The campaign to get rid of Massachusetts’ partisan primaries has a fairly consistent type of donor.
There’s $250,000 in contributions from John Connaughton, the chairman of Bain Capital, one of the world’s largest investment firms. Andrew Balson, a former Bain executive who started his own private equity firm, has given nearly $800,000, while Mark Nunnelly, another Bain alum, has chipped in a half-million dollars.
David “Randy” Peeler, who for years held a top position at Berkshire Partners, another private equity firm, has contributed more than $1 million.
They are part of a cohort of wealthy individuals with ties to various investment, private equity, and venture capital firms who have collectively contributed millions to the campaign pushing the ballot question. The donations have made the Coalition for Healthy Democracy the top-funded ballot question campaign this election cycle, though it is unclear why they are contributing in such large amounts.
Nearly $500,000 has flowed from those who identified as working for Bain Capital, records show. Another $250,000 came from others at Berkshire Partners beyond Peeler, who is listed as a senior adviser there. All told, the committee has pulled in more than $5.6 million in donations since last year.
That support has fueled attacks from the question’s opponents, who allege that the wealthy donors are trying to “buy elections” in Massachusetts.
But their exact motivations are unclear. Nor is there an apparent ideological motive. None of the committee’s top donors responded to requests for comment sent to them or their firms, including spokespeople for Bain.
Danielle Allen, a Harvard University professor who is leading the campaign, chalked up the support to “social relationships” she’s built. She called Peeler a friend she has known in the democracy reform space; he and others also put large donations behind an unsuccessful ranked-choice voting ballot question in 2020. Balson and Nunnelly are both “people who care about democracy,” Allen said.
“I’ve got a fair amount of experience organizing, and you do what an organizer does: You ask your friends to ask friends, and you keep snowballing out,” said Allen, a former gubernatorial candidate who has criticized the party nominating process.
“I have been a bulldog,” she said of her fund-raising efforts.
The proposal Allen is pitching this fall would eliminate the party primary process for state elections, and instead establish a system in which all candidates would be listed on a single primary ballot, regardless of party. Voters could vote for only one candidate; the top two vote-getters would advance to the general election.
Supporters of the measure have argued that the change would shift the power over ballot access from the Republican and Democratic party apparatuses to voters. They also say it would generate more competition in a state that’s long lacked competitive elections, particularly at the legislative level.
But opponents contend that eliminating partisan primaries would open Massachusetts elections to the influence of wealthy individuals who can spend large sums of money on their own political bids or their preferred candidates.
Some have also warned it could wipe out any chance of a third-party or independent candidate qualifying for the general election, or further diffuse the ability of Republicans — who already are a super-minority in the Legislature and hold no statewide office — to compete in November.
The ballot measure has also deeply divided Democrats around the state, and drawn opposition from the leaders of the two major political parties.
Jordan Berg Powers, the chair of the union-backed committee opposing the ballot question, said the investment-world executives’ donations are concerning because it’s a “big play to upend the system to really benefit themselves.”
“You look around the country, and you’re a private equity person, what are you worried about? You’re worried about populism from both the left and the right. You’re worried about bills that will rein in the investment you’ve made,” Berg Powers said. “They have an interest in having politicians and a system that privileges their money.”
Christian Grose, a University of Southern California political science professor who has studied the effect of his state’s “top-two” system since it was implemented in 2012, said the impact of money in California elections isn’t “any more or less than closed primary systems.”
“There’s lots of money in politics,” he said.
Allen also pushed back on the argument that a top-two system would benefit wealthy individuals. She pointed to the nonpartisan preliminary election used in Boston ahead of the general election.
“If this kind of system advantaged money, then Josh Kraft would be mayor of Boston,” Allen said, referring to Kraft’s failed 2025 challenge of Mayor Michelle Wu in which he reported spending more than $6.6 million.
Ballot question campaigns often require large sums of money to be successful, to fund signature-gathering efforts, pay attorneys to draft language, hire campaign staff, and litter television and social media with advertising.
Allen said she has worked on the all-party primaries movement for five years, and initially funded it with cash from her retirement account. State records show she gave $80,000 in September 2023 to a now-defunct campaign committee associated with the measure.
Allen’s current campaign has raised more money than the 20 other ballot question committees that are either supporting or opposing any of the nine questions slated to go before voters in November.
Many of the donors have heavily donated to past political causes that drew a mix of ideological support.
Nunnelly, the Bain alum, gave $275,000 while working in Charlie Baker’s administration to a 2016 campaign supporting an unsuccessful ballot initiative to lift the cap on the number of charter schools in the state — a measure the former governor, too, aggressively campaigned for.
Balson, the former Bain executive who is now managing partner at Cove Hill Partners, also gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to a ballot question committee supporting the charter school measure, and put at least $200,000 behind the unsuccessful ballot question in 2020 that would have implemented ranked-choice voting in the state.
Balson is also a longtime political contributor of Attorney General Andrea Campbell, giving $250,000 in 2021 to a super PAC that backed Campbell’s unsuccessful bid for Boston mayor. Nunnelly also gave the PAC $75,000, state records show.
Similar to Balson and Nunnelly, Peeler, the longtime Berkshire Partners executive, has financially supported ballot questions in Massachusetts for at least a decade, giving at least $75,000 in 2016 to the failed charter schools expansion push and $50,000 to the ranked-choice voting campaign, records show. He also gave at least $500,000 last year to American Promise, a Concord-based nonprofit focused on limiting money in politics.
Nathan Lockwood, chief of staff at Voter Choice Massachusetts, a nonprofit focused on advocating for ranked-choice voting that backed the 2020 ballot question, said Peeler holds “progressive values and a pragmatic mind.”
“He’s devoted a massive portion of his time and attention to conversation, thinking, and investing in making Massachusetts a better place — often against the preferences of his own colleagues, who would prefer he focus only on ‘other states that need it more,’ ” Lockwood said.
Other major donations to the primary ballot question include $200,000 from Paul Sagan, an adviser at General Catalyst Partners, and $100,000 each from Adam Koppel, a partner at Bain Capital, and Paul Edgerley, a senior adviser at the firm.
None of them returned requests for comment.
Adam Webster, a Massachusetts-based Democratic political consultant who is not involved with the ballot question campaign, said the wealth behind the committee feeds into the criticisms that the proposed system could ultimately benefit those with the most money.
“This,” he said of the ballot question, “is really a way to subvert the ‘small-d’ democratic grass-roots campaign process where candidates need to meet and greet voters, local elected officials, activists.”
Chris Van Buskirk can be reached at chris.vanb@globe.com. Follow him on X @byChrisVan