Massachusetts Question 2, Public Financing for State Campaigns Initiative (1998)
| Massachusetts Question 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Campaign finance |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Indirect initiated state statute |
Origin |
Massachusetts Question 2 was on the ballot as an indirect initiated state statute in Massachusetts on November 3, 1998. It was approved.
A “yes” vote supported creating a public campaign financing system for state candidates who agree to spending and contribution limits, providing set amounts of public funds, and allowing matching funds if opponents exceed spending caps. |
A “no” vote opposed creating a public campaign financing system for state candidates who agree to spending and contribution limits, providing set amounts of public funds, and allowing matching funds if opponents exceed spending caps. |
Election results
|
Massachusetts Question 2 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
1,129,934 | 66.37% | ||
| No | 572,476 | 33.63% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Question 2 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 6, 1998? | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
This proposed law would create a new voluntary system allowing candidates for state office who agree to campaign spending limits and $100 contribution limits to receive a set amount of public funds for their campaigns, starting with the 2002 election. The proposed law would also limit transfers of money from national political parties to state political parties for administrative, overhead, or party-building activities. It would also require candidates for state office who had raised or spent at least a set minimum amount in an election cycle to file their required campaign finance reports with the state electronically, and the public would have prompt electronic access to such reports. The new funding system would replace the existing system of limited public financing of campaigns for statewide office. To participate in the new system, a candidate would have to raise a minimum number of contributions from registered voters in the relevant district, as follows: Governor, 6000; Lt. Governor, Attorney General, or Treasurer, 3000; Secretary of State or Auditor, 2000; Executive Councillor, 400; State Senator, 450; State Representative, 200. Such contributions would have to be between $5 and $100 and be collected during a limited period: for statewide candidates beginning on August 1 of the year before the election, for other candidates beginning on January 1 of the election year, and for all candidates ending on the last day to file nomination papers with the Secretary of State. For any election, a participating candidate could not accept contributions of more than $100 from any person or political committee and could not raise or spend any money other than these contributions and public funds. Candidates meeting all of these requirements would, subject to appropriation by the Legislature, receive public funding in the primary and general elections. This would come from a new state Clean Elections Fund, consisting of amounts voluntarily contributed through the checkoff on the state income tax return, any amounts appropriated by the Legislature, and any money in the existing state election campaign fund. The chart below shows the amounts of public funds a candidate could receive in the primary and general elections. A candidate could raise and spend private contributions in order to bring his or her spending up to the spending limit shown below. Office Primary Election: Public Funds Primary Election: Spending Limit General Election: Public Funds General Election: Spending Limit Governor $1,500,000 $1,800,000 $1,050,000 $1,200,000 Lt.Governor $383,000 $450,000 $255,000 $300,000 Attorney General or Treasurer $360,000 $450,000 $240,000 $300,000 Secretary of State of Auditor $120,000 $150,000 $80,000 $100,000 Councillor $19,000 $24,000 $13,000 $16,000 Senator $43,000 $54,000 $29,000 $36,000 Representative $15,000 $18,000 $9,000 $12,000 A participating candidate running unopposed would receive only nait tne listed amount of public funds and could spend correspondingly less than a candidate with an opponent. All funds could be spent only for campaign purposes. Any unspent public funds from a primary or general election would have to be returned after that election. A participating candidate who violated the contribution or spending limits would have to return all public funds, become ineligible for further funds, and in some cases pay fines. Candidates who do not accept public funds would have to report any spending in excess of the limit shown above and could be fined for failing to do so. If such a non-participating candidate spent more than the limit, participating candidates in that race would immediately receive, and could spent, public "matching funds" equal to the amount of the excess spending. The total amount of public funding (including matching funds) a candidate could receive would be limited to twice the spending limit for that race. During the general election campaign, running mates for Governor and Lt. Governor would be treated as teams in order to determine the distribution of any matching funds. An individual or political committee's total in-kind contributions (such as goods and some services) to a participating candidate would be limited to $500 per election. Higher limits would govern political parties' in-kind contributions. Participating candidates could not accept more than a set amount in such contributions, ranging from $3,000 per election for Representative up to $35,000 for Governor. The expenditure, contribution, and public funding limits would be adjusted every two years for inflation. A special commission (including elected officials and private citizens) would be set up to meet every two years to review the system and recommend any needed changes. The state Director of Campaign Finance could issue regulations to interpret and enforce the proposed law. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the rest of the law would stay 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 |
