State campaign finance law puts a strict $100-a-year limit on what political figures like Governor Charlie Baker, with his $4.3 million campaign account, can donate to other candidates directly.

But that has not prevented the governor and his lieutenant governor, Karyn Polito, from finding a way around the rule — to the tune of $110,000.

According to campaign finance records filed this week, each of them gave $55,000 from their campaign accounts to the Republican State Committee state account, money that will be used by the party to pick up the costs of GOP legislative candidates and incumbents seeking reelection.

It’s all legal, according to campaign finance regulators, who cite a change in state law from 2014 — but it’s also yet another ambiguity in the crazy-quilt of restrictions marbled through the state’s campaign finance laws.

Party officials make it clear the funds will be used directly for candidates.

“Governor Baker and Lt. Governor Polito are eager to support Republicans up and down the ballot,’’ said Kirsten Hughes, Massachusetts Republican Party chairwoman. “We are grateful for their financial support, as well as the countless hours they have spent campaigning with Republican candidates.’’

With the party’s conservative wing ready to pounce on him (particularly after his purge of their folks from the state committee earlier this year), the donations by Baker and Polito are sure to build much-needed good will within the party’s legislative ranks.

Frank Phillips

Weld vouches for . . . Clinton

Remember when former governor Bill Weld was a Republican? These days he’s the Libertarian nominee for vice president — but apparently he wouldn’t mind too terribly if voters chose the Democratic ticket.

Got that?

Weld, who is running with Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson, appeared on “The Rachel Maddow Show’’ Tuesday evening and made a strong case for . . . Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“I’m here vouching for Mrs. Clinton, and I think it’s high time somebody did,’’ Weld said.

He went on to say: “I have a lot to say about Mrs. Clinton that has not been said by others and I think needs to be said. I’ve known her for 40 years. I know her well professionally. I know her well personally. I know her to be a person of high moral character, a reliable person, and an honest person, however so much Mr. Trump may rant and rave to the contrary. So I’m happy to say that. And people can make their own choices.’’

Weld has made clear in recent weeks that his main goal is defeating Republican Donald Trump, but at a recent appearance in Boston he stopped short of encouraging like-minded voters to abandon the Johnson-Weld ticket as well.

On Maddow’s show, however, he acknowledged that the Libertarians, excluded from the presidential debate stage earlier this fall, were unlikely to prevail and suggested that a vote for Clinton was not unreasonable. He described the choice between Trump and Clinton like this: “One would be chaos for the country. The other would be a very businesslike and capable and competent approach to our affairs.’’

This may not have been exactly what the already-skeptical Libertarians were imagining when they put Weld on their ballot last spring. His line at the time? “If you hear nothing else from me, hear this: I pledge to you that I will stay with the Libertarian Party for life.’’

Felice Belman

Return of Goldman Sachs

Financial giant Goldman Sachs has generally been laying low when it comes to Massachusetts state business, after a two-year ban on bond work in the Commonwealth because of a pay-to-play scandal several years ago. But the company is back in full force and has grabbed one of the largest bond contracts in years.

The state Department of Transportation has chosen Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Merrill Lynch as senior managers on a no-bid $975 million bond deal.

A 2010 political scandal forced Goldman Sachs to pay $16 million in state and federal fines, a record at the time. The firm first reappeared last May when it played a minor role as one of several co-managers for a relatively small, $200 million state authority bond deal.

Goldman Sachs’ troubles came about after one of the vice presidents in its Boston office — a former top deputy to then-state Treasurer Tim Cahill — was caught advising and raising funds for Cahill’s independent candidacy for governor in 2010.

In the middle of that campaign, internal e-mails emerged in an unrelated lawsuit detailing how he also successfully negotiated — in fact, pleaded — with Cahill’s staff to award Goldman Sachs a $455.9 million bond deal. The incident reverberated around the bond industry at the time and has been held up as a case study of pay-to-play violations.

Frank Phillips

Trump, Clinton parties — as different as can be

In a final, pyrotechnic display of celebratory identity politics, the Trump and Clinton camps are repairing to their separate corners on Election Night, about as far apart symbolically as they are ideologically.

Donald Trump’s “victory party’’ will take place at F1 Boston, the indoor Braintree racetrack. Hillary Clinton’s team, as of Wednesday afternoon, professed a focus on swing-state New Hampshire that night, and intel on an official Massachusetts party was not forthcoming.

But some of those who are “with her’’ still have a place to go. Wellesley College, Clinton’s alma mater, makes no mention of a specific candidate to celebrate, only of the chance to “mark a historic moment with the entire Wellesley community.’’ A follow-up e-mail for those who register requests, “We simply ask that you consider carefully before registering a non-Wellesley guest.’’ Hint.

The state Democratic Party and forces aligned against Question 2, which would lift the state cap on charter schools, are having their own soiree at the Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel, which no doubt will draw plenty of Clinton backers.

Meanwhile, on offer in Braintree: “free raffles of official Trump items and Howie Carr books!’’ On hand: the Trump-Pence state campaign chair, attorney Vincent DeVito, and a slew of co-hosts including Amy Carnevale, Charles Grillo, Jeane Kangas, and Lou Murray.

Also promised: “political, media and sports personalities.’’

“All Boston and state-wide media will be in attendance,’’ the invitation promises. “Live interviews!’’

Admission is free.

Jim O’Sullivan

In Maine, a new way to vote

Massachusetts voters aren’t the only ones trying to decipher questions that will appear on the ballot next Tuesday. Our neighbors to the north in Maine are doing the same.

Maine’s Question 5 asks voters to change the way the governor, members of the state Legislature, and members of Congress are elected. As it stands, whichever candidate wins a plurality of the votes — or more than anyone else — wins. The change would move Maine to a majority system, meaning the winner would have to get more than 50 percent of the votes.

But there’s more.

Voters would be asked to rank candidates on a scale of one to three — or four or five, etc. If there were more than two candidates on the ballot, as there have been in every gubernatorial election since 1974, and no one received 50 percent of the vote, then “ranked voting’’ would kick in.

The candidate in last place would be eliminated, and a second round of vote tallying would take place. Election officials would count the second-choice vote of those whose first choice was purged from round one. Those votes then would be distributed in round two. (Keep reading. It’s really not too confusing.)

If one candidate failed to win a majority of the vote, then a third round — or fourth or fifth or however many necessary — of tallying and redistributing would happen until a winner was determined.

The point of the ballot initiative is to ensure “fair representation,’’ according to the nonprofit FairVote, which advocates for election reform nationally and has taken up the cause in Maine. Ranked choice voting, according to its website, “helps elect a candidate that better reflects the support of a majority of voters.’’

It’s possible under Maine’s current system to be elected despite a majority of voters wanting someone else. Take the 2010 gubernatorial race, which had five candidates. Paul LePage won the gubernatorial race with 37.6 percent of the vote, according to state figures.

But the question is not without concern.

Maine’s constitution says winners must be determined by “a plurality of all votes returned’’ and those votes must be counted by local election officials, which would not be case should Question 5 pass, according to Maine Attorney General Janet Mills.

Should the ballot initiative pass, the secretary of state would tally — and redistribute — votes using a computer algorithm.

Question 5, Mills wrote in March, “does raise significant constitutional concerns, and it may not be possible to implement ranked-choice voting as envisioned by this legislation without amending the Maine Constitution.’’

Akilah Johnson

2 states, 2 candidates, 2 similar ads

New Hampshire and Vermont are very different places economically, culturally, and politically. Even their mountains come in different colors.

But in the closing days of the 2016 election, voters are seeing a lot similarities. Both states have open races for governor. Both races for governor are extremely tight. Both New Hampshire Republican candidate Chris Sununu and Vermont Republican candidate Phil Scott say they favor abortion rights. However, in both states, Planned Parenthood and abortion rights groups have argued the GOP candidate’s support isn’t sufficiently strong.

As a result, the two men are running essentially the same closing ads touting their support for women’s health care, featuring local women discussing abortion and Planned Parenthood funding.

The key line from the woman in the Vermont ad: “Planned Parenthood needs to be ashamed of themselves.’’

The key line from the woman in the New Hampshire ad: “Chris Sununu has always stood tall for women’s health care. . . . The ads attacking Chris are false, absolutely false.’’

More than anything, the ads show once again how hard it is to run as a traditional Republican in New England, where support for abortion rights is more popular than other parts of the country.

James Pindell