Today’s Fig City News reports that the No Override Newton ballot committee didn’t file their Pre-Election Report before election day as required by law. They have since filed the report and it reveals that most of the No campaigns funding came from two $10,000 donations from two individuals – Committee chair and treasurer Traute Marshall and Newton real estate developer Steve Snider.
What do you make of the No committee’s decision to withhold public release of that information until after the election?
Reposting my comment:
Here is the article from Fig City.
https://figcitynews.com/2023/03/no-override-newton-campaign-files-pre-election-report/
I’ll note that two people, No Override Newton committee chair and treasurer Traute Marshall and Newton real estate developer Steve Snider each contributed $10,000 to the campaign. That represented 80% of total donations.
I understand the yes side also had donations from major donors. And the yes side raised more. But those donors, especially the fact that the mayor donated, were disclosed prior to the vote, and discussed on many online sites.
The no side having two major donors, both of which remained undisclosed prior to the vote, didn’t allow the same opportunity.
I just think everyone deserves the chance to know who is influencing speech and voting in our community, and I think disclosure would have changed the narrative a bit too, as many “no” supporters viewed themselves as grassroots people without access to major funding sources, at the same time they were accepting two extremely large donations.
As part of the reason for not disclosing these donations in my view was to prevent public disclosure (especially before the election), I applaud Fig City News for putting it on its front page, and I hope others will publicize it at this point on Nextdoor and Facebook.
I’ve heard many people of this forum ask for transparency from the city and the school committee, and rightfully so. It must also include elections and political donations.
Strategies to hide or delay disclosure do all of us a disservice. If we don’t call this out, both sides of the debate will hide political donations next time.
(and to add, I don’t think this turned the election or anything like that. And donations are part of our current political system. You just need to disclose.)
So is this ok? Onwards and upwards.
https://blogs.harvard.edu/lamont/2020/02/29/as-sole-donor-of-the-yes-campaign-northlands-deep-pockets-try-to-steamroll-newtons-democracy/
fig
“I just think everyone deserves the chance to know who is influencing speech and voting in our community,”
The answer there is real estate developers APPEAR to have an outsized influence of the Mayor and city council.
Matt:
Well, considering that Northland (as evidenced by the very article you posted which was before the election) filed the disclosure correctly, I’d say they broke no law. My issue in the post is *disclosure*. As it stands right now, anyone has the ability to donate unlimited sums to these types of votes.
If you are asking me personally if I approve of this type of large donation influencing our elections, I’d say no. But if we are going to have unlimited donations, what would your reaction have been if Northland had donated $320,000 and only filed the disclosure AFTER the election?
Onward and upward I’m sure.
Bugek:
Well, in this case, Steve Snider is a real estate developer apparently. And unlike the developers who give a few hundred dollars to our politicians, he gave $10,000 to the No cause. That’s…a lot.
Not everything fits into a little box…
@fig – I didn’t like the outcome of the Northland referendum vote, no more than you not liking the Q1 override outcome, but the Mayor has already begun to find funding to close some of the gap, and unlike you, I have to stare at the hole on the ground and traffic that is Northland…every damn day.
As for Q1, the group against was out funded, our gunned and out numbered; doing the best they could, with limited resources. For all either us know, the late disclosure could be due to lack processes knowledge, someone accidentally dropping the ball or a misplaced envelope.
To claim the late disclosure as some sort of masterminded conspiracy just sound like sour grapes.
Matt:
I made excuses for the no side multiple times in the lead-up to the election. If it was a grassroots organization with a small amount of fundraising, it really didn’t matter if they disclosed. I said that. It was against the rules to not do so, but the lack of knowledge didn’t mean much. Or so I thought.
But the fact is that if you are able to fundraise two very large donations of $10,000 each, that should be disclosed. I’m not claiming it is a masterminded conspiracy. That is you putting words in my mouth to minimize my argument. I’m claiming they broke the rules and if they got big money donations that lack of disclosure mattered.
I’ll also say that the No side was contacted about the lack of disclosure, and they claimed even after being asked about it that they weren’t going to disclose, despite the rules. Go read the news articles from Fig City and the Beacon. They claimed they didn’t have to disclose based on a theory that doesn’t hold up upon even a quick reading of the rules.
The override vote is over. I’m calling out the strategy because I care about how this is going to go the next time we have a similar vote. That isn’t sour grapes Matt. That’s just me caring about my community. Because I’m guessing the next time the group that uses this strategy will be the high net worth side that you don’t like. .. Will it be sour grapes when you object?
This comment has nothing to do with the Northland vote. Or big money donations. I’d have a lot to say about your particular comments about Northland, but it really has nothing to do with the disclosure issue. If you’d like to discuss the current state of Northland, feel free to ask Jerry to make a post at some point.
Re: the comment “For all either us know, the late disclosure could be due to lack processes knowledge…” the No chair/treasurer also chaired the No committee in 2013. So the lack-of-processes-knowledge excuse hardly holds up. Onward and upward.
The addresses of those major donors are listed in the disclosure form. And the city’s calculator for the override amount is still posted.
Those two people each would have seen a tax increase of about $500 per year for their home addresses.
They spent as much on this campaign as they would have paid to the city in about 20 years… to dissuade their neighbors from contributing to the betterment of the city, in so many ways.
Just gross.
Maybe they oppose increases in a REGRESSIVE and subtlety racially discriminatory tax policy that is much more gross than putting their reputations on the line for a cause that they believe in.
Maybe you would’ve preferred the Nothland method where they made payments via conduits and colleagues to support their side and hired PR firms and reps, and never reported any of those sneaky donations
Jackson Joe:
The Northland payments were many things, but I don’t think they were sneaky. There was full disclosure of donors in that referendum from the Northland side before the vote. If I’m wrong, would you mind showing me the factual basis for your statement? I couldn’t find anything online that supports your view.
Back of the Envelope: Here is where disclosure matters. If they own substantial rental property or commercial property, their potential tax could be much greater. As for why they were willing to spend so much money to oppose the override, who knows?
Fig I will pass the ball back to you and go ask the CEO of Northland to sign an affidavit stating that no funds (outside of those reported on the city of Newton website) were spent on individuals or companies to help promote the yes on Northland vote.
I agree with fig in principle. We have campaign finance laws for a reason and people have an obligation to comply. Election transparency is extremely important. But I think this was an honest mistake from two Newton residents who were really just trying to exercise their First Amendment rights. This seems like a case where a slap on the wrist is the appropriate response from authorities.
I’m far more troubled by Jackson Joe’s suggestion that Northland may have deliberately failed to report money they spent in support of a YES vote on their Special Permit. I’m very interested in hearing any details supporting that accusation. If true, that would clearly be a prosecutable crime.
Mike, it isn’t for Northland to report. It is the ballot committee that reports, no? And we have evidence that the ballot committee reported a huge amount of support directly from Northland. If an individual that works at Northland donates as well, and that amount is reported in the disclosure forms, that isn’t a violation.
I think Jackson Joe is upset at the power Northland has by making large donations. I understand the frustration, but that is our system. Disclosure is separate. In short, I think Jackson Joe has no proof (and logically, why would Northland disclose huge donations as required, and then hide others, makes no sense).
As for the honest mistake or not, I don’t think that was the case here. I think it was intentional. The rules are pretty clear, the disclosure form is very simple, and they only had to disclose around 10 donations. It may not have been to hide the donations. Perhaps it was because the individuals didn’t want the publicity themselves, and they thought by not disclosing and no strong newspaper in town, no one would know. Hence why I asked for the post. Because people should know. It doesn’t fix it, but it does make sure that future lawbreakers will know that they can’t hide the donation fully. At the very least maybe their names will come up on a google search.
I just hope this doesn’t become the norm. For either side.
fig– As it was explained to me by the State Elections Commission during the cannabis revote proffered by the City Council, any individual or entity spending any money in support of– or in opposition to a ballot initiative, must report the expense. So IF Northland “spent on individuals or companies to help promote the yes” vote, and IF Northland did not report those expenditures either themselves or through a committee, my understanding is that would be a clear violation of state campaign financing laws.
Personally, I don’t believe any such thing actually happened. But Jackson Joe’s suggestion that it might have, certainly got my attention.
Regarding the two individuals who spent money encouraging a “no” vote on the override, I’m a lot more sympathetic. It doesn’t appear to me that they made any attempt to keep their information secret. It was just a late filing. They certainly should have filed on time. But I can understand how they may have lacked familiarity with the process. Despite my having supported the override, I think their First Amendment rights are a much more important part of this specific equation than a technical misstep with their filing.
Mike, I should state upfront I know nothing about Northland, don’t know them personally or have anything to do with them in any way. But I believe one of the purposes of the ballot committees (Yes on Overide, No on Overide) is that if you donate to one of them as an individual, your reporting obligation is done. Absent a committee donation, no idea. And I have no idea really what Jackson Joe is stating, as again it makes zero sense that a corporation would go through the trouble to donate to the committee (and for the committee to report accurately and on time), and have a secret group of donors behind the scenes. I’m just going to assume he has no facts to back up his assertion and it is just a red herring argument. As such, I won’t be commenting again on that.
As for the individuals, I guess my point is that the No ballot committee in the override is the guilty party here, not the individual. Except one of the two actually is the treasurer for the No side and responsible in part for the disclosure. No idea on Scott Snider’s involvement with the Ballot Committee, or if he just donated a bunch of cash.
And I’m not arguing about the first amendment rights. That’s also a red herring argument when used as an excuse not to disclose. The system in place allows big money donations to ballot committees. They have the right to speak and the right to spend as they see fit. But the Ballot Committee has to tell us before the election who it is. It isn’t a technical misstep when that fails to happen. And my fear is that no ballet committee will disclose in the future. Because if the fine is $200, just wait until after the election and disclose. At some point, large money will move a vote like this last minute.
The fines for doing this should be much larger in the future. With a penalty that increases if it can be proven it was done with intent. But as it appears I’m shouting into the wind on this, I guess I’m done.
fig’s concern had me putting more thought into this issue… There’s a gap in time of approximately 8 days between the last pre-election report and the actual vote. That’s where any campaign hanky-panky is likely to occur. But I think everyone’s concerns about campaign financing and reporting could be addressed, by simply withholding certification of results until all the paperwork has been filed and reviewed. I’m not sure what entity is empowered to make this change. But it’s a change I would encourage and support.
So just to connect the dots for folks, the author of the anti-drag show letter in Fig City Newton is Traute Marshall. The same Traute Marshall who funded half of the “no” on the override campaign.
THIS is why fundraising disclosure matters.
I wonder if Fig City News hesitated before printing the letter…
I remember a time when Liberals used to cherish free speech and welcome debate.
And I remember a time when conservative cared about transparency. Is welcoming debate hiding your donations until after the election?
I’m fine with debate Fred. I’m fine with a letter to the editor too. I would question whether that letter needed to be written that way to get her point across, but I’ll let the letter speak for the letter writer.
I just want to connect the dots between the biggest funder of the no override campaign and the letter. There were a lot of no supporters who truly thought voting no improved the schools. I thought it would be best to know who funded their campaign.
That’s me welcoming debate. Something their late disclosure did not, no?
couldn’t the drag show just be after school? I mean, I would never send my kids to that, but I don’t particularly care if others want to.
just do it after school and not make it a thing. It is a very Ron Desantis style move to do it during school hours to force the cultural issue. his actions are slimy and so are those or Turner. Turner is an absolute disgrace, is a politician who care more about making money as a consultant than being an educator.
His track record is crystal clear, he DGAF about anything but his racist ambitions. “anti-racism” is a requirement in school, but continuing to afford opportunities only for minorities and continuing to push agendas that only some people are ok with is ridiculous.
Being liberal once meant accepting of the opinions of others. Turner doesn’t accept opinions of conservatives. He doesn’t care about the Jewish community. He has disdain for the Italians. He is a disgusting man and his racism is crystal clear to those who don’t bow down at the alter of CNN.
Frank:
Just didn’t want to leave your post without addressing it. I don’t always agree with Principal Turner, but I disagree with 100% of what you wrote. Seems like you got yourself worked up into a bit of a rant.
There seems to be a lot of culture war nonsense in what you posted. Do you have kids in the school system? At Newton North? Ever talk to Principal Turner? Attend a Principal coffee?
I think you’d find him smart and engaging. And willing to chat.
Move the show to after school? HELL NO!! Newton makes zero concessions to bigots!
What we really need in Newton is a short pier, and a little encouragement of bigots like Traute Marshall to take a long hike.
Honest question. Would you feel the same way if the NRA was invited to speak about gun rights? Or perhaps army recruiter presenting the positive aspects of enlisting. Ok for core school hours?
Bugek, I’ve thought about the question of what range of voices might be candidates for such a forum. I think it’s a good one to work through. Part of living in a society involves learning to deal with viewpoints that don’t fully align with yours, or that lay outside one’s own experiences.
As I understand it, the idea for the drag performance and discussion was student initiated, so that’s one thing to consider.
Enlisting is an example I thought of as well. The view of the military has changed significantly since Vietnam, when campus protests of enlistment were perhaps at its height. Our US Congressman served, as have many in our community. I think it might easier to get community agreement on that one than some other potential speakers, again provided there was interest in the school for it AND it was an “ask me anything” kind of format (not a one-sided view).
Maybe you can exile her to Rhode Island like Anne Hutchinson.
No need to exile anyone. Traute Marshall wrote a letter to the editor and funded a movement to block an override. She made some very public choices that impact our community. It seems fair to discuss those impacts.
And, if you are going to write a letter to the editor like she did, don’t you think the attention to the issue is what she wanted?
@Bugek–
Honest answer… If the NRA was invited to speak, I would go ballistic [pun intended]. The NRA is a terrorist group whose militancy is a threat to our students. They’ve got no business in Newton schools. I would not be opposed to a debate on gun violence with qualified representatives from both sides. One from the side that favors gun violence, and another who is opposed. [Yes, you read that correctly].
Regarding military recruitment… I value the sacrifice of those who serve. It’s an unfortunate reality that our country needs a military. It’s also imperative that our military attract intelligent people, which would make Newton a logical place to recruit. My concern would be a balancing any presentation with an opposing view point, so no student was intentionally or inadvertently coerced to join the military.
So you see the issue, is it so hard to believe that someone would react similar to you regarding NRA when it comes to exposing their underage children to drag.
Ppl are entitled to be outraged by whatever they want. Moving to outside school times so a child doesn’t have to feel awkward to not attend (peer pressure, singled out) is a reasonable ask.
Bugek…I agree with your general point that tolerance of views and opinions (including those you disagree with) is healthy and important for a community to thrive. However, a community can also decide that some ideas are so extreme and by definition intolerant themselves, that they don’t align with the basic values of the community, and are actually virulent. Simply put, some ideas are just bad on their face. Related; How many deaths can be traced back to the NRA’s militant mission to deregulate gun use/ownership? And how many can be traced to drag shows? Don’t you think this is an example of false equivalence?
Bugek–
I appreciate your perspective. Allow me to restate my position from earlier in the day…
ZERO concessions to bigotry!
Bigotry only leads to guns.
GO MIKE!!!!