Massachusetts Lawmakers Target Dark Money Spending to Influence Local Town Votes

BY SAM DRYSDALE

Legislation requiring public disclosure for people and groups spending significant sums to influence town meeting votes is gaining some traction on Beacon Hill.

The bill (H 806) won initial House approval Thursday and would amend the law to cover spending aimed at influencing the outcome of warrant articles taken up at the local government level. The official title of the bill is “An Act relative to dark money in local government.” The bill would apply statewide but is driven in part by spending intended to influence short-term rental and housing decisions on Cape Cod and the Islands.

Under the bill, any person, corporation, association, organization or other group that spends or commits to spend $1,000 or more in the aggregate to influence a warrant article or vote on an article at a town meeting would be required to file detailed reports with the town clerk.

“Town meetings are essential to the fabric of our nation; the American Revolution was spurred in part by the king limiting the number of town meetings people in the colonies could hold,” sponsors of the legislation wrote in testimony to the Joint Committee on Education. 

It continues, “Our proposal is consistent with existing Massachusetts campaign finance law, which requires full disclosure of contributions and expenditures for candidates, political committees, and ballot question campaigns. By extending disclosure requirements to individuals and entities aiming to influence town warrant articles, this bill would bring local governance practices in line with these established democratic norms for state-level elections, closing a loophole in Massachusetts election law.”

The bill (H 806 / S 506) was filed by Sens. Julian Cyr and Dylan Fernandes and Rep. Thomas Moakley, who represent Cape Cod and Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, as well as Rep. Simon Cataldo of Concord.

The Senate version of the bill advanced on a 5-1 Election Laws Committee vote in November and is pending before the Senate Ways and Means Committee.  Sen. Ryan Fattman voted against the bill.

The House bill moved forward on a voice vote during a lightly attended session Thursday.

Under the bill, reports would itemize when and how money was spent, the purpose of expenditures, amount and the names and addresses of those paid. Filers would also have to disclose the sources of any contributions used to fund the spending, including the dates and amounts received and the identities of contributors.

Reporting would be required on a rolling basis before and after a town meeting. Filers would submit monthly reports for prior-month activity, a pre-meeting report due five days before a town meeting, and a final report due 30 days after the meeting.

The sponsors say there “is motivation for entities to use the existing loophole” to not disclose spending. 

“Major policy decisions are made at a town meeting level. Many warrant articles concern areas where corporate and special interest groups have a direct financial stake, such as zoning laws, housing developments, telecommunication rules, and environmental regulations,” they wrote.

It is also not a coincidence that three of the four primary sponsors are from the Cape and islands. 

“Our concern is not theoretical. In towns across Cape Cod, advocacy groups have poured money into efforts to influence town meeting decisions, yet their leadership and funding sources remain undisclosed. Cape Cod voters, and all the voters in the Commonwealth, have the right to know who is funding these efforts so they can make informed decisions about the group’s claims,” the testimony says.

It cites an article in the Martha’s Vineyard Times from 2023 about a similar bill Cyr and Fernandes filed last session. According to that article, lawmakers listed a few incidents of what they called dark money influencing local decisions: off-island investors who they say to influence short-term rental and housing measures during a Nantucket town meeting; an anonymous group called Provincetown Citizens for Housing Solutions advocating against several short-term rental articles with mailers and text messages; and Truro voters who received mail from a group called Take Back Truro, which campaigned against housing initiatives.

Violations of the disclosure requirements would be punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.