Mass Priorities Looks To Shift Town Spending Through Targeted Ads; But Who Are They?
“When disaster strikes the Cape, will we be ready?”
That is one of the questions posed by a newly launched coalition of Massachusetts residents called Mass Priorities. The group is calling on local governments to prioritize improvements in water quality, education and bridge infrastructure over investments in government-owned broadband networks. It is making its message known with a half-million-dollar, three-month advertising barrage, which kicked off on October 31.
What is not clear, though, is where the freshly launched group got its money.
Mass Priorities website says that it is a project of the Domestic Policy Caucus, which its policy director Christopher Thrasher confirmed. That group, however, is not in Massachusetts or even New England—it is based in Minnesota and, according to reports and records reviewed by the Enterprise, has numerous direct ties to the lobbying industry and hard to trace, out-of-state funding, also known as “dark money.”
Mr. Thrasher himself—who is listed on the website for the Domestic Policies Caucus as its regional director and one of four board members—has ties to the lobbying industry. According to LinkedIn, he currently serves as the founder and chief executive of Ballot Access Marketing, LLC, a political consulting and lobbying firm that credits Mr. Thrasher with having “established and directed a highly specialized project management, consulting, and lobbying firm.” The group appears to be based in Washington, DC; its LinkedIn page indicates an existing location in Swansea, but the Enterprise was unable to verify an address.
Mr. Thrasher’s work experience, according to his LinkedIn profile, also includes four years as the executive director “for a non-profit independent expenditure SUPERPAC committee and policy lobbying organization.” Currently, he serves as a commissioner of Public Trust Funds in Westport and holds various additional town-appointed memberships.
Core Mission Of Mass Priorities
Mr. Thrasher told the Enterprise last week that the core mission of Mass Priorities, which he said is a “nonprofit, nonpartisan coalition” is to advocate for a shift in proposed municipal spending toward more responsible uses. That messaging, he said, is catching on.
“Our coalition includes individuals all across Massachusetts,” he said, “and our numbers have been expanding exponentially since the campaign kicked off.”
Mr. Thrasher did not respond to the Enterprise’s inquiry regarding membership size, nor did he provide an answer when asked if the coalition has a board of directors. The website for Mass Priorities has no mention of Mr. Thrasher, his role or any other individuals.
The Domestic Policy Caucus website, on the other hand, lists the following board members: Patrick Rosenstiel, chairman; Kent Kaiser, secretary/treasurer; and John Perlich, director. Mr. Rosenstiel also serves as the CEO of a Minnesota-based public relations firm called Ainsley Shea, which also employs Mr. Kaiser. The Domestic Policy Caucus, according to records reviewed by the Enterprise, shares the same St. Paul street address as the Ainsley Shea PR firm.
Mr. Rosenstiel’s listed LinkedIn experience does not include any of the initiatives, projects, or campaigns he heads, but the entry for his current role at Ainsley Shea lists “The Domestic Policies Caucus” as a client. Records reviewed by the Enterprise show that two similarly named entities exist in Minnesota—the Domestic Policy Caucus and the Domestic Policies Caucus—both of which are led by Mr. Rosenstiel.
Additionally, records from Minnesota’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board identify Mr. Rosenstiel as a designated lobbyist and the Domestic Policy Caucus as a lobbying association.
Domestic Policy Caucus And Colorado Politics
Ainsley Shea’s portfolio includes a number of political initiatives, a number of which seem to be directly connected to its CEO Mr. Rosenstiel and senior counsel Mr. Kaiser. One such project, focused on the National Popular Vote campaign, was the subject of a 2020 article by the Colorado Sun, which investigated questionable ties between that campaign (of which Mr. Rosenstiel is a board member), the Domestic Policy Caucus, and a pop-up issue committee in Colorado called Conservatives for Yes on National Popular Vote. The website for that issue committee lists its team members as Dennis Lennox, Mr. Kaiser, and Mr. Rosenstiel, and its Facebook page uses the same St. Paul street address as the Domestic Policy Caucus and Ainsley Shea.
Transactions reviewed by the Enterprise further found an additional monetary exchange from October 2020—a few months after the Sun’s article published—in which a donor, “Ainsley Shea,” located in St. Paul donated $22,500 to Conservatives for Yes on National Popular Vote.
The Sun’s reporting characterized both Mr. Rosenstiel and Mr. Kaiser as “Republican operatives” and revealed tens of thousands of dollars in untraceable donations being passed from the Domestic Policy Caucus to an issue committee chaired by its own board chairman. Ultimately, four campaign finance experts advised the Sun that the Domestic Policy/Policies Caucus could potentially be “a shell organization used to move money around and hide its origins.”
The Domestic Policy Caucus, Mr. Thrasher said, is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization made up of stakeholders from across the United States that urges responsible policy making. The group’s main focus at the moment, he said, is the Mass Priorities coalition.
A 501(c)(4) nonprofit is typically designated as a tax-exempt social welfare organization. Unlike 501(c)(3) nonprofits, however, these organizations are permitted to engage in lobbying that aligns with their mission and are generally under no legal obligation to disclose their funding sources.
Funding Source Unidentified
The Mass Priorities initiative was founded earlier this year, Mr. Thrasher said, and the group announced its launch in a press release in early October. It soon began its ad campaign, which specifically targets Cape Cod, urging local governments—especially Falmouth’s—to invest in infrastructure and schools over broadband networks.
Mass Priorities argues that building such a network and the cost of these projects is often not always fully articulated at the onset and ends up being sold to private sector companies for pennies on the dollar.
The Mass Priorities website consists of a main home page, a few blog posts, and an “about” section. It lists four “problems,” involving spending priorities in the municipalities of Falmouth, Sudbury, Dudley, Southwick, Northampton and Springfield. Despite addressing only one of Cape Cod’s 15 towns on its site, the first ad in its campaign puts a heavy emphasis on the entire Cape Cod region. Regardless, Mr. Thrasher said the campaign is also running in Boston and across Western Massachusetts.
The advertisement can be found on the Domestic Policy Caucus YouTube channel, which hosts two other political advertisements, one opposing a proposed ban on gas-fueled vehicles in Minnesota from November 2022 and another regarding “secret elections” in North Dakota, published in February 2021.
Rather than focusing on broadband networks, which Mass Priorities has dubbed “risky pet projects,” Mr. Thrasher said the group feels municipalities need to refocus priorities at a time when it is clear infrastructure is failing, water quality is continuing to degrade and budgets are facing higher costs to deliver even basic services.
“Our concerns are across the commonwealth,” Mr. Thrasher said, “but in Falmouth, for example, officials have proposed spending upwards of $70 million on a risky and unnecessary government-owned broadband network which, based on evidence, may not provide the best return on investment to its residents.”
Despite the benefits of a town-owned broadband network, he said, the negatives to taxpayers outweigh positive implications of such a project.
Mr. Thrasher cited the city of Braintree as an example. In 2021 the Braintree Electric Light Department sold its municipal broadband service to Comcast, which reportedly affected around 2,500 customers. Investments needed to maintain the quality of service would significantly increase rates, prompting the sale.
The Falmouth Broadband Municipal Light Board was created by Town Meeting voters in 2022. The board is working to establish a municipal broadband internet network in accordance with the commonwealth’s Municipal Light Board structure.
The management, structure and funding for the broadband network in Falmouth has yet to be determined, according to Samuel H. Patterson, chairman of the group.
A municipal light board is a town-owned utilities provider. Typically such boards in the state maintain and operate electric and gas services. Forty-one communities have municipal light boards. Falmouth’s will operate as an internet service provider, aimed at providing residents with a faster, more reliable fiber-optic connection. The board allows the town to control what type of broadband service is used, the contractors developing it and how it is paid for and managed.
Falmouth Light Board Inspired By FalmouthNet
The group was inspired by FalmouthNet, a nonprofit that advocated for the town to build on the pre-existing fiber-optic network offered by OpenCape that services schools, town hall and local businesses.
The Falmouth group reports to the voters that appointed it, according to town clerk Michael Palmer. The board can bring proposed initiatives to Town Meeting voters and ask that those items be placed on the townwide ballot for approval.
The group’s board has met a dozen times since its creation in May, and Mr. Patterson said members are still working on possible financial and ownership structures, which he conjectured may be some kind of a blend of a private enterprise and a government service.
“We’re not sure how it’s all going to shake out,” Mr. Patterson said.
Members have been working with interested contractors that would help construct a fiber-optic internet network around town. Mr. Patterson said it will ultimately be up to the town to determine how much of the service is owned and controlled by the town and how much will be controlled by a private entity.
Mass Priorities reported that the broadband network will cost more than $55 million, but Mr. Patterson said that is old data. With inflation, the bottom line is pushing $70 million. But the board does not want that money to come from taxes.
“[Mass Priorities] is incorrect in saying that the town is going to have to raise its taxes to pay for all of this,” Mr. Patterson said. “That’s not what we’re proposing to do.”
The plan the board is currently pursuing would require borrowing, with the bonds paid back through subscriber fees rather than taxes. Investors would take on the cost and risks associated with constructing and operating the service until subscriber fees pay off the bonds.
The board will have ground to cover in marketing the network and getting subscribers, Mr. Patterson said. But he noted that FalmouthNet began the initiative after a survey, conducted in 2020, found that Falmouth residents were dissatisfied with the existing internet services offered through only two competitors, citing slow download speeds from Comcast and older DSL technology from Verizon.
Mr. Patterson said the board hopes to proceed with the project in phases, so the cost of creating a new internet service will be distributed over time. But the business plan is not yet set in stone because the final say is with the town.