Mass. Senate wants ballot campaigns to report donors year-round

Ahead of a record 12 potential ballot questions in the November election, the Massachusetts Senate has passed legislation that would require monthly disclosure of statewide ballot campaigns’ finances. Multiple New Bedford lawmakers support the bill, but some advocates say it misses the mark. 

The current reporting schedule leaves eight months — between January and September in a November election year — when ballot question committees are not required to disclose financial information. Instead, a report filed 60 days before the election lists all donations and spending for the year so far.

The Senate proposal aims to close that gap. It would require ballot question committees to file monthly financial reports until two months before an election. After that, they would follow existing law, filing twice monthly during the final stretch, then sending post-election reports on Nov. 20 and Jan. 20. 

The bill has an emergency preamble, meaning it could take effect immediately after the governor signs it into law. The first filing under the new law would require committees to retroactively disclose any previously unreported finances for 2026.

The bill would hold ballot question committees to the same standard as legislative candidates, who regularly report their finances throughout the year. 

New Bedford’s Democratic Reps. Antonio F. D. Cabral and Steven Ouellette said they would vote in favor of the bill if it reaches a full House hearing. Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, supported the measure during a Senate hearing but did not grant an interview. Democratic Reps. Christopher Hendricks, Christopher Markey and Mark Sylvia also did not grant interviews.

“It is only fair and proper to require state ballot question committees to abide by the same campaign finance and disclosure requirements that candidates for public office must adhere to,” said Sen. Michael Rodrigues (D-Westport) in a Senate press release. “This commonsense reform legislation will level the playing field and empower voters to make better choices and be more informed on the advocacy groups behind these ballot question referendums.”

Rodrigues declined to comment further to The Light. 

“I think [ballot question committees] should be subject like any other person on the ballot in terms of who’s supporting, who’s donating and how that money is being spent,” Cabral said. “It’s pretty simple.”

The Senate press release claims that the bill “guards against a rise in special interests paying millions to put their own priorities on the ballot,” a claim Cabral and Ouellette backed. 

Ouellette also pointed to the proposed rent control initiative, noting that voters should know if an opposition committee is funded by “a company that owns all the housing in the city.”  

Advocates split on the bill

Geoff Foster, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, which endorsed the bill, pointed to several ballot measures backed by special interests from both within and outside the state. Among them was the 2024 question that eliminated MCAS tests as a graduation requirement. Lyft spent $13 million on a 2022 question that would’ve asked voters to classify rideshare and delivery drivers as independent contractors; the state’s high court rejected it as improperly written. 

But Scotia Hille, executive director of the advocacy group Act on Mass, questioned whether ballot campaign transparency should be the Legislature’s priority. She said increased transparency is “always good,” but argued that the focus should be on legislative transparency. 

“I think if Beacon Hill is concerned about the impacts of money in politics, they should really look in the mirror and ask themselves why spending on lobbying at the Legislature seems to be so much more effective at seeing policy outcomes than spending on ballot question campaigns,” Hille said. 

According to an Act on Mass newsletter, approximately $43.5 million was spent across the five ballot questions considered in 2024. The same year, special interest groups spent $104.1 million lobbying Beacon Hill. 

Act on Mass is supporting two potential ballot measures for the November election. One would scale back lawmakers’ leadership stipends, while the other would reform the state’s public records laws.

The committee that filed the leadership stipend ballot question, Legislative Effectiveness and Accountability Partnership, reported an end balance of $18,237 in January. Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026, the committee backing the public records reform question, had an end balance of $116,956. 

The bill received a hearing in October, passed the Senate unanimously on Jan. 15, and was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee on Jan. 22. House Speaker Ron Mariano has praised the bill and indicated the House plans to take it up soon.

Hille suggested that lawmakers are moving the bill quickly because they dislike ballot questions and view them as a way to circumvent the Legislature.  

“We would like to see them moving with that kind of urgency on a number of other issues that are of more importance to Bay Staters than whether or not someone is being paid to gather signatures or not,” Hille said.

She pointed to immigration enforcement, workers’ rights, climate action and higher taxes on wealthy corporations as more pressing priorities.

Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka criticized the ballot question process at a Feb. 25 event hosted by MASSterList and State House News Service. According to Mariano, the “whole system is fraught with peril.” The two leaders stopped short of suggesting the state eliminate the process entirely. 

“If the Legislature is pissed about 12 questions being on the ballot, it’s their own fault,” Hille said. “We’re seeing fewer and fewer bills being passed each year, fewer and fewer recorded votes. Many of the issues that may be on the ballot this year have been through the legislative cycle several times and never managed to get a vote.”

Other advocates, however, support the measure. Doug Rubin, chair of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026 ballot question committee, said increased reporting might “take a little more on our part,” but that he “imagine[s] the benefit would be significantly worth it for the voters.” 

Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026 is supporting two ballot questions: the public records reform ballot proposal and a question seeking to eliminate political party primaries for state elections. 

“I think that we could use more transparency around all kinds of campaign-related issues, both on the candidate side and on the ballot campaign side,” Rubin said. “I’ve been working in politics in Massachusetts for close to 30 years now, and I’ve seen a lot of different campaigns. I generally think that more transparency is better for the voters and better for democracy.” 

Evan Horowitz, executive director of the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University, said he does not expect greater transparency to curb special-interest money. He said there’s “nothing wrong” with increasing transparency around ballot campaign finances, but he doubted that voters’ “inability to know where the money is coming from is changing ballot trajectories in the state in any meaningful way.” 

The bill proposes several additional transparency measures. It would require ballot committees to disclose whether they employ paid signature gatherers and would prohibit paying workers based on the number of signatures collected. It would also require disclosure within 72 hours of any contribution over $500 made shortly before an election.

Jamie Perkins is a graduate student in journalism at Boston University, covering state government for The Light as part of the Boston University Statehouse Program. Email them at jperkins@newbedfordlight.org.