FOR ALL OF THE money wealthy donors from private equity and the investment world have splashed on changing how Massachusetts elections work, Question 3 is, at least for now, no longer the most expensive ballot question.

An early-October burst of spending by opponents of an attempt to eliminate the recreational marijuana industry has pushed the total amount spent on that measure (Question 8) to nearly $6.5 million. That’s a good chunk more than the $5.9 million spent for and against the all-party primary question so far.

Facing the prospect of their business being deemed illegal, the marijuana industry has mustered the financial cavalry. Opponents have already spent more than $2.8 million urging voters to reject the measure, more than twice as much as both sides have spent arguing their cases for whether to keep or spike a 2024 gun control law.

The campaign pushing the anti-pot question is far more centralized. More than $3.7 million so far, almost all of the money behind the effort, came from a single source: SAM Action Inc., a Virginia-based nonprofit that exists primarily to oppose the recreational marijuana industry.

That’s nearly twice as much as any other entity has put behind a single Massachusetts question this cycle. The second-largest contributor so far is the Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance, a coalition of business groups that has so far provided $1.9 million in in-kind contributions, mostly to kick-start the campaign to overhaul the state’s tax cap and rebate formula.

Altogether, campaigns supporting or opposing the nine statewide questions on the ballot spent more than $25 million, including in-kind contributions, through October 15, the end of the most recent reporting period. The total is still well short of the record $70 million spent on the four questions on the ballot in 2022, but spending tends to be backloaded heavily to the weeks immediately before the election, so it’s still possible 2026 breaks into new territory.

DOJ’s federal election monitors to be in Lowell, Boston again on Nov. 3

The US Department of Justice is planning to send election monitors to polling sites in two Massachusetts cities — Boston and Lowell — on November 3, just as they did on primary election day in September, according to state election officials.

DOJ officials say it’s a routine practice meant to ensure voting rights laws are being followed, particularly in places with high volumes of non-English speakers and voters with disabilities.

“They typically go to those two cities for federal elections because they have probably the most complicated language requirements in the state,” Deb O’Malley, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State William Galvin, told CommonWealth Beacon. “In Lowell, there’s a trilingual ballot — English, Spanish, and Khmer. In Boston, there are bilingual ballots, but they have three different versions — Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese.”

The move comes as the DOJ announced their goal of dispatching 1,000 election monitors to all 50 states on election day this year — an effort that would more than double the number of federal monitors deployed during the 2022 midterms, when the DOJ under President Joe Biden sent out less than 400 monitors to polling sites. The Trump administration has made unfounded claims that a significant number of noncitizens cast votes or are on voter rolls.

The DOJ’s nonpartisan election monitoring program has spanned multiple presidential administrations, though it made headlines during the 2026 midterm primaries mainly because of an incident in Wyoming in which a local official witnessed a pair of election monitors seeking access to tabulators and asking questions about poll worker training and newly acquired election equipment — behavior Gov. Mark Gordon described as “aggressive” and “irregular.”

O’Malley said the monitors, by law, are allowed to listen, take notes, and watch the general polling process from a designated area like anyone else, but they cannot look at anyone’s ballot or talk to poll workers or voters.

During the September 1 primaries, the DOJ dispatched monitors to six states, including Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

The monitors were sent to polls in Boston, Lowell, and New Bedford, a move Gov. Maura Healey called voter intimidation, State House News Service reported. The DOJ had sent a letter to New Bedford’s election commissioner in July stating that the city was selected due to “a significant population of limited-English proficient United States citizens of voting-age in New Bedford.”

Harmeet Dhillon, assistant US attorney general for civil rights, has said that monitors are often sent into cities and counties “where there might have been some problems in the recent elections.” The state, for instance, investigated Boston’s election department after several city polling locations ran out of ballots during the 2024 election.

Greens are spending their green

For all the attention paid to what sort of influence utility companies and fossil fuel interests are able to wield this campaign season in light of Gov. Maura Healey’s evolution on natural gas, environmental groups in the Bay State are reminding us that they have plenty of cash to throw around, too.

The Environmental League of Massachusetts’s action fund, which endorsed the governor earlier this year, has spent $25,000 this year in support of Healey’s reelection bid, according to filings with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance. The group also spent $175,000 last year to boost Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s successful campaign for a second term.

Separately, a coalition of environmental groups has raised a total of $4.3 million so far to pass a ballot question aimed at increasing financial support for nature conservation and water projects in the state, according to OCPF data, though ELM isn’t involved in that effort.

The donations from ELM’s action fund come as some environmental advocates have grown concerned with Healey’s commitment to the fight against climate change as she confronts soaring energy costs that are weighing on voters’ minds — and were withholding financial support for the governor earlier this year. Healey even petitioned the Trump administration for help fast-tracking federal approvals for a small gas expansion project that she supports and left the door open for a much larger pipeline expansion proposal.