Committee for Small Government

Looking back on Tuesday's election, some of the most surprising results statewide came on the ballot questions. After studying the returns, several analysts said a mixture of factors - from the money each a campaign spent, to the interest in the presidential election, to well-run campaigns - contributed to the defeat of Question 1 and successes of Questions 2 and 3.

Question 1, which would have abolished the state income tax, failed by a 40 percent point margin, according the Boston Globe. The ballot measure the decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, Question 2, passed by 30 percentage points. The third ballot question, which prohibits dog-racing in the state had a margin of victory of 12 points. All of these results exceeded expectations set by the most recent polls.

Rob Gray, a Boston Republican strategist, said money played the biggest role in the results.

"Money was the major factor across all of these ballot questions, with their being on the ballot in a presidential election year running a close second," he said. "Presidential elections bring higher liberal and Democratic turnout in Massachusetts plus the addition of more casual voters to the mix, making the defeat of Question 1 and passage of Questions 2 and 3 - the ‘liberal' choices - far easier."

The Coalition for our Communities, the group opposing Question 1, said Tuesday night that Massachusetts voters cast their ballots against the measure because they understood the devastating effects it would have on the state budget.

With 79 percent of precincts reporting, Question 1, the ballot measure that would eliminate the state income tax, is trailing 69 percent to 31 percent. The Boston Globe has projected that the measure will fail.

Steve Crawford, a spokesman for the Coalition for our Communities, said Massachusetts voters cast their ballots "to support safe streets, fiscal responsibility, a quality healthcare system and vibrant communities."

The organization opposing Question 1 sent out personalized mailers this week and plans to run a user targeted web advertisement on Boston.com Monday, according to a spokesman for the campaign.

Both the mailer and Monday's ad are designed to inform voters how much Question 1's success would cost specific cities and towns.

Steve Crawford, a spokesman for the Coalition for our Communities, told PolitickerMA.com Sunday that every mailer was personalized to use the recipient's name and his or her city or town. On the back of the mailer, the mailer displays how much that city or town's local aid would be cut if Question 1, the ballot measure that would abolish the state income tax, succeeds.

The organization opposing Question 1 has a significant cash advantage over the group supporting the measure, according to the most recent financial reports filed with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance.

The Coalition for our Communities, which opposes the anti-tax ballot question, reported raking in more than $2.4 million between Oct. 2 and Oct. 15 and finished the period with $845,000 in its bank account.

The Committee for Small Government, which supports the measure, raised nearly $26,000 and finished the period with $51,000 in its coffer.

The Committee for Small Government said Tuesday that Steve Forbes has endorsed its effort to abolish the state income tax with Question 1 on the November ballot.

Steve ForbesIn an editorial set to run in Forbes magazine next Monday, Forbes, a wealthy businessman and publisher of the magazine, said the measure will serve as a necessary wake-up call to the Democratic establishment in the Bay State.

"The reason the measure stands even a chance of passing is not that Bay State citizens are selfish (even though each would enjoy on average an additional $3,700 of income) but that they are angry," Forbes writes, according to an email sent by the Committee for Small Government obtained by PolitickerMA.com. "This is an attack on political establishments there and throughout the U.S. that routinely put their own interests above those of their constituents: lavish government pensions with payouts that would bankrupt private companies; resistance to genuine reform in Medicaid spending, which has become the biggest item on virtually every state's budget; ever more pork-barrel spending; and ever more obsequiousness to rapacious special interests."

The organization that supports Question 1 said Tuesday that it has spent all of its money on five "hard-hitting, persuasive ads," according to a newsletter sent to supporters obtained by PolitickerMA.com.

The Committee for Small Government, the group that got the anti-tax measure on the November ballot, told supporters the $47,700 was all it had left so it doesn't have enough money for a $160,000 ad buy it had planned.

"[W]e paid $47,700 for advertising," Carla Howell and Michael Cloud, the committee's leaders, wrote. "It was every dime we had. We are out of money. Flat broke."

Carla Howell, the leader of the effort behind Question 1, called for a debate with the president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, an organization that Howell accused of being the force behind the effort to defeat the anti-tax ballot measure.

Howell is the chairwoman of the Committee for Small Government, the organization that collected signatures to get Question 1, which would abolish the state income tax, on the ballot this year. In a release, Howell's committee charged that the Massachusetts Teachers Association has contributed $296,161.32 to the Coalition for our Communities, the committee seeking to defeat the measure. Consequently, Howell wants to debate Anne Waas, the Massachusetts Teachers Association's president.

"We would like to debate the people who are really behind Question 1 - the unions," Garrett Quinn, a spokesman for the Committee for Small Government, told PolitickerMA.com.

Opponents of Question 1, the ballot measure that seeks to abolish the state income tax, began running a TV ad this week emphasizing what they say the effects of approving Question 1 would be.

"When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is," the narrator of the ad says. "So don't be fooled by Question 1. Doing away with the state income tax is just too risky."

Repealing the state income tax, the ad's narrator goes on to say, would "slash the state budget by 40 percent." It would also cause cuts to school, healthcare, police and firefighter budgets.

Question 1, the ad also says, would cause property taxes to rise and "drastic cuts" in services.

Here is the ad. More after the jump.

As Election Day approaches and the rhetoric on both sides of the issue heats up, PolitickerMA.com is keeping a running tally of where State House candidates stand on Question 1, the ballot measure that seeks to abolish the state income tax.

To see the list click here, and be sure to check back in for updates.

Have we missed anyone? Send tips and updates to jeremy.jacobs@PolitickerMA.com

Opponents of Question 1 responded to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation report Monday, saying that voting to repeal the state income tax would be "reckless."

"The study released today by the highly regarded Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation confirms our worst fears," said Peter Meade, chairman of the No on Question 1 campaign. "Question 1 would have a huge, negative impact on our economy and the future of Massachusetts."