Who is paying for Question 3, the all-party primary? Mostly 39 people. The committee behind it, the Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026, has raised $7.91 million since 2025, and 39 donors who each gave at least $50,000 account for about 89.5 percent of it, according to our tally of every itemized receipt it has filed with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance. Many of them work in private equity and investment firms. The main committee against it has raised $287,715, almost all from labor unions and the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
That is a ratio of about 27 to 1. CommonWealth Beacon reported Thursday that 18 of the measure’s donors previously put millions of dollars, directly or indirectly, into similar campaigns in other states. Voters decide Tuesday, November 3.
What Question 3 would do
Question 3 would eliminate separate Democratic and Republican primaries in Massachusetts and replace them with a single “all-party” primary. Every candidate from every party would appear on one ballot, and the top two finishers would advance to the general election, CommonWealth Beacon reported. Our full explainer on Question 3.
Where the Yes money comes from
Figures below are our tally of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026’s OCPF reports, from its initial report in 2025 through the late contribution report filed October 29, 2026, counting each amended report once. The committee also supports Question 1, so not every dollar is spent on Question 3.
- Total raised: $7,910,909, from more than 350 donors. The committee also reported about $89,000 in in-kind support, mostly staff time from Partners in Democracy, the group founded by the petition’s chief proponent, Danielle Allen.
- The largest donors: David Randolph “Randy” Peeler of Berkshire Partners, $1,050,000; Andrew Balson of Cove Hill Partners, $790,000; Mark Nunnelly, a former state revenue commissioner, $660,000; Joshua Bekenstein of Bain Capital, $500,000; Brian Conway of TA Associates and Dwight Poler of ACCELR8, $300,000 each.
- Concentration: The top five donors gave about 42 percent of the money. The top 10 gave 57 percent, and the top 20 gave 74 percent.
- Small donors: 241 donors gave less than $1,000 each, a combined $20,678, or about a quarter of 1 percent of the total.
- Where donors live: About 91 percent of the money came from donors with Massachusetts addresses. That backs up Allen’s description of the campaign as “Massachusetts-grown, Massachusetts-supported,” which CommonWealth Beacon called “more or less true.”
Peeler’s $1.05 million is more than any other single person has given to a ballot question this cycle, CommonWealth Beacon reported.
The out-of-state connection
The following is from CommonWealth Beacon’s analysis, published October 30, 2026. We did not independently check other states’ campaign finance records.
- Colorado and Arizona. Peeler, Ross Jones and Robert Small of Berkshire Partners and John Carroll of Summit Partners each gave at least $125,000 to the campaign that unsuccessfully backed a similar ballot question in Colorado in 2024. Peeler gave another $125,000 to a 2024 Arizona measure.
- Unite America. More than a dozen people who gave at least $50,000 in Massachusetts, including Balson and Nunnelly, have given sizable sums since 2020 to Unite America, a group whose PAC spent more than $5.8 million in Arizona, $2.2 million in Colorado, $2.1 million in Montana and close to $2 million in South Dakota on similar measures in 2024. Voters rejected all four. Peeler has given Unite America more than $4.3 million since 2020. Unite America does not appear to be involved in the Massachusetts campaign, CommonWealth Beacon reported.
- No response. CommonWealth Beacon tried to reach all 18 donors who had backed similar measures elsewhere or given to Unite America. None agreed to be interviewed on the record.
“To be clear, there is nothing illicit about donors backing similar ballot measures in multiple jurisdictions,” CommonWealth Beacon wrote.
Where the No money comes from
Voter Rights MA, the main opposition committee, has raised $287,715, according to its OCPF filings. By our tally, its largest contributors are 1199SEIU’s Massachusetts PAC, $100,000; the Massachusetts Teachers Association, $90,000; the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee, $50,000; and the SEIU Massachusetts State Council, $25,000. The Democratic Party, the teachers union and Progressive Massachusetts also reported in-kind help such as staff time and a $10,000 voter file software contribution from the state party. A second committee opposing the question, Democratic Socialists Against Reactionary Rollbacks, reports $50 in receipts.
Opponents, “an unusual alliance that includes both major parties as well as many progressives and labor unions,” argue the change would give wealthy donors greater sway, CommonWealth Beacon reported. “For these donors, it is about finding places they can change the electoral system to their benefit because they keep losing results,” said Jordan Berg Powers, a leading opponent.
What the Yes side says
- The campaign manager. Jesse Littlewood, the Yes on 3 campaign manager, said the campaign is drawing a high volume of small-dollar donations as well as large ones, and that backers are glad to bring home a reform they believe would improve politics everywhere. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” he told CommonWealth Beacon.
- Allen. Allen said she went first to Peeler and donor Ian Simmons when she set up the ballot committee. She has said the focus on wealthy donors minimizes her own work. “At some point, you have to ask the question: Why does everybody keep trying to invisibilize my role? Do people think a Black woman can’t have an idea?” she told CommonWealth Beacon.
The law: why there is no cap on these checks
Candidates in Massachusetts can accept only limited contributions from individuals. Ballot question committees have no such limit. In Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a cap on contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures, and in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), it struck down Massachusetts’ ban on corporate spending on ballot questions. What the law requires is disclosure. Ballot question committees file regular reports with OCPF, and in the final days before the election they must report large contributions within days of receiving them, which is why new Question 3 checks keep appearing this week. Who is paying for all nine questions.
Frequently asked questions
Who is funding Question 3 in Massachusetts?
The Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026 has raised $7.91 million. Its largest donors are Randy Peeler of Berkshire Partners ($1.05 million), Andrew Balson of Cove Hill Partners ($790,000), Mark Nunnelly ($660,000) and Joshua Bekenstein of Bain Capital ($500,000), according to OCPF filings.
Who is against Question 3?
Voter Rights MA, funded mainly by labor unions including 1199SEIU and the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and by the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee. It has raised $287,715. The state Republican Party also opposes the question, CommonWealth Beacon reported.
Is Question 3 funded by out-of-state money?
Mostly not directly. About 91 percent of the money came from donors with Massachusetts addresses. But CommonWealth Beacon found that 18 of the donors previously funded similar measures in other states, directly or through the national group Unite America.
Is there a limit on donations to ballot question campaigns?
No. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down contribution limits for ballot measure committees in 1981. Contributions must be disclosed to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance.
Sources: Office of Campaign and Political Finance reports of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy 2026 (CPF ID 95538) and Voter Rights MA (CPF ID 95547), retrieved October 30, 2026; donor totals are our tally of itemized receipts, combining spelling variants of the same donor and counting amended reports once. CommonWealth Beacon, October 30, 2026. Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981), and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), read on CourtListener. General information, not legal advice.