Episode 230: Q1 and Q3: Ballot Questions and Answers
10/6/22-- This week Jenn and Lisa kick off the show with an update on last week's Martha's Vineyard story. Then we dive into ballot questions 1 and 3 as election day approaches.
Question 1, also known as the Fair Share Amendment or Millionaire’s tax, would impose an extra 4 percent tax on incomes over one million dollars, with the money designated for state education and transportation funding. On this episode we look at both sides of the question.
Andrew Farnitano, communications director for the Yes on Question 1 campaign drops by the pod to present the supporting argument for the ballot question. Then Dan Cence, of the Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike Amendment, presents the case for the opposition.
Afterwards, Jon Chesto of the Boston Globe joins Steve to talk about ballot Question 3 on expanded liquor licenses. Chesto recently wrote a piece for the Globe on why the question is supported by organizations you may not expect and why there also doesn't seem to be any strong opposition to the ballot measure.
--
Full transcript below:
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:00:27] This week on The Horse Race. We're diving into two of the ballot questions Massachusetts voters will be faced with in November or October. If you're voting by mail, it's Thursday, October 6th. [00:00:37][10.5]
Jennifer Smith: [00:00:49] Welcome back to The Horse Race, your weekly look at politics, policy and elections in Massachusetts. I'm Jennifer Smith here with Lisa Kashinsky. Steve will be by for a segment later in the episode. But until then, you get to hear us. I don't know, think about trains or something. I think they're running a little bit better than usual. [00:01:07][18.0]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:01:07] Are they? Are people finally. Oh. As our nonresident train rider on the podcast, I always hope for the best for all. [00:01:20][13.1]
Jennifer Smith: [00:01:21] There are trains. [00:01:21][0.5]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:01:22] There are trains. Okay. I think I've only I've only seen one derailment this week. Yeah, there was only one Ok and it was the blue line this time. [00:01:32][9.6]
Jennifer Smith: [00:01:33] Yes, we do like to spread that out among our other train options. [00:01:37][3.7]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:01:38] We just have to share the love you know it. [00:01:39][1.1]
Jennifer Smith: [00:01:40] It's true. I will say at this point, I feel a little bit like the MBTA is coming for me because now when I have just a normal slow train ride, I go, Oh my gosh, isn't it nice to be on a train right now? So maybe it's working, maybe their strategy is working. [00:01:53][13.3]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:01:53] I was going to say I haven't heard a lot about your direct line recently. [00:01:56][3.0]
Jennifer Smith: [00:01:57] So yeah, it's just slow. It's it's not doing anything crazy. It's just a little bit slow. So that marks your meta update where Lisa asks, Are there trains? And Jennifer shrugs, we hope you've enjoyed it, but I think that is our chance to pivot over since we're going to be having a very valid question, heavy episode to just note that there is an update on our story that we talked about last week on the Martha's Vineyard migrants. So, Lisa, why don't you run us through what's happening? They're being relocated right now from the Cape Cod military base by the end of the week. Where are they headed? [00:02:35][37.8]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:02:36] That is a good question, actually. A couple of them have gone to New York City. But I was talking to some folks earlier this week who are working with the migrants, both attorneys, state lawmakers, etc.. And they said that, you know, many of them would like to stay here. There isn't as large of a Venezuelan community here. And these migrants are primarily Venezuelan as there are some other groups. But, you know, obviously, the community has really rallied around to help them both on Martha's Vineyard and Cape Cod and beyond. So, you know, I've seen in articles that some people are hoping to put some roots down in Boston, maybe Provincetown. So definitely some people who are staying here. [00:03:17][40.9]
Jennifer Smith: [00:03:18] That's right. And then, of course, for anyone watching the legal side of things, the class action lawsuit which was undergoing may yet have a new defendant, because if you heard about the woman that had previously just been identified, kind of oddly as Perla in Texas, kind of talking people on to these planes, she has been identified. So the class action lawsuit is going to be updated to include her full ID along with DeSantis and Abbott. Well, that aside, Texas out of the way, Florida out of the way. What are we doing here today in Massachusetts? [00:03:53][34.6]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:03:54] We are heading back to the ballot, talking to both the supporters and the opposition to ballot question one, which many of you hopefully know as the Fair Share Amendment. And then we'll be running through ballot question three on expanding alcohol licenses and why it doesn't have any opposition. [00:04:12][17.7]
Jennifer Smith: [00:04:14] Let's get to it. [00:04:14][0.7]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:04:15] Let's ride. [00:04:15][0.3]
Jennifer Smith: [00:04:19] The Fair Share Amendment, or depending on who you ask, the millionaire's tax would impose an extra 4% tax on incomes over $1 million with the money designated for state education and transportation funding. Today on The Horse Race, we're looking at both sides of this question. We're joined by Andrew Farnitano, communications director for the Yes on Question one campaign to learn more about the supporting side. Welcome, Andrew. [00:04:42][23.5]
Andrew Farnitano: [00:04:43] Thank you. [00:04:43][0.3]
Jennifer Smith: [00:04:44] So from your perspective, what would a yes vote mean for Massachusetts voters? [00:04:48][3.6]
Andrew Farnitano: [00:04:50] Yeah. So question one is an opportunity to do two things make our tax system fairer and generate billions of dollars for investment in transportation and public education year after year. Question one would create a small additional tax on the portion of a person's income that's above $1,000,000 and dedicate all of the funding in the Constitution, requiring it to go only to transportation and public education. That's everything from pre-K and public schools to affordable tuition at our public colleges, to fixing our crumbling roads, bridges, and the MBTA and other public transportation infrastructure all across the state. [00:05:29][39.1]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:05:30] So how do you guarantee that the money would go to education and transportation? Because ultimately this is up to lawmakers, right? [00:05:37][7.1]
Andrew Farnitano: [00:05:38] So lawmakers have the ability to direct exactly which programs get funded. That's part of the state constitution that they have the power of appropriation. They get to determine exactly which dollar goes where. But because this question would amend the state constitution, that restriction on them that they can this money from this constitutional amendment tax can only be spent on transportation and public education is binding. The legislature can't change that. They can't choose to spend this money on public safety or health care or any other issue. They can decide how much goes to fixing bridges versus how much goes to hiring more counselors in our schools. And that could change from year to year. They don't have to do the same thing every year. There could be years where we decide the priority is investing in schools versus transportation. But the money raised by this tax is legally required to go to those two areas, and the legislature can't change that without a vote of the people. [00:06:40][62.3]
Jennifer Smith: [00:06:42] So help us frame out the scope here. How many people would be impacted by this tax and in what circumstances? [00:06:49][6.8]
Andrew Farnitano: [00:06:50] So it's a really small number of people. It's it's roughly 20,000 shifts year to year, depending on how well the stock market is going and whether some of the wealthy individuals are cashing out their investments. But it's it's less than 1% of taxpayers in Massachusetts. It's actually only 0.6% of all taxpayers in the state who would be affected. So these are people who are making over $1,000,000 in income in a single year. So we're not talking about wealth. The amount that's in your bank account or your retirement or the value of your home. This is if you go to file your taxes and if you have more than $1,000,000 in personal income, you would pay more and you'd only pay it on the second million and everything above it. So someone who makes $1,000,001 next year would pay an extra $0.04. [00:07:40][50.7]
Jennifer Smith: [00:07:42] So building on that question, one of the main objections that the opposition has raised is the idea of small business owners or homeowners who are trying to either sell their property or assets and that are going to get clocked with a one time fee. So how do you address that complaint? [00:07:58][16.8]
Andrew Farnitano: [00:08:00] It's a distraction. When you look at who is funding the opposition, the vast majority of their money comes from a small number of billionaires. Those are the people who really oppose this because they're going to have to pay a lot more in taxes. Someone who makes a little bit over $1,000,000 in one year will have to pay a little bit more. But even someone who makes $2 million in a single year would pay an extra 40,000 and 90% of the money that's raised by this tax comes from people that are making more than $2 million a year. And when it comes to homes or businesses, we're talking about the same group of very rich people who will be affected by this tax. Less than 1% of home sales in Massachusetts generate enough of a profit, a gain to be affected by this tax. So if you sell a home for $1,000,000, you don't pay taxes on that entire amount. You can deduct the amount that you purchased the home for. You can deduct half a million dollars if you're a couple and it's your primary residence. A quarter of a million. If you're a single individual and it's your primary residence, you can deduct any money that you've put into repairing a roof, upgrading your heating system, any of those major improvements that you've made to a home over the years, you deduct all of that from your taxes. So even though lots of homes are worth it, over $1,000,000, you're not paying taxes on them unless you're talking about three, four or $5 million homes. [00:09:31][91.6]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:09:33] And kind of building on that, too. What about the argument that folks may leave Massachusetts if this passes because of costs and taxes? [00:09:41][7.9]
Andrew Farnitano: [00:09:42] So the great thing about being incredibly rich is that you can live wherever you want to live and you let your accountant worry about how much you're going to pay in taxes. When you talk to wealthy people in Massachusetts, they value living here because their families are here, their businesses are here. They've built a business in many cases because of our well-educated workforce. Things like the quality of life in Massachusetts, our parks are waterfronts are much more important to determining whether people choose to live here. And that evidence is seen in other states. Many of the states that Massachusetts competes with have very high taxes on income, over $1,000,000, even higher than the amount we're talking about with this amendment. So California, New York, New Jersey, even Minnesota and Iowa, all tax income over $1,000,000 at a higher rate. And those are some of the states, California and New York especially, that have the greatest number of millionaires because they've invested in those public services and become a good place to live. [00:10:45][63.0]
Jennifer Smith: [00:10:46] So we're looking at a constitutional amendment approach here. So why try to amend the Constitution itself? And doesn't that put maybe the state in an awkward position if later there needs to be some kind of finagling with the direction or language of the actual law? [00:11:04][18.1]
Andrew Farnitano: [00:11:05] Yes. So the existing constitution states that all income must be taxed at the same level. That's why we have a flat 5% income tax. Unlike most states and the federal government that taxed different levels of income at different rates. So the only way to ask those who make over $1,000,000 to pay more without asking the middle class and working people to pay anything more, is to do this in the Constitution. So that's the power of this constitutional amendment, that it only hits people who make over $1,000,000 and that that the restriction on the money that it can only be spent on education and transportation is binding on the legislature because it's in the Constitution. So it's not like any other traditional ballot question that has the force of a law and the legislature can choose to change it in the future. This is a concrete, binding restriction that only the voters could change. [00:11:57][51.8]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:11:58] So we are getting close to Election Day, but what's already happening is people are getting their mail ballots and voting. So how do the polls look entering this stage and how have you adjusted your campaign strategy to hit both people who are voting early and voting by mail and then also the people who will vote on Election Day? [00:12:17][19.0]
Andrew Farnitano: [00:12:18] Yeah, so we have a really strong grassroots field campaign all over the state. Teachers and bus drivers and tradespeople and working people all over the state are knocking on doors, calling and texting their neighbors, and having conversations about question one and the importance of this once in a generation, opportunity to invest in our schools and our roads. We've been having those conversations for years now. This amendment has was first proposed back in 2015. So we've been working on a long time. We're having those conversations. We've been running a full fledged campaign with TV and digital advertising, as well as that field campaign. So we feel very prepared for voters to start casting their ballots, and we're excited to have this opportunity to make a real difference for for those investments in our state. [00:13:12][53.4]
Jennifer Smith: [00:13:13] Okay. Well, that is all the time we have for today. Andrew Farnitano, thank you so much for joining us today on The Horse Race. [00:13:18][5.7]
Andrew Farnitano: [00:13:19] Thanks for having me. [00:13:19][0.6]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:13:27] So we've heard from the proponents of question one and now we're going to hear from the opposition. We're joined by Dan Cence from the Coalition to Stop the Tax Hike amendment to run through his side's argument. Thanks for joining us, Dan. [00:13:40][12.8]
Dan Cence: [00:13:40] Thanks for having me. [00:13:41][0.5]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:13:42] So let's start off with this. What would a no vote on question one do? [00:13:46][4.1]
Dan Cence: [00:13:47] Well, a no vote would keep status quo. In short, the no vote would not, impart, a 80% tax increase and create a graduated income tax. Here in Massachusetts, no vote would protect homeowners, small business owners and farmers from their nest eggs and all that they have worked for their entire lives as they look to retire. [00:14:10][22.6]
Jennifer Smith: [00:14:12] So from your perspective, who would be affected specifically if this amendment were to pass? [00:14:16][4.1]
Dan Cence: [00:14:17] Thanks for asking that, Jennifer. This is really much more of a middle class tax hike than is being purported, to tell you the truth, uber wealthy. Yes, there are folks within the Commonwealth who make considerable amount of money. Yes, they tend to tax plan better. Yes, they tend to domicile in New Hampshire and Florida already and Bermuda and other places. But there are folks who live here and work here who own small businesses as a, as a matter of course, LLC. 1120S, as I know, those are technical terms, but many people have heard of partnerships. When you have a coffee shop in Harvard Square and you own it yourself. Then when the coffee shop does, its taxes does fall to the bottom line of the owner, and that's considered income. And from a business standpoint that it drops right to that individual before they can think about how they're going to invest for the next year. Are they going to hire more people? Are they going to grow their business and they're going to pay 80% more taxes if this were to go through? [00:15:17][59.6]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:15:19] And how much of what you're doing is pushing back based on what you just said, on the fact that people are calling this a millionaire's tax? [00:15:26][7.3]
Dan Cence: [00:15:27] Well, that's the other side's messaging. And you'll never hear that come out of my mouth. I'll tell you that. 15.5% of the individuals who would be captured by this each year. It'll be the only time in their lives that they are affected. 77% of people will only happen twice. Those aren't millionaires. Those are people with instances of selling a home, selling a small business, or being affected by this in a negative way, and don't consider themselves, quote unquote, millionaires by any stretch. [00:16:00][32.9]
Jennifer Smith: [00:16:01] So kind of delving into that a little bit. There have been a lot of confusions raised in civic meetings that I've attended. Just kind of people trying to figure out voting is starting. They're trying to get their head around whether or not they're going to be impacted here. So what number of people are we talking about being impacted? Not the percentage of those who would be impacted who might fall into those categories. But if you're talking about selling your home, you would have to make, for instance, $1,000,000 over. It's not just, you know, you sold your home, you put 600,000 into it. That 400,000 that you're gaining wouldn't end up being that taxable value. So how do you kind of explain how many people are likely to feel the pain of this? [00:16:43][41.8]
Dan Cence: [00:16:44] Yeah, and that varies. It's it's tens of thousands every year. Jennifer and I want to just back up for 1 second because in this kind of long format, I can get a little geeky with some of the details. Right. People keep talking about you paid 600,000 for the house and you sell it. That doesn't count. Well, if anybody has a good tax code, they depreciate the value of the home to write it off throughout the mortgage. And then when you come to sell it, whatever you've depreciated, if you've owned it long enough, 30 years, you pay off the mortgage. You owe it all in capital gains because you depreciated that whole 600,000. So that's a red herring and a false argument that the other side keeps making. Couple that with. I know some folks here from Dorchester and other places. I'm from Brighton. We throw a rock from your house in Dorchester. You're going to hit multimillion dollar houses these days. It's not just Weston and Wellesley and Winchester. It's across all across the city of Boston, Worcester. Some of these even Lowell maybe go up to some of these these gateway cities. The housing market is through the roof. If you look at Zillow, what things cost? We're already at one in seven in Massachusetts. Sell for over a million now. And that's and we all know the housing market is stagnant if things are selling. Look at the valuations. Look where things are. It's only going to go up and it's only going to affect it. And that's looking at that also in a vacuum, because the way this is structured and this is one of the fatal flaws of this question is that it's all of your income. So if you live with a partner, you both make $150,000 a year, 120,000, 75, whatever it is. Add all that up that your basis from where you start. Then put the house sale on top of them. Then put the small business on top of that. That's nothing existing the a nobody makes zero and then sells a house. Right. And the way that this is written, it's all income. It's all of your capital gains. It's this would also give us the greatest capital, the highest level of capital gains in the country. And let me also say what we're talking about the country. Massachusetts is the only state the only state in the country with the tax hike on the ballot this year. [00:18:44][120.0]
Jennifer Smith: [00:18:45] You've also said that an issue is ensuring the money is spent as planned here. How would you like to see the question phrased to adjust that if the issue is really making sure that it goes to education and transportation? And why isn't voter accountability enough, which is what the other side is pointing to? [00:19:00][14.8]
Dan Cence: [00:19:01] Okay. So. I wouldn't have written it at all. So let's just start there and be super clear. I'm not going to do their job to make it better. They tried to write it one way. The Supreme Judicial Court threw it out. John Adams wrote this constitution in such a way, and it's worked pretty good for a couple of hundred years, and that's how it's been. And they're trying to alter that. And it's taken years and years and talking about years. I think that maybe when this idea was first thought up, this actual incarnation, because for the for the last since 1962, which would be 60 years ago. Right. It's come on to the ballot five times and it's lost 2 to 1. So the voters don't want it. So voter accountability is going to win the day anyway. If history serves where that is, and I think it will. But subject to appropriation is the crux of our going to get Schoolhouse Rock on is the crux of the legislative bicameral system. That's what the House does. It's their job. They hold the purse strings and the money is going to come in. Yes. If this business if this wins and is going to fund transportation and education, but it's not going to increase it at all. And the folks saw the GBH debate the other night. The other side agreed to that that that's yes. That they hold the hold that the legislature will do, quote unquote, do the right thing when legislature does the right thing. They look at the values and the needs of the commonwealth. They assess them and then they allocate funds to whatever those needs are. And that's what they're going to do going forward. Doesn't matter. And that's what this change. [00:20:28][87.7]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:20:29] So people are starting to vote already and your side has been a little bit behind in polling that we've seen, you know, since the primary election. So with people already getting their mail ballots, how do you reach these voters and how do you adjust what would be a typical campaign strategy to this new, you know, mail in and early voting norm? [00:20:50][20.9]
Dan Cence: [00:20:51] Yeah, that's a great question. And I guess I'll answer it backwards. Take the second part first. We clearly have different strategies. We flattened out our television strategy used to be that we would backloaded significantly. We don't as much. You plateaued a little bit of the 50% that'll vote on point of purchase day. But we flattened out to spend far more money, far more points on the front side to ensure that we get our message out. We made a strategic decision not to be up before primary day this year just because of how much noise was going on around primary day and how much people were focused on the the other ballot races in New Hampshire and things like that. People forget that 60% of the New Hampshire market is the Massachusetts TV market. And Maggie Hassan bought $7 million worth of ads just going into the primary. So we decided it was a lot of noise. The other side has outraised us. It's really been interesting to see that the teachers union has put $18 million into this and when we could just discuss what their motivation is there or not. To what end and what their our way is, I'm not sure. So our main focus, our main job is to educate folks on this issue, to spend the money that we have raised and to do so in such a way that it educates people as to what this actually does mean, what it will do, how difficult it will be to undo if if it is there, what the precedents it will set with the graduated income tax and who will actually be captured by it. And we're working really hard to do that. In terms of polling, I haven't seen anything that makes me overly concerned about it, frankly. I've worked on a number of other questions, and generally they need to be in the high sixties and seventies coming into Labor Day. And this was much tighter than that, frankly. And our internal has us in a place that where our message works very well. We just need to get it to them and it moves people. So people tend to and I don't know if this will change. This is really inside, but this is the inside baseball podcast. So people default to no on the ballot question when they have any doubts or when they have. Because you can you can undo a no with a yes at some point and you can't undo a yes, a yes is yes. And and it goes there. So as people tend to educate themselves more, you know, sometimes they may start off with yes just because it sounds like an attractive principle just on th e face of it, and then they can get a bit more and and people can be moved to know a little bit more efficiently than say yes. [00:23:28][157.4]
Lisa Kashinsky: [00:23:30] All right. Well, that is all the time we have for this. Dan, thanks so much. [00:23:33][3.4]
Dan Cence: [00:23:34] Absolutely. Thanks for having me. And thanks for all you do with this. And happy to be back anytime you need. [00:23:38][5.0]
Steve Koczela: [00:23:46] Continuing our rundown of ballot questions voters will decide on this fall. Ballot Question three would change the state's rules around who can sell alcohol in the state and where. But the forces behind the question may not be who you think. Here to explain how it came to be and how it's unfolding is Jon Chesto with The Boston Globe. Thanks for dropping by, Jon. [00:24:05][18.8]
Jon Chesto: [00:24:06] Thanks for having me. [00:24:07][0.7]
Steve Koczela: [00:24:08] So first and foremost, just remind us what this question, if it passed, would actually do. [00:24:12][3.8]
Jon Chesto: [00:24:13] So question three, if passed would increase the number of licenses from nine in Massachusetts to 18 over the course of a decade. To understand that, you have to recognize that the retail sales of alcohol is strictly controlled in Massachusetts for a long time. If you were a business, you could have no more than three locations where you could sell alcohol. This really protected the independent mom and pop packaged store industry and kept the chains at bay. There was much back and forth over this over the years, and eventually a compromise was reached in 2011 that allowed that number to go up to nine. And we've seen the chain starting to get into it. You know, Trader Joe's is one example. We see BJ's Wholesale Club getting up there. We see Costco joining. So I'll call or even see Walgreens starting to sell alcohol. The bigger companies are starting to, I guess you could say, muscled their way into the alcohol retail business, which was by and large dominated in Massachusetts by small independent retailers for a long time. This ballot question would give it would now increase the number of locations. You could sell beer and wine up to 18 over time while reducing the number of places you could sell hard alcohol from 9 to 7. So it would kind of put a real cap on hard alcohol sales while expanding beer and wine. There are some other minor changes to rules, such as you would not be able to sell alcohol through automated machines self-checkout. You would have to sell alcohol through an live person. And some of the bigger chains aren't happy with that. There is also a change that would basically increase the fine for wrongdoing by having it tied to total retail sales as opposed to just alcohol retail sales. Again, that's something that, you know, the bigger food chains don't really like. But the package store owners, which are pushing this question, say it's only fair given that more and more alcohol is going to be sold at larger places that sell things other than alcohol. [00:26:35][142.6]
Steve Koczela: [00:26:36] And Jon, you touched on something which I think is one of the very interesting things about this, which is the law, as it would pass, would actually in many ways benefit larger retailers who would be able to expand the number of locations where they would now be able to sell beer and wine. So the larger chains, like you mentioned, Trader Joe's and BJ's and so forth, would be able to offer beer and wine sales at more Trader Joe's and more BJ's, for instance. But the group that's pushing it is actually the Packaged Store Association, not one that would represent Trader Joe's and BJ's. So explain how that came to be. [00:27:08][32.2]
Jon Chesto: [00:27:09] Yeah, it's very probably seems strange on the surface in that the package store owners are actually giving their competitors more locations, but it was meant as a defensive maneuver because Cumberland Farms was agitating about bringing forth a ballot question that would have basically allowed Cumberland Farms to sell alcohol at the most, if not all of its 200 stores in Massachusetts, and also open up kind of similar expansion for other food selling chains, convenience store chains, supermarket chains, large retail chains like Walmart and Target. And so the fact that store owners figured they had to come up with a compromise to kind of blunt the that more severe ballot question. And then Cumberland Farms didn't actually file that ballot question. The package store owners have pursued it and spent a lot of money on getting this question on the ballot, even though they know now that there is no other rival ballot question from Collin Farms because they want to preclude or take the wind out of sales out of this, either preclude it from, you know, getting passed in the legislature because they could argue, well, we just dealt with this in a ballot question. We don't want to undermine the will of the people or they could box out a future ballot question if this ballot question from Cumberland Farms is ruled to be similar enough, because you have to wait actually six years before bringing forward a similar ballot question. And there's some debate, of course, about whether what companies want to do is similar to what the taxi drivers want to do. [00:28:52][102.5]
Steve Koczela: [00:28:52] So in a way, it's sort of a bit of a chess game in the sense that they're allowing or even encouraging something to pass. Now, the package stores, that is that would help their competition to avoid the prospect of something worse passing later. Is that more or less what they're trying to do? [00:29:07][14.9]
Jon Chesto: [00:29:08] That is essentially what they're trying to do is head off, even though the Cumby's ballot question did not come to be last year in time for this year's election is they fully expect that companies will be back before the legislature or may be back with another ballot question. And they still want to, they want to present a more palatable alternative and have that be essentially the ground from which everyone's playing with, as opposed to something far more severe that would drive more mom and pop retailers out of business. [00:29:41][33.3]
Steve Koczela: [00:29:42] So it seems like if they're trying to prevent the larger retailers from doing something potentially in the future, you might expect larger retailers to oppose this ballot question, but you write in your article in The Boston Globe that basically nobody has shown up to oppose this question. So where are the larger retailers on this at this point? [00:29:59][17.3]
Jon Chesto: [00:30:00] Well, everyone's pretty much staying neutral. Cumby's essentially created a ballot committee, an opposing ballot committee, but there's no money there. They did it in the off chance that their lawyers said, well, your any services you're providing are any statements you're making. You have to report that the companies is decided that it's going to stay neutral. And I think partly it's that they argue it's because, you know, there's some things in this bill that they like and some things they don't. And what they want is something completely different. If, say, they want to bring forth a ballot question and the package store owners challenge it, saying it can't go on the ballot, companies will be able to say, well, ours is very different and we didn't get involved in your fight because we had a different plan in mind. So it's still a little bit of surprising, you think that some one of these groups would say, you know, we don't agree with the expansion is too slow. We really want to open it up to everyone. But everyone stay neutral. The Retailers Association of Massachusetts has actually voted to oppose it, but they will not even go to debates on it because they are focusing all their energies on question one, which is the so-called millionaire's tax, which they feel would really hurt a lot of small businesses. So they're not getting involved. I think one of the problems is that the the trade groups, that would generally be the ones near the Food Store Association, the Convenience Store Association, the Retailers Association. They actually have members on both sides of the issue. They have packaged store owners who were members, and they have big chains that are members. And so they have some divided loyalties and it's easier or simpler just to stay neutral. Meanwhile, Cumby's has a group of retailers that it has not named, but they are sort of helping companies guide, you know, plan a future for alcohol in Massachusetts. And I assume some of those retailers are the same chains that have already got more retail licenses, but I have no way of knowing that for sure. [00:32:11][130.3]
Steve Koczela: [00:32:12] And one thing just worth noting, as you mentioned before, that the six year time horizon to file a new ballot question is substantially similar. There's some imprecision in that because we don't exactly know how that would look and what kinds of analysis might be applied to determine whether it's substantially similar. Unfortunately, we have to leave it there for the moment. Jon Chesto with The Boston Globe, thank you so much for joining us today on The Horse Race. [00:32:32][20.5]
Jon Chesto: [00:32:33] Thanks for having me. [00:32:34][0.6]
Steve Koczela: [00:32:37] And that brings us to our final segment, which I'll be taking solo this week and it is, of course, trivia. As we discussed on this week's episode, one of the ballot questions this year would amend the state's constitution. The question is, when was the last ballot question which would have amended the state's constitution and what was the proposed amendment for 10,000 trivia points? Send us your answers and we will award them next week. But for now, that is all the time we have for today. We hope you've enjoyed the beginning of our tour through the state's ballot questions. Tune in next week for more. I'm Steve Koczela, signing off for Lisa Kashinsky and Jenn Smith. Our producer, as always, is Elena Eberwein. Don't forget to give The Horse Race a review wherever you're hearing us now, subscribe to the Massachusetts Politico Playbook and reach out to the MassINC Polling Group if you need any polls done. Thank you all for listening and we will see you next week. [00:32:37][0.0]
[1838.3]