Max Page, the head of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, lifts up a sign for his ballot question eliminating the MCAS test as a graduation requirement. (Photo by Gintautas Dumcius)

UNIONS AND BUSINESS groups ramped up spending on November ballot questions that will have voters deciding on whether to keep the MCAS test as a high school graduation requirement, whether Uber and Lyft drivers can unionize, and whether tipped workers should make the state minimum wage, among other initiatives.

This year’s spending, which approached a total of $10 million and is fueled by contributions from supporters, was disclosed late Friday by the warring camps on opposite sides of most ballot questions. Under state campaign finance rules, the campaigns do not have to disclose their numbers as frequently as candidates for the State House and county seats.

The filings, covering five ballot questions, offer a window into the campaigns waged by both sides, which in most cases have unions on one side and business groups on the other.

The prime example of that is the ballot question on the MCAS requirement. Dubbed Question 2, the ballot initiative was proposed by the Massachusetts Teachers Association, which so far is the sole financial backer of the effort through the Committee for High Standards Not High Stakes. The Quincy-based MTA provided $2 million in “in-kind” contributions, with the union helping pay for everything from consulting to polling, advertising, signature collection, staff travel, and mailings.

The “No” side, pushed by a committee calling itself Protect Our Kids’ Future, raised $942,325, with $65,325 coming in “in-kind” contributions for “staff time” and meeting space from Education Reform Now, a group that supports charter schools; Eastern Bank; and the Massachusetts High Technology Council.

The rest of the committee’s haul, totaling $871,000, came from direct contributions. Eastern Bank CEO Bob Rivers donated $100,000, as did former state education board chair Paul Sagan, Berkshire Partners senior adviser David Peeler, Charles River Ventures founder Richard Burnes, and engineer Raymond Stata. The Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce was one of several business groups that kicked in money, with that group donating $25,000.

Question 5 would offer a minimum wage for workers who rely on tips, and is backed by a California-based nonprofit known as One Fair Wage. The group, which has boasted of having a large anonymous donor, also relied on “in-kind” contributions to cover spending on signature-gathering and consulting, to the tune of more than $214,000.

Opponents, under the banner of the “Committee to Protect Tips,” were supported by donations from restaurateurs, with the biggest donations coming from the Massachusetts Restaurant Association ($60,000) and the Hampshire House Corp. ($50,000), which is owned by businessman Thomas Kershaw and is home to the basement bar that inspired the TV show “Cheers.” The campaign committee reported raising $471,000 in total and spending $129,355, with the Massachusetts Restaurant Association also providing $537,987 in “in-kind” support to pay for polling and research, legal services, and staff time.

The union known as SEIU is the main funder behind Question 3, which would allow Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize. The union and its affiliates poured $2.5 million into the “yes” effort, plus nearly $250,000 in “in-kind” contributions, much of it for signature-gathering. The union’s donations funded focus groups, consultants, legal work, as well as additional signature-gathering. The “No” side has not yet formed a campaign finance committee to oppose the measure.

A group pushing a ballot measure (Question 1) authorizing state Auditor Diana DiZoglio to audit the Legislature reported raising nearly $88,000, far below the $300,000 it pulled in last year. Here, too, there were in-kind contributions, from the conservative-leaning Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. The group’s fundraising tapered off as it’s becoming clear that leaders of the House and Senate have no intention of mounting a campaign against the measure and will probably wait to challenge it in court if it passes.

In the battle over whether to legalize and regulate psychedelic substances (Question 4), the “in-kind” contributions pattern continues: The committee looking for a “yes” vote reported $356,220 from the New Approach Advocacy Fund and the Outreach Team, which have Washington, D.C. and New York addresses and a history of supporting legalization of cannabis. The committee spent just over $700,00.

Opponents, led by Anahita Dua, a vascular surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, did not report raising or spending any money so far this year.