*This is the first in a series of short posts to elaborate on my personal thoughts regarding Question 2 in a manner that informs, hopefully persuades, and doesn't jam up the social media timelines of my dear friends.*
Today's Quick Thought: Follow the Money
For a variety of reasons, I am against Question 2, which would raise the charter school enrollment cap in Massachusetts. I find that, on surface, it is an irresponsible way of going about a cap lift. And deeper down, I have serious concerns about the motives of those who fund the movement.
Let's talk funding.
If you've never visited the Commonwealth's Office of Political and Campaign Finance website, it's a super nerdy way to kill time, and it can be really fascinating when you dig into the donations and expenditures for candidates and interest groups. Oh, you're not that nerdy? That's OK. :)
With regards to the ballot questions, each side sets up a ballot campaign committee that organizes people for the vote and promotes their side. The bumper stickers, campaign ads, rallies, and election night party food spread are all paid for by these campaigns. But where do they get their money? That's where the OPCF website is most useful.
In many cases (but not all cases, as some groups use "dark money"), you can see where the money comes from in regularly filed reports. The next reports don't come out until September 9th, but let's look at the end-of-year report for the pro-charter group Public Charters for Massachusetts:
As this excellent blog post points out, there's some serious cash flowing into this campaign from just a handful of donors. In fact, 14 investors donated $475,000 (or 96% of all contributions). Of those 14, thirteen are hedge fund/venture capital investors, and one is a shady super PAC.
By the way, this question will blow the lid off of state election spending records. The pro-charter side alone will spend more than all of the money spent on both sides of the 2014 casino question combined.
It makes you wonder: is this really a grassroots effort of parents and community members? There are no doubt some wonderful people with good intentions who are working to pass this measure. But the money trail suggests that the funders and the volunteers might not be approaching this for the same reason.
Now, before you say it, I'll get out ahead of you: yes, there's big money on the other end. The Massachusetts Teachers Association and AFT-MA have committed to roughly $11 million in funding to defeat this measure. And if you're decidedly anti-union, then I will probably not change your mind here. But I leave you with this thought:
MTA, a democratically run interest group, is committed to contributing $9 million from the collective contributions of over 100,000 educators. Great Schools MA's supporters have pledged $18 million and so far it mostly comes from 13 individuals and one Super PAC. What does that narrative say to you?
Keep following the money.
