Who Is Paying for the 2026 Massachusetts Ballot Questions? $21.7 Million, Question by Question

Committees for and against Massachusetts’ nine ballot questions have raised about $21.7 million in cash, according to campaign finance reports on file with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance as of October 17, 2026. That figure does not count about $3 million more in donated services. Most of the money comes from a short list of sources. On Question 8, one group supplied 98.5 percent of the cash raised by the campaign to end retail marijuana sales. On Question 2, every dollar came from two unions. And one committee, backing Questions 1 and 3, has raised more than any other ballot committee this cycle, about $6.9 million, much of it from executives at Boston investment firms.

We pulled every report from OCPF’s ballot question data and added up each committee’s contributions by donor. Here is who is paying for each question, what Massachusetts law requires them to disclose, and when the next numbers come out.

How to read these numbers

Through October 1 for most committees. Ballot question committees report on the 5th and 20th of each month, “complete as of the preceding first and fifteenth day of the month,” under G.L. c. 55, § 18, which we read at malegislature.gov. Most committees’ latest report is the October 5 filing, which runs through October 1. Two committees, the main Question 4 committee and the newest Question 8 opposition committee, have already filed reports running through October 15.
Raised means cash. “In-kind” contributions, such as staff time, signature-gathering services or ads paid for by an allied group, are reported separately. We note them where they are large.
Totals include 2025. Most of these committees formed in 2025 to collect signatures. Our figures add the 2025 and 2026 reports together.
Donor totals are our count. We added up each donor’s itemized contributions across reports, using the most recent version of any amended report. Where a donor’s name is spelled more than one way in the filings, we say so.

The money, question by question

Question 1: Public records for the Legislature and governor

Yes: The Committee for Transparency and Democracy has raised $331,100. Its largest donor is the Committee to Elect Diana DiZoglio, the campaign committee of the state auditor, at $150,000, about 45 percent of the total. The Massachusetts Teachers Association gave $30,000 and the National Association of Government Employees $25,000. The Coalition for Healthy Democracy, the main Question 3 committee, also lists Question 1 among the questions it supports.
No: No committee opposing Question 1 has registered with OCPF.

Question 2: Union rights for public defenders

Yes: Labor Unions for Public Counsel Workers Rights has raised $1,068,060, all of it from two unions: SEIU Local 888, $541,000, and the National Association of Government Employees, $527,060.
No: No opposition committee with money.

Question 3: The all-party primary

Yes: The Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026 has raised $6,917,822 and spent $6,328,098, and had $589,724 on hand on October 1. It is the largest ballot committee of the cycle, State House News Service reported. Its largest donors, by our count of the filings:
- David Peeler, listed as a senior advisor at Berkshire Partners, $1,050,000 across five contributions (his name appears as “Peeler, David,” “Peeler, David R,” “Peeler, David Randolph” and “Peller, David Randolph,” all at a Cambridge address and Berkshire Partners)
- Andrew Balson, listed with Cove Hill Partners, $790,000
- Joshua Bekenstein, listed as a managing director at Bain Capital, $500,000
- Mark Nunnelly, $500,000
- John Connaughton, listed as chair of Bain Capital, $250,000
- Dwight Poler, $250,000
The Globe reported on October 2 that the campaign’s leader, Danielle Allen, attributed the large donations to her social relationships and fundraising, according to a MASSterList summary of that report.
No: Voter Rights MA has raised $166,110, led by 1199 SEIU’s political committee at $100,000 and the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee at $50,000, which also gave $12,092 in in-kind support.

Question 4: Election Day voter registration

Yes: YES on Election Day Voter Registration has raised $168,052 through October 15. Its largest donor is the William F. Galvin Committee, the campaign committee of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, at $79,000, about 47 percent. A second committee, Vote YES on 4, has little cash but reports $104,322 in in-kind support, mostly from the American Civil Liberties Union ($73,802) and Common Cause Massachusetts ($17,310).
No: No opposition committee has registered. State House News Service reported that Question 4 “faces no organized opposition.”

Question 5: The state revenue limit and rebate

Yes: Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts has raised $566,658 from 27 itemized donors. Its largest are ABP Trust and Raymond Stata, $100,000 each, and $50,000 apiece from the Massachusetts High Technology Council, the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership and the Pioneer Institute. It also reports about $1.96 million in in-kind contributions, most of it $1.9 million in “Signature Drive Services” from the Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance in 2025 and 2026.
No: Protect Massachusetts Future has raised $669,000, all from unions and labor groups, led by the SEIU Massachusetts State Council ($250,000), 1199 SEIU ($150,000) and the Massachusetts Teachers Association ($100,000). Raise Up Massachusetts 2026 has raised $45,892. The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, which said on X it supports a no vote, gave $13,405 in in-kind support.

Question 6: The Nature for All fund

Yes: Vote Yes for Water and Nature has raised $2,934,989 and had $774,249 on hand. Its largest donors are Kirsten Waerstad, listed as a director of the Humani Foundation, $800,000; The Trustees of Reservations, $500,000; Natasha Grigg, $420,279; the Conservation Law Foundation and Mass Audubon, $300,000 each; and Helen Pounds, $250,000. Mass Audubon also gave $303,349 in in-kind support.
No: No opposition committee has registered.

Question 7: Smaller lots for starter homes

Yes: Legalize Starter Homes has raised $1,473,740. Real estate groups supplied $850,000 of it, about 58 percent: the Greater Boston Real Estate Board ($350,000), the Massachusetts Association of Realtors PAC ($350,000) and the Massachusetts Association of Realtors ($150,000). Eastern Bank and Marcus Partners gave $100,000 each. A second committee, Abundant Housing Legalize Starter Homes, has raised $250,000, all from the Welcoming Neighbors Network.
No: No opposition committee has registered.

Question 8: Ending retail marijuana sales

Yes: The Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts has raised $3,531,625. Of that, $3,480,000, or 98.5 percent, came from SAM Action Inc., listed under two spellings. GBH/NEPM reported that SAM Action is the fundraising arm of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a Virginia-based group whose nonprofit status means it does not have to disclose its own donors. SAM’s co-founder, Kevin Sabet, told NEPM the money comes from “families that have lived this nightmare.” The only other large donor is Americans Against Legalizing Marijuana, $50,000.
No: The Committee to Protect Cannabis Regulation has raised $2,189,847 from 250 itemized donors and had $1,153,610 on hand, the most of any committee on either side of any question. Its largest donors are cannabis companies, led by INSA ($265,000) and Ascend Wellness Holdings ($250,000), figures GBH/NEPM also reported. A newer committee, the Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Policy, has raised $150,100 through October 15, $150,000 of it from Todd Stiefel.

Combining both opposition committees, the No side had about $1.26 million on hand at its latest reports, against about $832,000 for the Yes side.

Question 9: The 2024 gun law

Yes (keep the law): Yes for A Safe Massachusetts has raised $738,540 from 178 itemized donors. The Massachusetts Teachers Association gave $500,000, about two-thirds of the total. The Alliance for Gun Responsibility gave $50,000, and the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund gave $44,396 in in-kind support. The committee had $372,138 on hand.
No (repeal the law): The Civil Rights Coalition has raised $508,728 from 1,795 itemized donors, ten times as many as the Yes side, led by Smith & Wesson Brands ($50,000) and the Gun Owners Action League ($22,776). It had $72,633 on hand. Our September analysis of Question 9 donors found the same pattern: more donors on the repeal side.

Why there are no limits on these checks

A person can give no more than a set amount to a candidate. There is no such cap for ballot questions, and the reason runs through Massachusetts.

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978). Massachusetts once made it a crime for banks and business corporations to spend money on ballot questions that did not materially affect their business, and banned corporate spending on any question about taxing individuals’ income. Boston banks wanted to campaign against a 1976 graduated income tax amendment. The Supreme Court struck the law down. “Referenda are held on issues, not candidates for public office,” Justice Powell wrote. “The risk of corruption perceived in cases involving candidate elections … simply is not present in a popular vote on a public issue.”
Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981). Three years later, the Court struck down a $250 cap on contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures. “The integrity of the political system will be adequately protected if contributors are identified in a public filing revealing the amounts contributed,” the Court said.
What Massachusetts law still says. G.L. c. 55, § 8 still bars many businesses from contributing to candidates and parties, but it exempts “a political committee organized on behalf of a ballot question campaign” from its ban on receiving corporate money. That is why companies such as Smith & Wesson, Eastern Bank and INSA appear in these reports.

The trade-off the courts accepted is disclosure. Bellotti said “identification of the source of advertising may be required as a means of disclosure, so that the people will be able to evaluate the arguments to which they are being subjected.”

What has to be disclosed, and when

Committees. Ballot question committees file with OCPF on the 5th and 20th of each month until the election. The next report is due Tuesday, October 20, and covers October 2 through 15. G.L. c. 55, § 18.
Late money. A ballot question committee that receives a contribution of $500 or more “after the eighteenth day, but more than 72 hours, before” the election must report it “within 72 hours of depositing such contribution.” § 18(i). For November 3, that window opened October 16. Large last-minute checks will show up within days.
Corporations and groups that spend directly. Any person or organization other than a ballot committee that spends money “in order to influence or affect the vote on any question submitted to the voters” must file its own reports on the same 5th-and-20th schedule. G.L. c. 55, § 22. Violations carry a fine of up to $50,000 for the organization, and up to $10,000 or a year in jail for an officer who authorizes one.
What disclosure does not reach. When a ballot committee’s donor is itself a nonprofit, the reports name the nonprofit, not the people who fund it. That is the dispute over SAM Action on Question 8, and it applies to in-kind donors such as the Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance on Question 5. Sabet pointed NEPM to the 2016 campaign to legalize marijuana, which GBH/NEPM reported got $5.46 million of its $6.8 million from New Approach, a Washington, D.C.-based group.

Does the money decide the outcome?

Not reliably. The only public poll of all nine questions, MassINC Polling Group’s September 14 to 22 survey for CommonWealth Beacon, found Question 8 trailing 27 percent yes to 61 percent no, even though the Yes side has raised more cash than the opposition. Question 3, with the most money behind it, polled at 43 percent yes and 36 percent no, with 20 percent undecided. Question 1, with no organized opposition, polled at 63 percent to 14 percent. Our guide to all nine questions has the poll for each one.

Frequently asked questions

How much money has been raised for the 2026 Massachusetts ballot questions?

About $21.7 million in cash across all registered committees, plus about $3 million in in-kind contributions, according to OCPF reports on file as of October 17, 2026. Most reports run through October 1.

Which ballot question has the most money?

Question 3, the all-party primary. The Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026, which also supports Question 1, has raised about $6.9 million. Question 8 is second, with about $3.5 million on the Yes side and about $2.35 million across three opposition committees.

Who is funding Question 8?

SAM Action Inc. supplied $3.48 million of the $3.53 million raised by the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, the Yes committee. GBH/NEPM reported that SAM Action is the fundraising arm of the Virginia-based Smart Approaches to Marijuana. The main No committee is funded largely by cannabis companies.

Is there a limit on donations to ballot question committees?

No. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a cap on contributions to ballot measure committees in Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981), and struck down Massachusetts’ ban on corporate ballot question spending in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978). The donations must be disclosed.

Where can I look up ballot question donors?

On OCPF’s website, under ballot question reports. The next filings are due October 20, and contributions of $500 or more received from October 16 on must be reported within 72 hours.

Sources: Office of Campaign and Political Finance ballot question committee reports for 2025 and 2026, retrieved October 17, 2026; donor totals are our tally of itemized receipts. GBH/NEPM, October 8, 2026; State House News Service, October 14, 2026, via Yahoo News; MASSterList; MassINC Polling Group/CommonWealth Beacon poll topline, September 2026; MassBudget on X, October 14, 2026. G.L. c. 55, sections 8, 18 and 22, read at malegislature.gov. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), and Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981), read on CourtListener. General information, not legal advice.