In a recent twist in the ongoing mayoral race in Boston, an anonymous text message has emerged as a focal point of controversy, particularly concerning the campaign of Michelle Wu.
The text, which carried no identifying name but included a phone number — 617-514-2857 — aimed to illuminate the implications of Wu’s decision to dismiss two City Hall employees involved in a domestic violence incident. Notably, Wu has continued to support Segun Idowu, the city’s economic chief, who was central to the heated situation.
Critics have pointed out that the real scandal may reside within the anonymity of this text, which, under current legislation, remains legal and largely unregulated.
Following the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling over a decade ago, which lifted restrictions on independent campaign spending, Massachusetts passed a law mandating disclosure for those behind campaign advertisements. However, this law primarily addresses traditional media outlets, leaving newer forms of communication—such as text messaging—largely unregulated.
Geoff Foster, the executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, a group advocating for transparent government, expressed concern over this loophole: “Any disclosure in the form of a text message is optional. From our perspective, that’s one of many loopholes dark money can still influence the opinions of voters.”
The anonymous text sent on June 12 raised eyebrows with its ambiguous nature. By not explicitly urging recipients to vote for or against a candidate, the message left many wondering about its origin: Was it from a political campaign, a media source, or perhaps from an acquaintance?
Attempts to contact the number yielded nothing but a continuous “User busy” signal. A search online through Google and phone directories proved equally unproductive. However, it became evident that many recipients were disturbed enough by the communication to lodge complaints with the Federal Communications Commission for unwanted contact.
Despite its obscure origins, evidence pointed toward a strong likelihood that the text was a political advertisement. Tracing the financial trail led to Your City Your Future, a super PAC that is heavily invested in the campaign to unseat Wu, having poured in about $2.5 million thus far.
After contacting the super PAC, a spokesperson confirmed the text was indeed from them and noted, “Your City Your Future is reaching Boston voters through all media, including text messages, and has ensured all such communications were conducted in conformance with OCPF regulations.”
Inquiries made to the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) corroborated the text’s compliance with existing regulations. While anonymous texts can be disseminated legally, any paid communication should also be outlined in campaign finance reports.
The super PAC reported spending approximately $38,000 with Mansfield-based political consulting firm Opinion Diagnostics to carry out the text messaging campaign. The firm was established by Republican consultant Brian Wynne, known for managing the reelection campaign of Governor Charlie Baker in 2018 and currently working on the gubernatorial campaign of Mike Kennealy, a former economic secretary under Baker.
Your City Your Future’s expenditures reflect an intention to exert influence over the ongoing mayoral campaign without direct coordination with Josh Kraft, Wu’s challenger. Yet it is worth noting that a spokesperson from Kraft’s campaign was aware of the text but lacked specific details regarding its origin.
In contrast, Wu’s campaign spokesperson lashed out at Kraft and his allies, accusing them of “running a Trump-like grievance campaign focused on stoking fear and confusion to buy the election.”
The proliferation of political text messages during campaign seasons has come to define modern electoral strategies, especially since the last presidential election. These texts are often designed as fundraising efforts that provide easy donation links, and their effectiveness lies in the inescapable nature of mobile communication. Alex Quilici, CEO of YouMail, emphasized that texting proves to be a cost-efficient method, “It’s not that hard to do, and it’s pretty cheap.”
Previous anonymous texts from the pro-Kraft super PAC were noted as well, including an earlier communication in May regarding Wu’s spending on renovations for White Stadium while allegedly closing local schools. This May text was distinctly marked as coming from Your City Your Future, offering a link for more information. However, the June 12 message lacked such identification, raising further questions.
As Boston prepares for what could be its most expensive mayoral race to date, constituents should brace themselves for additional anonymous communications.
When it comes to the possibility of legislative updates concerning campaign disclosure laws, state Senator John Keenan, who chairs the Joint Committee on Election Laws, suggested that any mass communication sent by registered entities or candidates should clearly reveal their source. However, crafting regulations for non-registered entities while balancing First Amendment rights remains a complex challenge.
“Those are really tough ones,” acknowledged Keenan, reflecting on the intricacies involved in fostering transparency without stifling free speech.
The issue raised by the June 12 anonymous text could potentially serve as a precedent for further discussions on campaign transparency. As retired University of Massachusetts Boston professor Maurice Cunningham remarked, it is often the legalities within political strategy that warrant scrutiny. “In politics, it isn’t what’s illegal that is the scandal,” he quoted political journalist Michael Kinsley, “It’s what’s legal.”
image source from：bostonglobe
