With a record number of proposals likely headed to the 2026 ballot, the state Senate united Thursday behind a bill proposing more public reporting on ballot question fundraising and spending.
But the majority-Democrat chamber opted against forcing similar disclosure at the local level.
Lawmakers unanimously approved legislation expanding disclosure rules for ballot question campaigns in a bid to reveal a steadier flow of information about funding sources.
“This is a bipartisan bill, a common sense bill that we must pass now to ensure our campaign finance laws are strengthened, they’re consistent and they’re fair for everyone,” state Sen. Sal DiDomenico, D-Middlesex/Suffolk, said.
Under the bill, ballot question committees would have to provide monthly reports on their finances. Currently, ballot committees don’t have to report on their finances between Jan. 20 and September – a period House Speaker Ron Mariano has dubbed a “blackout period.”
After September, campaigns would have to file biweekly reports until Election Day.
The reports would be filed with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance and publicly posted online. The bill also requires that the campaign finance be reported from the financial institutions where campaigns deposit funds.
An amendment attaching an emergency preamble to the bill passed, a move intended to make the bill take effect immediately after becoming law and in time to cover the 12 potential ballot questions this year, which cover topics ranging from rent control to an income tax cut, public records access and recreational cannabis.
“The ballot questions are happening this fall. We have to get this done right now,” DiDomenico said.
- Read More: Western Mass. to Boston: Support the Quabbin communities you’ve relied on for generations
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, R-1st Essex/Middlesex, said the bill is important because it recognizes that funds raised for proposed ballot questions should be subject to the same standards of transparency and accountability as other political activities in the state.
But those standards also should apply to local ballot questions, he added.
The Gloucester lawmaker introduced an amendment that requires anyone who has given $1,000 to a local ballot initiative to be subject to the same campaign finance reporting standards as statewide initiatives.
Tar said if the Senate decided against approving his proposal, it would lead to the question of “What are we doing?”
“Transparency for some but not for all. Transparency for state questions, but not for local questions, it would be unconscionable to leave these local ballot questions out of the reporting that we contemplate today,” he said.
DiDomenico said he agreed with the intent of Tarr’s amendment, but noted the bill is dealing with statewide ballot questions only and that municipal ballot question committees do not report finances the same way.
Changing the local reporting requirements would affect local clerks and lawmakers who haven’t had a chance to discuss those effects with the stakeholders, he said.
DiDomenico and Sen. John Keenan, D-Norfolk/Plymouth, agreed there are other bills for which the amendment could be better suited.
Keenan said Tarr’s amendment could apply to a bill tackling so-called “dark money” spending on local politics to file detailed reports with the town clerk. That bill is before the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
Senators voted 31-6 to reject Tarr’s amendment.
State Sen. Barry Finegold, D-2nd Essex/Middlesex, also won passage of an amendment requiring paid signature gatherers to use petition forms that clearly state the gatherer is being paid.
The Andover lawmaker’s proposal bars ballot campaigns from offering rewards based on the number of signatures a gatherer collects, like a fee-per-signature arrangement.
While he introduced the amendment, Finegold referenced concerns over how signatures were gathered for a proposed 2026 ballot question to roll back the state’s recreational marijuana laws.
The campaign behind the ballot proposal has stood behind their signature gathering, saying they were “collected with integrity.”
“Numerous Massachusetts voters claim that they were fraudulently misled to put their signatures on this petition. They strongly allege that paid signature gatherers lied and told voters that they were signing petitions to get fentanyl off the streets, increase affordable housing or to fund public parks – all different ballot measures,” he said. “These alleged bait and switch switches are not surprising, giving the financial incentives for paid signature gatherers to get signatures.”
Finegold’s amendment was adopted on a 34-3 vote.
