NO on 5 (State Revenue Limit)
Question 5 would tighten the state’s existing revenue cap (62F) by basing it on the net amount of state revenue from the prior year (as opposed to the revenue limit of the prior year) and subjecting constitutionally protected Fair Share revenue to the calculation of this cap. In short, it would reduce how much the state can invest in public services.
Why NO on 5
Wealthy investors and CEOs are backing this ballot initiative to tighten the state’s “revenue cap” (known as 62F) and slash funding for classrooms, hospitals, and first responders across the state. This would prevent new investments to make housing, college, and healthcare more affordable, and they’re proposing this on top of Trump’s $3 Billion in cuts to public services.
The existing cap dates to a 1986 law passed amidst the Reagan-era anti-tax wave of the 1980s. These wealthy investors and CEOs are mad that we won Fair Share, and want the state to lose that additional revenue and more.
With a stricter revenue cap, working families pay the price through reduced public services and fewer investments in their communities. When schools, healthcare, public safety, and infrastructure face repeated budget cuts, everyone feels the impact—but not everyone bears the burden equally.
To make matters worse, this ballot initiative would make it even harder for our state to recover from economic downturns, taking away the critical ability to steer our state back toward shared prosperity.
Who Is Behind Question 5?
Massachusetts’s richest residents and corporations are laundering funds through the dark money group Massachusetts Opportunity Alliance to fund the ballot committee for Question 5.
The NO on 5 effort is, by contrast, led by the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition of faith, labor, and community groups.
Write a Letter to the Editor
Adapt the template below! Or email us at issues@progressivemass.com for help!
Massachusetts is facing an affordability crisis, and Question 5 would make it even worse.
The corporate backers of Question 5 want you to think that their effort is about “affordability.” However, the wealthy investors and CEOs behind this ballot question know what it would actually do: slash funding for classrooms, hospitals, and first responders across the state and give those very investors and CEOs some extra money in their pocket.
Question 5 imposes a stricter revenue cap on the state, meaning that it will be harder for the state to invest and harder for the state to respond to economic downturns. With a stricter revenue cap, working families would pay the price through reduced public services and fewer investments in their communities. Child care could get more expensive, health care less accessible, and higher education out of reach for more Bay Staters. With steep federal cuts looming next year to health care and more, the cuts Question 5 could trigger will be dire.
Massachusetts is at our best when we invest in the foundations of our shared prosperity. Question 5 wants to pull that foundation out from under us. Please join me in voting NO.
Read More
- Learn more about the campaign at https://www.protectmassachusettsfuture.com/.
- Read more about 62F at https://tinyurl.com/about62f.
- Baxandall, Phineas. “Testimony in Opposition to the Two Anti-tax Ballot Initiatives: Cutting the Personal Income Tax & Amending Chapter 62F.” Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. March 30, 2026.