Prospects limitless for spending on questions
There are no contribution caps for people or corporations giving to committees for and against ballot questions — and it shows as millions of dollars pour into the causes.
“There are no limits — that’s the theme,” Jason Tait of the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance told the Herald.
The committees for and against Question 1, which deals with staffing levels in hospitals, have combined to drop $20.1 million — $8 million for, $12.1 million against — on the campaign, according to OCPF data.
That’s largely on the back of huge donations that are massively over what would be allowed to go to candidates or parties. The Massachusetts Nurses Association gave $2.1 million for the question over the past month, doing so over five installments, each over $150,000. The union’s political action committee would only be able to give $500 to a candidate or $5,000 to a party in a calendar year. On the other side, hospitals lined up to give hundreds of thousands of dollars each, according to the data.
The committee for Question 3, which would keep in place anti-discrimination protections for transgender people, has spent $2 million, while the committee against it has spent $333,000, according to the data.
Question 2 focuses on campaign spending. A “yes” vote would create a committee to look into measures including a national constitutional amendment to cut down on money in politics. The committee in favor of this, though, has dramatically outspent those opposed to restricting money in politics: $182,000 for to no money spent against.
Much of the money supporting restrictions came from small donors, but Jeff Clements, the man who runs Concord-based American Promise, the group behind the question, has given $13,500 to the committee for Question 2. He, has also made non-cash “in-kind” contributions of services such as staffing valued at dozens of thousands of dollars, including an instance of $43,000 last month, and $15,000 in loans to the committee. Under Massachusetts law, in-kind contributions are treated as though they are money and capped the same.
American Promises’ political director, Ben Gubits, rejected the idea that the contributions are antithetical to the organization’s purpose.
“It’s a difference from getting the big and secret money we’re trying to fight,” Gubits said.