allegations involving self-dealing and undisclosed financial relationships. The founder now faces felony charges related to the handling of grant money, and investigators recovered millions of dollars in unused taxpayer funds.
These examples involve different people, different regions, and different political circles. One grew from Detroit-area business networks; another emerged from legislative relationships in rural Michigan. Yet they raise the same question: why does Michigan continue relying on systems where politically connected projects can receive tens of millions of taxpayer dollars before basic warning signs are detected?
The issue is larger than any individual scandal. It is whether government should continue operating an economic development model that concentrates public money, discretion, and influence in ways that can reward access rather than results.
I agree