 Money matters in any election, but nowhere is that more evident than in Cambridge, where 100s of millions of dollars—and the very shape of our neighborhoods—are at stake in zoning and upzoning decisions. As Cambridge Day article titled “Candidate slate vows to ‘Repeal’ zoning…” observes that “Many of the top-earning candidates this race, such as Tim Flaherty and incumbent Marc McGovern, are staunchly pro-new housing and buoyed by contributions from real estate developers.” by Jane Petersen (October 12, 2025). That’s not just a passing observation. It’s a reality check and a warning. While developer-driven politics have long been a problem in Cambridge, this year the imbalance is sharper—and more consequential—than ever. In December 2021, our City Council passed a local “Pay-to-Play” / Developer Contribution Limit designed to keep city contracts, zoning approvals, and campaign money from mixing. Under this rule, any business entity—defined broadly to include individuals, corporations, officers, and related parties—can give no more than $200 annually to municipal candidates or committees if they have, or are seeking, city contracts, special permits, or zoning changes. Any higher contribution disqualifies them from those deals. The ordinance does not cover unions, and that has become a major loophole. Read more at State and Federal Communications. Even more troubling, some donors appear to be stretching—or outright ignoring—basic state laws about residency and campaign reporting. Several individuals who live outside Cambridge have listed Cambridge addresses on donation forms or spread donations among family members to skirt contribution limits. According to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF), From August through September 2025, one well known local developer who now lives in a nearby state donated $1,000 each to Flaherty, Simmons, and Wilson—each time listing a Cambridge address for these donations. Not only does this violate the spirit of the Pay-to-Play ordinance, it could disqualify him from seeking city contracts or special permits. Yet such actions have gone unchecked. Another major donor, and long linked with a local business group —has multiple projects before city boards. He and his wife do not reside in Cambridge but they often list their Cambridge properties as their homes. They along with other family members have given $7,000 this election cycle to incumbent candidates Councillors McGovern, Simmons, as well as new comer Tim Flaherty. The business entity (which includes construction and real estate management) controls numerous local commercial properties and mixed-use sites that regularly come before Cambridge commissions for redevelopment approval. These are not abstract “contributors.” They are developers actively shaping the physical and financial future of our city. This pattern—of individuals with personal and business-linked contributions having a direct financial stakes in city policy—points to a deeper problem: the quiet but powerful influence of outside developers and real estate families in determining who governs Cambridge. Candidates like McGovern, Simmons, and Flaherty, heavily funded by these networks, will wield immense influence over zoning, density, and the approval of multimillion-dollar projects if elected. As of October 4, 2025, OCPF campaign finance filings show that a huge portion of money in this election comes from outside Cambridge—and from building trade unions whose contracts depend on new construction (Cambridge Civic). Consider these figures: · Tim Flaherty (Ind.)— 73.1% of funds from outside Cambridge, 7.9% from unions · Marc McGovern (ABC) — 66.3% outside, 17.7% from unions · Denise Simmons (ABC) — 52.8% outside, 20.5% from unions · Sumbul Siddiqui (ABC) — 41.5% outside, 17.6% from unions · Burhan Azeem (ABC)— 35.2% outside, 6.4% from unions · Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler (ABC) — 36.5% outside, 18.7% from unions · Ayesha Wilson (ABC & CCC) — 45.1% outside, 15.4% from unions · Patty Nolan (IND) — 38.6% outside, 6.3% from unions · Cathie Zusy (CCC) — only 4.5% outside, 0.1% from unions — by far the most locally funded leading candidate The building trades dominate labor giving: Laborers ($7,500), Ironworkers ($3,500), Elevator Constructors ($2,500), Sheet Metal Workers ($2,500), Bricklayers ($2,000), Painters ($2,000), and smaller sums from Insulators, Operating Engineers, Pipefitters, and others. That’s $29,100 from the building trades alone—two-thirds of all union money in the race. By contrast, non-building-trade unions such as educators and social workers gave less than half that amount combined.  Other numbers tell an equally stark story. Nearly three-quarters of campaign funds for some candidates come from outside Cambridge. Two-thirds of union contributions come from the construction trades. The money shaping our city’s politics is not local, not grassroots, and not neutral. It’s organized—and it expects something in return. Cambridge’s Pay-to-Play ordinance was supposed to protect against exactly this kind of influence. Yet we’re watching the same system reassert itself through loopholes, residency games, and coordinated family donations. Developers, real estate interests, and outside unions are flooding the election with money that has one goal: ensuring a City Council friendly to their business. Some IE Pacs, Most importantly the Cambridge Bicycle Safety group also take outsize donor contributions from outside the city ($62,776.49) - also with an intent to influence politics. See chart below at (Cambridge Civic).  We can—and must—do better. This is the year to draw the line.
Cambridge voters deserve representation rooted in community, not in campaign checks from Maine or Belmont. We deserve candidates who answer to residents, not developers. We deserve transparency and integrity in our local democracy. Before you cast your vote, look at the campaign finance filings. Ask who funds your candidates. Ask who benefits from their votes. Democracy is local—or it isn’t democracy at all.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |