Connect with us

Massachusetts

With few competitive races on the ballot, Massachusetts donors turn outward in 2024 – The Boston Globe

Published

on

With few competitive races on the ballot, Massachusetts donors turn outward in 2024 – The Boston Globe


“The key for me was to focus on the tight races outside of Massachusetts,” he said. “That was a strategic decision.”

Guernsey’s calculation is one shared by other deep-pocketed donors in wealthy Massachusetts, which this year, as in most past cycles, has few competitive races of its own. A Globe analysis of the top 500 contributions from Massachusetts residents in 2024 showed a steady stream of money toward mostly Democratic and nonpartisan super PACs across the country, but also a number of such Republican political groups benefiting from the largesse of Massachusetts donors.

The trend is one analysts say springs both from the deep political division in the US and the lingering effects of a 2010 Supreme Court decision that allows for unlimited donations to super PACs, which are also allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on political activity but cannot, for the most part, coordinate with candidates.

Advertisement

“You have two parties that are polarized and they are on the knife’s edge of who is going to control government,” said Ray La Raja, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “That is a recipe for pouring money into contests.”

The dynamic is especially true in Massachusetts, La Raja said, where politicians from all over the country swing through to raise money from the state’s well-heeled donor class. High-dollar fund-raisers attract Democrat and Republican candidates from elsewhere up and down the ticket, and serial donors work closely with the parties to direct their donations, La Raja said.

This cycle, Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance attended a luncheon in Gloucester, Vice President Kamala Harris raised money in Pittsfield and Provincetown. In tony Martha’s Vineyard, buzzy names in Democratic politics, from Maryland Governor Wes Moore to New York Attorney General Letitia James, have spent the summer taking turns tapping into the donor base.

Massachusetts has among the highest median household incomes in the US and is home to some of the wealthiest people in the country. And according to campaign finance data compiled by watchdog group Open Secrets, it ranked ninth in political giving this cycle despite being the sixteenth-most populous state.

“Major donors who give repeatedly are partisans. They are true believers. They want the policies of their parties implemented,” La Raja said. “So they are willing to send money to Wisconsin so their party controls Congress.”

Advertisement

Because there are few competitive states, donors in the wealthiest pockets of the country tend to funnel large amounts of money to the few dozen tight congressional races or to the presidential election.

While Democrats dominate Massachusetts politics, political giving by wealthy Massachusetts benefactors spans the political spectrum.

Republican donors, including New Balance chief Jim Davis, have poured money into causes working to support Republican women, elect Donald Trump to a second term or, alternately, back a conservative-run group opposed to Trump’s reelection. Many in Massachusetts funded a committee backing former US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley to be the Republican party’s presidential nominee.

The Republican donors whom the Globe contacted for comment declined to do so or did not respond.

Democratic donors such as Cambridge music scholar and donor Jay Scheide and Suffolk Construction CEO John Fish have funneled millions into committees working to elevate Vice President Kamala Harris to the White House, elect pro-choice Democrats into office, and support Democrats in swing states.

Advertisement

Members of both parties have poured tens of millions into a super PAC promoting pro-Israel candidates, while others sent large donations to a cause working to get voters to blank their ballots in protest of the Israel–Hamas war as part of the national “uncommitted movement.”

“Money has just become more and more important. I think it’s a phenomenon across the donor universe,” said Maurice Cunningham, a University of Massachusetts Boston professor who regularly writes about state campaign finance law. “I see a lot of billionaire donors casting their influence in different states.”

In Western Massachusetts, Guernsey’s team sent 600,000 postcards supporting Democrats in states such as Pennsylvania, New York, and Ohio, and put up billboards and digital ads supporting President Biden before he ended his campaign.

As an individual, Guernsey has given nearly $1 million of his own money to similar Democratic causes this year.

“The most important need this year is to protect our country. The only way we can do that is protecting outside, where there is much more risk of losing to a demagogue,” Guernsey said of Trump. “There is a total understanding of the donors here in Massachusetts that unless you have a local race that demands your attention … most people are making large donations outside the state.”

Advertisement

The flow of money out of state is a relatively new phenomenon, said Ian Vandewalker, senior counsel and manager for the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program.

In 1998, candidates for the US House overall raised more than 80 percent of their campaign money from their home states; in 2022, that percentage was down to just over 60 percent, according to research conducted by the Brennan Center.

The concept of sending money out of state goes beyond mega-donors, too. According to a recent UMass Amherst/WCVB poll, 49 percent of 700 likely voters in the state have either attended a rally, sent money to out-of-state candidates or groups, or posted to social media about an election in a more electorally competitive state.

Vandewalker said that the polarization of today’s Congress has led to a scenario where control can change nearly every election cycle, meaning a person’s vote is no longer enough to help one party gain control in Washington. Sending money to districts with competitive races, however, can.

“It used to be the case that candidates for Congress raised most of their money from residents of their district,” Vandewalker said. “Now that has flipped.”

Advertisement

Samantha J. Gross can be reached at samantha.gross@globe.com. Follow her @samanthajgross.





Source link

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Removes LGBT Ideology Requirements for Foster-Care Parents

Published

on

Massachusetts Removes LGBT Ideology Requirements for Foster-Care Parents


Massachusetts will no longer require prospective foster parents to affirm gender ideology in order to qualify for fostering children, with the move coming after a federal lawsuit from a religious-liberty group. 

Alliance Defending Freedom said Dec. 17 that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families “will no longer exclude Christian and other religious families from foster care” because of their “commonly held beliefs that boys are boys and girls are girls.”

The legal group announced in September that it had filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court over the state policy, which required prospective parents to agree to affirm a child’s “sexual orientation and gender identity” before being permitted to foster. 

Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said at the time that the state’s foster system was “in crisis” with more than 1,400 children awaiting placement in foster homes. 

Advertisement

Yet the state was “putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of these suffering kids,” Widmalm-Delphonse said.

The suit had been filed on behalf of two Massachusetts families who had been licensed to serve as foster parents in the state. They had provided homes for nearly three dozen foster children between them and were “in good standing” at the time of the policy change. 

Yet the state policy required them to “promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs,” the lawsuit said. 

With its policy change, Massachusetts will instead require foster parents to affirm a child’s “individual identity and needs,” with the LGBT-related language having been removed from the state code. 

The amended language comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system by modernizing the current child welfare system, developing partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs. 

Advertisement

Families previously excluded by the state rule are “eager to reapply for their licenses,” Widmalm-Delphonse said on Dec. 17.

The lawyer commended Massachusetts for taking a “step in the right direction,” though he said the legal group will continue its efforts until it is “positive that Massachusetts is committed to respecting religious persons and ideological diversity among foster parents.”

Other authorities have made efforts in recent years to exclude parents from state child care programs on the basis of gender ideology.

In July a federal appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that Oregon likely violated a Christian mother’s First Amendment rights by demanding that she embrace gender ideology and homosexuality in order to adopt children.

In April, meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the government from requiring parents to affirm support for gender ideology and homosexuality if they want to qualify to adopt or foster children.

Advertisement

In contrast, Arkansas in April enacted a law to prevent adoptive agencies and foster care providers from discriminating against potential parents on account of their religious beliefs. 

The Arkansas law specifically prohibits the government from discriminating against parents over their refusal to accept “any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Massachusetts orders DraftKings to pay $934K after it botched MLB parlay bets

Published

on

Massachusetts orders DraftKings to pay 4K after it botched MLB parlay bets


A costly sportsbook screwup left DraftKings on the hook for nearly $1 million after Massachusetts regulators ordered the payouts tied to a botched MLB parlay scheme.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission voted 5-0 on Thursday to reject DraftKings’ bid to void $934,137 in payouts stemming from a series of correlated parlays placed during MLB’s 2025 American League Championship Series, according to Bookies.com.

A Massachusetts customer wagered $12,950 total across 27 multi-leg parlays on Toronto Blue Jays player Nathan Lukes, exploiting an internal DraftKings configuration error that allowed the bettor to stack multiple versions of the same bet into one wager.

DraftKings sought to void a payout of nearly $1 million to a bettor who placed 27 multi-leg parlay wagers that were successful. Tada Images – stock.adobe.com

DraftKings told regulators the bets should never have been accepted and argued the patron acted unethically by taking advantage of an obvious error.

Advertisement

Commissioners flatly rejected that argument.

The wagers were tied to DraftKings’ “Player to Record X+ Hits in Series” market during the seven-game ALCS between Toronto and Seattle.

Because of a misclassification inside DraftKings’ trading tools, Lukes was incorrectly labeled a “non-participant” rather than an active player.

That designation disabled safeguards designed to block bettors from parlaying correlated outcomes from the same market.

As a result, the bettor was able to combine multiple Lukes hit thresholds — including 5+, 6+, 7+ and 8+ hits — into single parlays, functionally creating an inflated wager on Lukes recording eight or more hits at dramatically enhanced odds.

Advertisement
A Massachusetts customer wagered $12,950 total across 27 multi-leg parlays on Toronto Blue Jays player Nathan Lukes. AP

The bettor also added unrelated, high-probability legs, including NFL moneyline bets, to further juice payouts.

Lukes ultimately appeared in all seven games and finished the series with nine hits, clearing every threshold.

Of the 27 parlays placed, 24 hit cleanly. Only three lost due to unrelated college football legs involving Clemson, Florida State and Miami.

During a heated exchange at Thursday’s commission meeting, DraftKings executive Paul Harrington accused the patron of fraud and unethical conduct.

DraftKings told regulators the bets should never have been accepted and argued the patron acted unethically by taking advantage of an obvious error.

Commissioners bristled. One of them, Eileen O’Brien, blasted DraftKings for casting aspersions on the bettor without evidence and said the situation did not meet the standard of an “obvious error.”

Advertisement

“An obvious error is a legal and factual impossibility,” O’Brien said. “This is an advantage that the patron took.”

She added that DraftKings’ internal failures — not the bettor’s conduct — created the situation.

“We need to seriously consider giving voice to the consumer and getting their half the story,” O’Brien said. “The compulsion to pay will in fact encourage compliance.”

Because of a misclassification inside DraftKings’ trading tools, Lukes was incorrectly labeled a “non-participant” rather than an active player. Getty Images

Other commissioners echoed that view, emphasizing that it is the operator’s responsibility to ensure the integrity of its markets.

The commission noted that DraftKings acknowledged the root cause was internal — a configuration failure within its own trading tools — and not the result of a third-party odds provider or external data feed.

Advertisement

Upon discovering the error, DraftKings pulled the affected markets, left the wagers unsettled pending regulatory guidance and implemented corrective fixes.

The company said no other Massachusetts customers were impacted, though the same issue appeared in two other jurisdictions.

The Post has sought comment from DraftKings.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Deadline nears for Massachusetts Health Connector enrollment

Published

on

Deadline nears for Massachusetts Health Connector enrollment


SPRINGFIELD — With just days left before the Dec. 23 deadline, state and local leaders are urging uninsured residents to enroll in health coverage through the Massachusetts Health Connector to ensure they’re protected in the new year. The cutoff applies to anyone who wants coverage starting Jan. 1.

The Health Connector — the state’s official health insurance marketplace — is the only place residents can access financial assistance and avoid misleading “junk” policies that often appear in online searches, according to a statement from the agency.

Officials say the enrollment period is especially critical for people without job-based insurance, gig workers, newcomers to the state and anyone seeking affordable, comprehensive health plans.

At a press conference Wednesday at Caring Health Center’s Tania M. Barber Learning Institute in Springfield, health leaders emphasized that most people who sign up through the Connector qualify for help paying premiums through its ConnectorCare program.

Advertisement

Audrey Morse Gasteier, executive director of the Massachusetts Health Connector, said the state has spent nearly two decades committed to ensuring access to health care and offering the most affordable coverage possible for everyone.

”And despite the federal challenges, we continue to do everything we can to offer coverage to everyone who needs it. Now is the time for people who don’t have coverage to come in, apply, and find out what kind of plan for which they qualify,” she said.

Open enrollment also gives current members a chance to review their coverage, compare options and make changes.

Recent changes in federal policy have caused shifts in coverage and higher premiums for many Massachusetts residents, creating uncertainty and concern, said Cristina Huebner Torres, chief executive vice president and strategy and research officer at Caring Health Center.

“During times like these, trusted, local support becomes even more essential, and our Navigators have been on the very front lines, helping residents understand their options, maintain coverage, and navigate a complex and evolving system,” Huebner Torres said.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending