 In Cambridge politics, campaign donations often reveal more than their postcards, door fliers, and even event speeches. They tell us whose interests are being represented. And right now, the numbers show a sharp divide between candidates supported by the Cambridge Citizens Coalition (CCC) and those aligned with the other election PACS or slates. See graph above. The data discussed in this report come from the Office of Campaign Finance (OCPF) and have been tabulated by Robert Winters on the Cambridge Civics site, and is to be thanked for this: http://www.rwinters.com/. Specifically see his page War Chests-War Chests - 2025 City Council Candidates (and Political Action Committees) that provides the tabluations we use here which have been updated to Sept.16, 2025.   These data while visual complex to read in Cambridge Civic graphs such as this, actually could not be clearer. CCC-backed incumbents draw nearly all of their campaign support from within Cambridge. In fact, as of this year, over 92% of CCC donations come from Cambridge residents. That means these campaigns are overwhelmingly fueled by neighbors, local families, and community members who live with the consequences of City Council decisions. By contrast, ABC and the bike lobby (CBS) candidates lean heavily on outside money. A much smaller portion of their funds come from within Cambridge. The rest flows in from the western suburbs and places like New York California —areas far removed from our neighborhoods but very much tied to the development industry and pro-upzoning agenda. Why does this matter? Because the current Council (an ABC super majority) has brought its biggest push to open the door to citywide up-zoning that benefits luxury developers. They care nothing about the environment, the traffic mess, or even city financing. Their agenda—led by the Mayor and Vice Mayor and their allies—is being bankrolled by non-local interests. Developers, real estate investors, and PACs from outside Cambridge are putting their weight behind candidates who promise to make it easier to build large-scale, high-profit projects. Meanwhile, CCC candidates like Cathie Zusy stand almost entirely on local support. Zusy, has raised over 95% of her campaign funds from Cambridge residents. Compare that to the Vice Mayor (McGovern - 46%) or Mayor (Simmons -49.9%), who receive the majority of their donations from outside our city. This is not just about numbers—it’s about accountability. When campaign coffers are filled by local residents, candidates are directly answerable to the people who live here. When outside developers and others foot the bill, the question becomes: whose interests do these councilors truly serve? The stakes are high. Housing affordability, neighborhood preservation, and even basic infrastructure decisions are being shaped by who funds our elected leaders. If we want a City Council that listens first to Cambridge residents, the campaign finance data makes it clear where the lines are drawn. In short: CCC = local Cambridge roots. ABC = outside interests, includin gdevelopers. The Building Trade FactorBelow we see the array of unions who also have brought funding to local incumbent and other candidates in this election, thanks to Cambridge Civic. According to filings with OCPF, $35,000 has come into Cambridge candidates from unions so far this cycle. And the overwhelming share of that—more than three-quarters—comes from the construction trades: laborers, ironworkers, bricklayers, pipefitters, roofers, and others directly tied to large-scale development. All told; Building Trades Unions: $21,250 (Laborers, Ironworkers, Bricklayers, Pipefitters, Roofers, etc.) Other Unions: $13,750 (educators, social workers, nurses, hospitality, food workers, etc.):  Estimated building-trades dollars per incumbent (c. 61% building-trades share)
A majority of union donations in the 2025 Cambridge election are coming from the building trades, who directly benefit from large-scale development projects.  With the exception of Tim Flaherty, by far the heaviest donation recipient of all kinds, almost none of this money went to non-incumbent candidates. And CCC-endorsed candidate, Cathie Zusy—who voted against blanket upzoning and developer giveaways—received virtually no union support. She and CCC candidates aren’t beholden to unions or developers—they are accountable to their neighbors. Whose interests are being represented? When candidates receive large checks come from outside developers and construction unions, it’s no surprise that their policy agenda prioritizes building more luxury towers and easing zoning restrictions. The winners under that system are developers and trade unions with guaranteed work. The losers are Cambridge residents, who face rising rents, displacement, traffic, and vanishing neighborhood character. The highest financed outside lobby (by far - wheels)In addition to developer and union dollars, we also have the intervention of area and national regional biking lobby associated with Cambridge Bicycle Safety’s IE-PAC has poured in nearly $60,000--mostly from outside Cambridge—an amount larger than all union contributions combined. They’ve given their top ratings to four incumbents: Burhan Azeem, Marc McGovern, Sumbul Siddiqui, Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler and are aligning their spending with the same bloc pushing for more development. Interestingly no CCC candidate received top billing from CBS even though a number are aligned with a broader interest in bike lanes, and all support safe bicycling and transit. As in 2023, the predevelopment and anti-parking group are in key-respects co-joined. In the graph below we can see how this outside or interest-based funding plays out for each of the incumbents  Taken together the mix of Non-rResident (outside) Donations, Building Trade Unions, and Bicycle lobby, is having an oversize role in fueling many of our incumbent councils. The sole exception is Cathie Zusy.
So the dividing line is sharper than ever: CCC = local grassroots donations, community-first accountability. Local residents and grassroots donors are powering most CCC candidates . Their stake is equally clear: protecting affordability, livability, and neighborhood character in Cambridge The future of Cambridge depends on which of these funding streams we decide to follow. Should our City Council represent local residents, or should it represent the outside developers and building trades unions that profit from nonstop development?
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |