Massachusetts political reformers created ballot initiatives a century ago to wrest control from the corporate interests dominating Beacon Hill, and ordinary citizens immediately seized on their new power.
Over the years, voters used the system to support the repeal of Prohibition, limit property taxes, rein in the Governor’s Council, and end the ban on “Sabbath’’ sporting events.
But those early reformers would be flabbergasted at what the system has become.
More than $57 million was spent on the four statewide ballot questions voters decided this month, a figure that shattered previous state records for spending. The avalanche of money came from well-endowed special interests, corporations, unions, and wealthy out-of-staters with national agendas. Some of the money came in bulk donations from people whose identity can’t be traced.
The $57 million total was a 90 percent increase from the record set in 2014 ($30 million on four ballot questions), which itself had broken the previous record of $16 million from 1992.
“This was originally an attempt to democratize the process, to get important issues out of the hands of special interest groups,’’ said Thomas Whalen, a Boston University political historian and author. “Ironically, special interest groups have found a way to corrupt the original intent. It’s really very counterintuitive and become a means of manipulation.’’
It’s not just a Massachusetts phenomenon. Half the states allow citizen petitions, and this year 71 made it onto the ballot, according to the Ballotpedia website, which tracks such measures nationwide. (An additional 91 ballot questions were put before voters by legislators.) They tackled everything from raising the minimum wage to subsidizing solar energy projects, many at the behest of national campaigns eager to change the law one state at a time. Many questions were multiple pages long, forcing voters to contend with complex policy matters.
“The question of overload was evident in California, where there were 17 ballot questions,’’ said Jeffrey Berry, a Tufts University political science professor. “It was a real burden to voters.’’
And with a series of court cases over the past several decades, including a 1978 landmark Massachusetts case by the Supreme Court, the ballot initiative process has become a big business.
In the Massachusetts case, the court said a statute banning banks and corporations from using funds to influence certain initiatives violated the First Amendment. In a followup case involving a rent control repeal effort in Berkeley, Calif., the justices went further and wiped out the contribution caps on donations to initiatives, setting the stage for the deluge of spending Massachusetts experienced this year.
As a result, a sophisticated industry — signature-gathering firms, consultants, ad makers — now feeds off hundreds of millions of dollars that is spent each election year around the country.
Here in Massachusetts, for instance, the forces pushing for an expansion of charter schools this fall paid $414,000 to a professional firm in Springfield to collect the required number of voter-certified signatures to qualify their measure for the ballot. The same firm charged slot parlor promoters $393,000 for signature gathering.
It was the fight over expanding charter schools that drew the most money and outside interest.
Frustrated last spring with the state Senate’s refusal to support his aggressive plan for charter school expansion, Governor Charlie Baker and like-minded supporters decided to take their case to the voters.
And while the television advertising featured local teachers, parents, and students, the funding — close to $26 million in all — came from far and wide, breaking the record for spending on a single ballot question.
Nor was it just the wealthy elite who poured money into the campaign. Teachers’ unions, both in Massachusetts and nationally, spent $15 million and trounced Baker’s proposal, demonstrating that the well-funded special interests battling over ballot questions can come from both the left and the right. Indeed, unions, particularly public employee unions, have over the years spent millions in union dues in ballot campaigns to protect their workers’ interests.
The charter school debate — made in public forums, mailers, advertisements, and competing rallies — was complicated, as the two sides argued over whether these schools drain money from traditional public schools.
“There can be such a thing as too much direct democracy and leaving complicated questions to the public,’’ said Berry, the Tufts professor. “It calls into question whether the Legislature should be making these decisions instead.’’
Whalen, the BU political historian, was more pointed, criticizing lawmakers for their unwillingness — or inability — to work out their differences on controversial issues. Sometimes they don’t tackle them at all.
“It’s the failure of Beacon Hill. It should never get to that point,’’ he said. “You’re not going to find any profiles in courage at the State House.’’
Those advocating for legalizing recreational use of marijuana agree. Jim Borghesani, a consultant for the ballot question seeking such a change, said advocates went to the Legislature in early 2016 and urged lawmakers to enact the marijuana legislation they were proposing.
When legislators refused, he said, his clients had no other choice but to use the initiative petition process.
“The Legislature could have taken up our initiative and passed it,’’ said Borghesani, “But it never made it out of committee.’’
In addition to setting a spending record on ballot question campaigns, 2016 was notable because so much money came from out of state and much of that in bulk donations that could not be traced to the original donors.
For example, the campaign for charter school expansion was heavily financed by a New York-based nonprofit group, Families For Excellent Schools Advocacy, which was created in 2011 by several Wall Street players. It gave nearly $16 million to the effort.
Under campaign financing laws, such nonprofits, unlike political action committees or super PACs, don’t have to identify their donors.
The marijuana ballot question was boosted by a $5.5 million donation from a Washington-based group, New Approach PAC, which advocates for the legalization of marijuana across the country.
In all, $6.4 million was spent to promote the legalization effort. Opponents spent half as much, about $3 million, on their losing effort.
To be sure, the success of ballot initiatives does not entirely depend upon folks with deep pockets.
There have been examples of underfunded, truly grass-roots citizens’ efforts overcoming the big-moneyed power players.
This month, for instance, promoters of a slots parlor to be located near the Suffolk Downs racetrack spent $3.6 million — nearly 50 times more than the $73,250 the opponents spent — but were soundly defeated.
In 2014, scores of commercial interests, from the Boston Bruins to Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, spent a total of $2.4 million in an attempt to stop the proposed repeal of a plan to peg the state gas tax to inflation — but lost. The repeal was organized by activists with a budget of about $105,000.
Still, those anti-tax forces don’t always get their way. When the same groups spent $495,000 to ask voters to repeal the state income tax in 2008, the state’s business interests and political establishment, with a $6.7 million budget, defeated the proposal.
Frank Phillips can be reached at frank.phillips@globe.com.
