Massachusetts Question 1, Contributions to Ballot Measure Campaigns Initiative (1994)
| Massachusetts Question 1 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Ballot measure process and Campaign finance |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Indirect initiated state statute |
Origin |
Massachusetts Question 1 was on the ballot as an indirect initiated state statute in Massachusetts on November 8, 1994. It was defeated.
A “yes” vote supported revising laws relating to contributions to ballot measure campaigns. |
A “no” vote opposed revising laws relating to contributions to ballot measure campaigns. |
Election results
|
Massachusetts Question 1 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 822,065 | 40.14% | ||
|
|
1,225,725 | 59.86% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Question 1 was as follows:
| “ | Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 1994? | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
This proposed law would limit the way in which business and certain nonprofit corporations could contribute to and spend money on campaigns involving an initiative, referendum or other question submitted to the voters at a state or local elecion. The proposed law would require ballot committees organized to support or oppose any question submitted to the voters to disclose promptly certain contributions made late in the campaign; would establish procedures that business and certain nonprofit corporations would have to follow in orderto spend money on ballot question campaigns; and would establish voluntary spending limits for ballot committees. The proposed law would require a ballot committee to report to the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, within one business day of receipt, the name, address, occupation and employer of any person or organization making a contribution of $1,000 or more, if the contribution was made before the date of the election but after the closing date of the last official campaign contribution report. Under the proposed law, business and certain nonprofit corporations would be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to support or oppose a ballot question, but would be permitted to create and solicit contributions to a separate fund to be used to support or oppose a ballot question. A separate fund would be required for each ballot question on which the corporation intended to solicit contributions. The corporation would be required to report all amounts spent to establish and administer the fund to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, and to a city or town if the fund were established to influence the vote on a local ballot question. Contributions to the separate fund could be solicited only from members or stockholders, officers and directors, and employees at a policymaking, managerial or professional level. Corecion, job discrimination and financial reprisals as methods of soliciting contributions would be prohibited. Nonprofit corporations that are formed for the purpose of promoting political ideas, do not engage in business activities, have no shareholders, and do not have business corporations as members or accept more than one percent of their revenues from such corporations would be exempt from these provisions. A business organization that violated these requirements could be fined up to $50,000, and any director or agent of a business organization who violates or authorizes the violation of these requirments could be fined up to $10,000 and/or imprisoned for up to one year. The proposed law would establish voluntary spending limits for ballot committees at $1,000,000 in the year of an election, and $250,000 in the years immediately before and after an erection. Ballot committees agreeing to observe these voluntary limits would be permitted to announce their compliance on advertisements and campaign materials. Ballot committees that agreed to observe the spending limits and later exceeded the limits could be fined up to $10,000. The proposed law states that if any of its provisions were declared invalid, the other provisions would remain in effect. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Path to the ballot
An indirect initiated state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends state statute. There are nine (9) states that allow citizens to initiate indirect state statutes.
While a direct initiative is placed on the ballot once supporters file the required number of valid signatures, an indirect initiative is first presented to the state legislature. Legislators have a certain number of days, depending on the state, to adopt the initiative into law. Should legislators take no action or reject the initiative, the initiative is put on the ballot for voters to decide.
In Massachusetts, the number of signatures required for an indirect initiated state statute is equal to 3% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. Massachusetts also has a distribution requirement that requires no more than 25% of the certified signatures on any petition can come from a single county.
The state Legislature has until the first Wednesday of May in the election year to pass the statute. If the legislature does not pass the proposed statute, proponents must collect a second round of signatures equal to 0.5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. The Legislature also has the power to place an alternative measure alongside the proposed statute via a simple majority vote of the state legislature.
A simple majority vote is required for voter approval. However, the number of affirmative votes cast for the measure must be greater than 30% of the votes cast in the election.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of Massachusetts Boston (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
