Election Related Legislation in MA

With November’s election quickly approaching, it’s important to look at the legislature’s track record on election-related legislation and enacted laws, including campaign finance related bills. Over the past 20 years, or 10 legislative sessions, there have been a variety of election-related legislation considered, drafted, and enacted. During the most recent 2023-2024 session,17 bills were enacted in Massachusetts. All 17 bills dealt with local election rules, mostly relating to various select boards and polling locations. 

One session stood out to us the most - the 2011-2012 session. Two of the most significant pieces of legislation in this session were HB3770 and HB3798 which detailed the redrawing of the state legislative and congressional districts after the recent 2010 census. Just like in this legislative session, the 2011-2012 session also contained bills regarding local provisions and polling locations. It is also intriguing to note that each session after 2011-2012 that coincides with the 4-year presidential election cycles has a slight uptick in the election-related bills that pass and become law. The only exception to this pattern is the current legislative session since it’s not over yet and bills still have time to be enacted.

Campaign finance is a driving power of politics. 35 bills relating to campaign finance were introduced in the current session, yet none of them were enacted. However, there were many pieces of legislation introduced and considered to varying degrees. The subjects of these proposed bills included aspects of transparent campaigning and financing. For example, HB4173 deals with dark money in local government, and it was sponsored by Representative Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth). It is currently under negotiation with the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. Fernandes takes a special interest in the financing of local governments and their processes because he has direct experience with its shortcomings in his own district. In Nantucket, in the absence of strict laws regulating spending on issues being considered during town meetings, The Alliance to Protect Nantucket’s Economy, a shadowy group with no reporting requirements, was able to disrupt consideration of short-term rental regulations. Similar situations have been seen in Provincetown and Truro, as well.  

Another important piece of proposed legislation in this cycle deals with limiting political spending from foreign-influenced corporations (HB722). This bill was introduced by Representative Erika Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville), and it proposed strict regulations of spending and contributions. It aimed to ban spending from corporations with foreign ownership, even if at a relatively low level, and it focused on a wide range of political spending including direct donations, donations to political action committees (PACs), and other types of spending like donations to committees supporting ballot initiatives. Bills like these have appeared in at least 9 other states as well as in the U.S. House of Representatives, and it is likely that the focus on foreign influence in our electoral system came about as a result of the foreign interference that occurred during the 2016 presidential election. Representative Uyterhoeven’s bill went to study and is essentially dead.

Bills that regulate lobbying and lobbyists, specifically SB2062 introduced by Senator Rebecca Rausch (D-Needham) and SB1966 sponsored by Senator Michael Brady (D-Brockton), were also introduced during this legislative session. SB2062 would have closed a loophole and disqualified people convicted of felonies from becoming legislative agents. SB1966 had a similar goal and disqualified people convicted of felonies from becoming executive or legislative agents. It’s likely that bills closing these loopholes around lobbying as a convicted felon have come about in response to the general public pressure to take a closer look at convicted felons’ political rights. Since lobbying efforts and campaign finance are innately intertwined, it is significant that legislators are trying to close these loopholes in the lobbying process. Both bills were sent to study.

HB709, introduced by Representative James Murphy (D-Weymouth), dealt with the definition of survey and opinion research versus paid political “push-polling,” which actively campaigns for a particular candidate, committee, or ballot question. The bill would have required those calling voters with regard to a political candidate to follow certain rules that included disclosing the purpose of the phone call, on whose behalf the call is made, provide a valid number to call back, and prohibit falsifying information. This bill also was referred to study. Many people become quickly disillusioned with political phone calls and communications, so it is clear that there is a desire for stricter regulation on these telecommunications. Also, it’s interesting to note that Murphy’s district is very much a purple district. Murphy sponsoring this bill on government and campaign transparency may be a tactic to attract more moderate conservative voters in his future elections as the conservative platform is heavily focused on government transparency.

SB2730 is sponsored by Senator Barry Finegold (D-Andover). SB2730 discusses limiting political deepfakes, AI-generated false images that aim to influence policy or have a political message. Further, it addresses online media and ensures it is not manipulated or deceptive. If the data is manipulated, the bill would require a clear disclaimer. Finegold’s bill addresses the modern campaign issue of disinformation which has heavily impacted recent elections and election discourse in general. The bill sits in the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, awaiting its fate. 

Lastly, a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill (SB414) was introduced by Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) which would have established a state government funded matching fund program for legislative candidates. In essence, this bill would establish a campaign financing structure with strict boundaries and qualifications. This process would have been managed by a new commission and would make financing and campaigning more equitable. This bill can be seen as a direct result of the frustration that many feel toward a financing system with infinite loopholes and distinct advantages for more wealthy candidates. Senator Eldridge has historically been a very progressive legislator who focuses on unfair electoral advantages in the system. This bill also went to study. 

While only HB4173 and SB2730 have moved forward, all these bills still indicate a trend of increased consideration of campaign finance and election fairness since the 2015-2016 session. With many conversations happening both nationally and at the state level about the fairness of the democratic process, it is clear that many wish to see improvements made on the current system. 

To investigate any of the bills discussed in this blog post, or any other topics of legislation, further, feel free to sign up for a free trial of MassTrac!