Donors spent big on Mass. ballot questions

By Felicia Gans

Statehouse Correspondent

The four statewide ballot initiatives, led by what will be more than a $24 million campaign over charter schools, have sparked heated dialogues and record contributions from voters and committees across the state.

All four questions brought in millions of dollars each between the pro and no committees battling for votes, according to state records from the Office of Campaign and Political Finance. Those totals are up until Oct. 31, the most recent reporting period.

The supporters of Question 2, which proposes a yearly increase in the number of the charter schools, brought in the most money through the campaign cycle.

Five separate committees in favor of Question 2 raised a total of $24,164,326. The only committee in opposition, Save our Public Schools, brought in about $14,735,320, according to the latest filings with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, which were due Oct. 31.

“Public education is an issue that touches the lives of every family in Massachusetts,” said Eileen O’Connor, who filed the ballot initiative on behalf of the Yes on 2 committee, which raised $710,000. “This ballot question definitely has some of the broadest reach.”

Question 4, which would legalize the sale and use of recreational marijuana, came in second in fundraising with the Yes on 4 committee bringing in $6,351,389 in support of the question, according to the Oct. 31 filing.

Its opposition, made up of three committees, collected $2,916,673 in contributions.

Earlier marijuana ballot initiatives, including the 2008 decriminalization proposal and the 2012 medical marijuana proposal, never surpassed $1.3 million on either side, according to state records.

“What you’re seeing is a lot of money being spent because on the marijuana industry side, there’s just a lot of money to be made from it,” said Norwood Police Chief William G. Brooks III, president of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. The association has been vocal in its opposition to Question 4.

“The money being spent is just a reflection of what’s at stake here,” he said.

The supporting committees of the other two ballot initiatives have also raised more than $2 million each, with about $3,236,257 in favor of Question 1, which proposes a second slots facility license, and $2,621,508 in favor of Question 3, which would set regulations about the care of farm animals.

Committees opposed to Question 1 raised about $35,200. Those opposing Question 3 received about $302,600 in contributions.

Questions 2 and 4 have particularly galvanized Massachusetts voters, especially as state leaders, including Gov. Charlie Baker, joined in some of the campaigns.

O’Connor said the support of political leaders like Baker and House Speaker Robert DeLeo have brought even more attention to the issue.

But Paul Georges, president of the United Teachers of Lowell, said he’s concerned the high-profile voices have drowned out some key details.

Last week, Baker was planning to canvass door-to-door in the Highlands in support of the question when about a dozen “No on 2” activists crashed the event. Baker promptly left.

Georges said despite the strong turnout of “Yes on 2” advocates, he expects most Lowell residents who attended the public school system will vote against a charter-school cap raise.

“I think people that are products of the Lowell public school system feel pretty good about that school system,” he said. “I think they understand that this question could greatly diminish the public school’s mission of educating every student.”

Jim Borghesani, spokesman for the Yes on 4 campaign, said state leaders have contributed to the noise of the initiatives, but the significance of the proposals would have put them in the spotlight regardless.

“When you present a measure that’s going to end something that’s been in existence for more than a century, it’s a big deal,” he said of laws against marijuana. “There was no way that this was not going to be a hard-fought battle.”

Many legislators in the Lowell and Fitchburg areas support recreational use, but will vote no on the initiative because of the timeline or regulatory measures laid out within the proposal.

Borghesani said if these legislators want to stick to their word, they should try their hand at pushing recreational marijuana through the Legislature, in lieu of approving it through a referendum.

“Always beware the person who favors everything but supports nothing, and this is what they’re trying to do,” he said. “If these legislators have the courage to actually follow through on what they say, then they should be the first ones to come up with an alternative should Question 4 fail.”