Mud on their hands

Voters are used to mud-slinging in the eleventh hour of a political campaign but in the case of Question 2 — which would give more Massachusetts families the option of enrolling their kids in a charter school — opponents are kicking desperately at the ground while barely even stirring up dust.

The two teachers unions that are bankrolling the No on 2 campaign are demanding that a TV ad in which Gov. Charlie Baker urges a “yes” vote be taken off the air. They’ve developed an elaborate rationale to support their demand, which goes like this:

Individuals employed by investment firms that are involved in managing the state’s pension funds have contributed to the committees formed to support Question 2, and one of those committees is sponsoring the ad. The opponents insist this arrangement violates federal rules that prevent investment advisers from donating to elected officials if that official has influence over hiring decisions.

A couple of minor details: The donations didn’t go to Baker. And the firms were managing the investments before he ever took office. But that didn’t stop the unions from filing a dramatic complaint with federal securities regulators.

And if you had any trouble following any of that?

Well, then opponents succeeded in their real goal which is to create just enough confusion to give voters pause about Question 2.

It’s particularly shameless since the ones who will suffer if the cap on charter schools stays in place are families, many of them low-income and minority, who are languishing on a charter school waiting list — a list that would be reduced or eliminated with passage of Question 2.

The argument that the donations to the Yes on 2 committees are merely donations to Baker in disguise crumbles, of course, when one considers the possibility that Question 2 might not pass. But given that the opponents’ case on the merits is almost entirely substance-free, they simply can’t take any chances.