This blog reported earlier on Professor Maurice Cunningham’s unearthing of the dark money used to promote charter expansion in Massachuseets. The big donors, he learned, were wealthy Republicans, and of course, Question 2 is being de eptively marketed as a means of “improving public schools. Passage of Question 2 would in fact give a stamp of approval to privatization of public schools and enable the establishment of more privately managed charters.
Now even the Boston Globe, which has consistently covered charters favorably, reports that the money behind Question 2 is hidden from public view.
“A new $2.3 million ad boosting the expansion of charter schools in Massachusetts lists the campaign’s top five donors on screen, in accordance with state law. But the singularly bland names, including Strong Economy for Growth and Education Reform Now Advocacy, give no hint of who is writing the checks.
“Four of the five donors to the procharter committee are nonprofit groups that do not, under state law, have to disclose their funders, allowing the individuals backing the effort to remain anonymous.
“The cloak of secrecy surrounding the financing of what could be the most expensive ballot campaign in state history has frustrated election officials and underscored the proliferation of untraceable money in political races across the country.
“Would we like to see every donor disclosed? Absolutely,” said Michael J. Sullivan, the director of the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance. “But the statute does not provide for it at this point. This dark money issue is a puzzle that every state is facing right now.”
Spending to push Question 2 is expected to exceed the $15.5 million spent by gambling interests to block efforts to ban casinos.
The Globe interviewed Professor Cunningham and listed the major groups funding the pro-charter campaign, most of which are funded by billionaires and hedge fund managers.

Exposure is the best way to counteract this push for Vouchers.
LikeLike
Speculation about Dark Money Motivations:
First, neither republican nor democratic principles are averse to education-of-all. It’s when those principles morph in people’s minds to merely mean money, class, oppositional party-identity and power-hoarding at the top that “parties” and “dark money” funders become corrupt. Here, the divisions between rich and poor and the various class distinctions that are directly linked to that division, come to form and guide our thinking: Protect our money and position at all costs. When that occurs, education and its link to enfranchisement of the poor (black, “foreign,” etc.) becomes anathema to those in power, as does “government intervention and regulations” when they are indeed “for the people.”
But the power of “dark money” interests cannot DIRECTLY kill the beast that is (to them) public entities like education. That would be too obvious. Rather they have to starve it first–by separating education away from truly-public principles.
So . . . they do everything they can to:
(1) make all-things-public education look bad.
(2) make all-things-privatization look good.
(3) seek to de-fund all-things-public education (starve it).
(4) pour dollars into privatization of schools.
(3) make government regulation look bad.
(3a) or: gain power to write and rewrite them.
(4) make self- or no-regulation look good.
(5) put the argument to unaware voters while diverting attention when possible.
(6) take control of education and, thus, of the subtleties of enfranchisement of voters that threaten the drawing of power to the top (voter suppression tactics in the short term).
Under such corrupt thinking, ongoing PUBLIC education is no longer for the security, dynamism, and creativity of a democratic nation and its ongoing dialogue. It’s rather seen as anathema to those who have become cut-off from the original principles of the party. Maybe dark money funders know it, maybe they don’t. But it happens to be the case.
So there are:
(1) some who really believe public ed is “going to the dogs” and want good education (Diane points to contrary data, but who is listening in this group?
(2) some who don’t care.
(3) some who have a great stake in “starving” and then killing the beast that is open education for all or by inference: democracy as such. (demos=people, crasis=power).
To wealthy donors: why don’t you support public education to help make it the sterling centerpiece of the democracy that (1) it should be and still is in some cases; and that (2) probably had a good deal of influence in your making your wealth; and (3) that you claim to endorse and love?
LikeLike
Lest charter school antagonists get too uppity on this particular high horse… watch for the pebbles below…
From that same Globe article:
“And in the 2013 Boston mayor’s race, a super PAC called One Boston launched a $500,000 ad to help Martin J. Walsh, a former labor leader who at the time was trying to show he was not beholden to unions. Only after Walsh won the race did the American Federation of Teachers acknowledge that it paid for the ad after routing the money through a nonprofit called One New Jersey.”
I remain curious how much fertilizer the teachers union are spreading on the grassroots groups that are out front it its campaign. Remarkably difficult to find out much of anything about them via Guidestar…
LikeLike
Stephen Ronan,
Why did you (intentionally?) leave out this from the same article?
“Earlier this month, charter opponents initiated the air war when they launched an $800,000 ad arguing against the expansion of charter schools ……. That ad also lists its top donors, all teachers unions: the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association.
Such disclosure is REQUIRED under a 2014 state law designed to shed light on the powerful interests that bankroll election-year propaganda.
But the procharter ad is so heavily subsidized by groups that do not have to disclose their donors….”
After the 2013 ad you cited as if it was completely relevant to the concern about dark money, the law was changed so that the teachers’ unions — instead of trying to subvert that intention by funneling their money through a fake organization to disguise it — ran an ad that was clearly identified as being funded by them.
The people spending more than 3 times that money continued to use the dark money loophole to disguise who was behind the ad.
I find it odd that you are only curious about where the teachers union spends its money and when it is an ad from the same few billionaires who also fund Republican candidates and cutting funding from public schools, you give them your utmost trust that they only have the best interests of at-risk minority children at heart so no need to find out who they are.
I am a public school parent and I trust teachers’ views of public schools far more than I trust the views of right wing billionaires who are also heavily donating to Republican politicians voting to cut taxes for rich people on the grounds that poor families already get too much help from the government and are led by “welfare queens”.
Since you believe that billionaires only have the interests of low-income minority children at heart, what’s your theory about why the exact same people also donate millions to politicians who promise to cut taxes for the 1% because those poor families don’t need that food stamp money anyway? Is it because those billionaires “care” about kids and cutting their family’s benefits will “help” them the same way establishing private charter schools will “help” them?
With “friends” like those billionaires looking after their interests, at-risk families are surely celebrating their extreme good fortune.
LikeLike
So the teachers unions are interested in fair working conditions and reasonable compensation. The education reform “movement” wants to profit from education. I don’t care if the teachers union has a PAC. The teachers union is pursuing a just cause; the reformer “movement” is just profiteering. Recent history has shown that public administration of public schools is the only way to go. Privatization of public school administration has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried.
LikeLike
Stephen Ronan,
You left out what came next in the article:
“Earlier this month, charter opponents initiated the air war when they launched an $800,000 ad arguing against the expansion of charter schools ……. That ad also lists its top donors, all teachers unions: the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association.
Such disclosure is REQUIRED under a 2014 state law designed to shed light on the powerful interests that bankroll election-year propaganda.
But the procharter ad is so heavily subsidized by groups that do not have to disclose their donors….”
After the 2013 ad you cited (as if it was relevant to the concern about dark money), the law was changed and the teachers’ unions — instead of trying to subvert that intention by funneling their money through a fake organization to disguise it — ran an ad that was clearly identified as being funded by them.
The people spending more than 3 times as much as the teachers’ union continued to use the dark money loophole to disguise who was behind their pro-privatization of public schools ad.
I am a public school parent and I trust teachers’ views of public schools far more than I trust the views of right wing billionaires who are also heavily donating to Republican politicians voting to cut taxes for rich people on the grounds that poor families already get too much help from the government and are led by “welfare queens”.
Since you believe that billionaires only have the interests of low-income minority children at heart when they (in secret) run ads demanding more funding for private charter schools, what’s your theory about why the exact same people also donate millions to politicians who promise to cut taxes for the 1% because those poor families don’t need that food stamp money anyway? Is it because those billionaires “care” about kids and cutting their family’s benefits will “help” them the same way establishing private charter schools will “help” them?
With “friends” like those billionaires looking after their interests, at-risk families are surely celebrating their extreme good fortune.
LikeLike
Let’s dispose of the despicable vernacular “edupreneur” for those parasitic hedge-fund managers preying on the nation’s public education budget (which exceeds the national defense budget)and label these privatization predators profiteering from our children for what they truly are: the “edumafia” or better yet, the “eduprostitutes.”
LikeLike
I know NY has a huge finance sector but it is amazing how much of the money marketing charters comes from finance sector companies.
That entire list of donors is finance sector. Why are THESE COMPANIES,THAT sector, so focused on privatizing public schools? We’re really supposed to believe that this is wholly about “great schools”? Do they do anything else in NY or Massachusetts other than finance? Where are those donors? Why aren’t they promoting school privatization?
LikeLike
The finance sector is the only sector in NYC that creates astonishingly rich people.
LikeLike
“Would we like to see every donor disclosed? Absolutely,” said Michael J. Sullivan, the director of the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance. “But the statute does not provide for it at this point. This dark money issue is a puzzle that every state is facing right now.”
When they deregulated campaign finance the public was told it wouldn’t matter because “transparency” would replace “regulation” – people would be able to find out who was behind all this marketing and thus make informed decisions.
Except they never followed thru on transparency. It’s deregulated and opaque. People literally don’t stand a chance. Even if they had hours and hours to comb thru reports and find donors and thus evaluate claims, they can’t.
It’s impossible to make any kind of informed decision. Just the blizzard of lobbying groups and names is dizzying in Ohio. An ordinary voter would need an elaborate spreadsheet and a week off and even then there would be huge gaps.
Is it any wonder people just give up and don’t believe a word of any of it?
Add to that that they’re buying think tanks and university researchers and NONE of this information is credible. One can’t rely on any of it.
LikeLike
Chiara from Ohio says: “‘transparency’ would replace ‘regulation’–Except they never followed thru on transparency. It’s (financing of charter private schools) deregulated and opaque. . . .It’s impossible to make any kind of informed decision. Just the blizzard of lobbying groups and names is dizzying in Ohio. An ordinary voter would need an elaborate spreadsheet and a week off and even then there would be huge gaps. . . . Is it any wonder people just give up and don’t believe a word of any of it?”
I am reminded of an earlier post about teaching to the impossibly-high standards in the allotted time (in Florida, I think?) In that case, teachers consistently “fail” and so they and, by implication, public education look bad to voters. And when chasing “dark money” contributors, voters are confused and “give up.”
Not only are “dark money” contributors driven by their monied interests and their bias du jour, but also in both situations above, and in the prison problem (as was pointed to by Mitchel Robinson in another post), they are involved in a concerted effort to disengage and destroy public institutions (“for the People”) and to take power away from “the people” (of/by the People). They do so, if not by intent, at least by their greed, ignorance, and arrogance. When the struggle is complete, the United States will become, in fact, a full fledged oligarchy heading for . . . what? . . but certainly not a democracy any longer.
But Chiara says: Is it any wonder people just give up . . .?” So Chiara also points to the dangerous aspect of our present situation, which makes it almost reasonable to engage in voter apathy, OR . . . to vote tor an “outsider” who trusts no one and promises to junk the whole thing, Hello! dark-money funders–in your stupidity, you are getting what you are paying for.
LikeLike
The Boston Globe also published this advertorial for charters by Liam Kerr, MA head of DFER, the morning after state Democrats voted to oppose Question 2.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/08/17/need-olympian-focus-charter-school-facts/SoafkIi6WPNIR4IUzmmKEN/story.html
The Globe has lost no opportunity to denigrate the Boston Public Schools and its teachers for a very long time – perhaps 20 years. But an unlimited number of charters and charter operators across the Commonwealth seems a bridge too far in a state that cherishes and has nurtured public education.
LikeLike
Christine,
The key to this election will be an informed public. Educate the public.
LikeLike
comment in the Lowell Sun Newspaper today…. “”Great Schools Massachusetts” For the 2015 year end report 8/20/15 – 12/31/2015 Great Schools spent $305,000 to collect the signatures to get the “lift the cap” question on the ballot making five payments to J.E.F. Associates, Inc. but then there are thousands of dollars in payments to individuals for gathering signatures – many don’t even live in Massachusetts: Washington, California, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Montana, and Michigan. Did Jon Clark fly in professional signature gatherers? The cost for those clipboard holders was almost $100,000. And then there’s the $107,282.40 to National Ballot Access a “for profit” company that collects signatures for ballot initiatives. That’s a total of around $510,000. Great Schools gave the appearance the signatures were collected by parents and supporters of charter schools. “
LikeLike