Money has always played a role in elections, from candidates raising funds to pay for staffers, mailers and yard signs to billionaires spending millions through super Pacs. But most people don’t know that elections in Massachusetts are, in a very real sense, pay to play.
Although money plays a role in every political system, not all of them build that requirement into the process. In Massachusetts, if you want to run for office – let’s say governor – you first need to collect signatures. Some candidates hire firms to do it, and sometimes that doesn’t work out well for them. You can also collect signatures through completely grassroots methods, though. I collected signatures for several candidates this cycle. There are no party requirements, either! I was able to collect signatures for a Democrat with a Democratic Socialists of America endorsement and for a Republican candidate, and because I’m an independent, I can sign for both.
The signatures are only one part of the equation. They show that a candidate put in real effort, can follow certain basic rules and, arguably more importantly, engaged enough voters who thought they should be on the ballot. It’s a lot of work, and voter lists can help, but beyond some paper, pens and a clipboard (if you’re smart), there’s no real cost.
Here’s where the second part comes in. To appear on the primary ballot in Massachusetts, a candidate must win at least 15 percent of the delegates at their party’s convention. This is where pay to play kicks in: Attendees have to pay to attend the event, different amounts based on which parties’ convention you are attending, and the price varies by person, since there are youth and senior discounts. As a young person trying to get other young people involved in politics, I appreciate the thought, but it creates a system that not only charges people to vote but says some need to pay more than their neighbors to be civically involved.
Additionally, candidates can secure superdelegates by making a six-figure donation to the party, and naturally those delegates will vote for them. This creates a system in which a billionaire has a huge advantage over a middle-class worker running to serve the people.
This matters because, although the argument is that the fees and donations help pay for these events, they limit access. You also need to be registered with the party to attend. This year was especially frustrating for me. My favorite Republican candidate for governor, Mike Kennealy, was polling very well with independents, who make up the majority of the voting base, myself included. Because he got only 14 percent of the convention delegates’ votes, he never made it onto the ballot. So yes, independents – again, the majority of our state – can take part in the primaries, but not fully, and a small group of people who can afford to attend are able to limit everyone else’s choices.
Massachusetts has a chance to move away from this pay-to-play system. A yes vote on Question 3 on the November ballot would create a primary in which every candidate appears on one ballot regardless of party and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election. Anyone who does the work of collecting signatures could run, and every voter could help decide who advances, regardless of party registration, income or wealth. The parties have little incentive to support a change that would weaken their control over who participates. But we the people can take that power back, or we can keep the pay-to-play system we have now.
Zion Sherin is a renter in The Port neighborhood of Cambridge, a candidate for City Council in 2025 and a volunteer for several state races.