Whether they were familiar faces or fresh ones, candidates for Cambridge City Council at the candidate forums hosted by Cambridge Day and Cambridge Community Television agreed on one thing: Super Pacs are distorting the city’s politics.
Super Pacs, or independent expenditure-only political action committees, can spend unlimited funds in support of candidates, circumventing individual direct donation limits, which in Massachusetts are $1,000. In Massachusetts, Super PACs are called Independent expenditure PACs. Cambridge has three such PACs, A Better Cambridge, the Cambridge Citizens Coalition and Cambridge Bicycle Safety.
“The folks they endorse are accountable to the interests of the Super Pac,” said Stanislav Rivkin, a Harvard administrator who is a first-time candidate. He cited a Harvard Crimson article noting that the last city councillor to be elected without the endorsement of at least one of the super Pacs was Quinton Zondervan in 2021. (Editor’s note: The Crimson article was recently corrected to show that Zondervan received an endorsement from Cambridge Bicycle Safety in 2021.) “You could probably take nine random people and not much is going to change on council, because the interests they serve are the same.”
John Hanratty, a retired businessman, thought the Pacs and their “extremely detailed questionnaires” have eliminated nuanced discussion of issues. “If you’re not all the way in, you’re not part of that group. It really stifles a lot of conversation.”
The Pacs have created divisiveness within the community, vice mayor Marc McGovern said, and “it’s going to take all of us to bring even the temperature down locally.”
Louise Venden said she has been involved with the housing super Pacs, the ABC and CCC, and that their leaders “share values. We should create bridges.” Instead, she thought they created an environment where “people [on the council] were afraid to vote against multifamily even though it was done too quickly and not well thought out.” A multifamily zoning ordinance enacted by the council Feb. 10 allows for four-story buildings to be built as-of-right in all residential areas, with an additional two-story bonus for buildings with inclusionary units on lots of more than 5,000 square feet, among other zoning changes.
Elizabeth Bisio, an aspirant to City Council, said “People value multifamily and affordable housing, but are concerned about impact and unintentional consequences. When you talk to people, they have more similarities than differences, but in public comment you’re not hearing that. And the Pacs exacerbate that.”
Policy with the personal
The forums, recorded at CCTV’s studio on Massachusetts Avenue on Saturday, featured 13 of the 20 candidates for the nine council seats. The number of candidates meant they could not all participate in a single forum. Candidates self-selected based on their schedules, which resulted in one forum that was mostly incumbents and one that featured mostly aspiring councillors. Some invitees, including incumbents Sumbul Siddiqui, Patty Nolan and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, sent regrets that due to conflicts they were unable to attend. The forums were moderated by Marc Levy, Cambridge Day senior editor, and Niko Emack, a board member of Cambridge Day’s parent organization, Cambridge News.
The first panel had seven aspirants – Bisio, Rivkin, Venden, Al-Zubi, Dana Bullister and Zion Sherin – and one incumbent, Burhan Azeem. The second featured two challengers, Hanratty and Robert Winters, and incumbents McGovern, Ayesha Wilson and Cathie Zusy.
Though the forums were about who the candidates were and what drew them to run for office, policy disagreements did emerge. The first panel saw sparring over the demise of the Rise Up Cambridge program, which gave a guaranteed income to lower-income Cambridge families for 18 months; and the closing of the 58-bed Transition Wellness Center for the unhoused in Spaulding Hospital; the second featured a “spicy” interchange among several incumbents over multifamily housing.
Disagreement over disagreements
Al-Zubi wept when talking about the closing of the Transition Wellness Center, whose residents she had worked with as an organizer. She said they had abruptly lost access to food, health care and services they gained in that space. “I’m emotional about it because our city is not centering neglected people,” she said.
In the second session, the strongest feelings came in discussing the 8-1 vote by the City Council approving zoning changes in favor of multifamily housing. Zusy, the lone vote against the zoning shifts, said “I’m hoping there will be some new energy brought to the council with this election. I think there’s a lot of groupthink on the council. A lot of people wed to certain ideologies and not thinking beyond the ideology.”
Her comments drew a self-described “spicy” response from McGovern, who, clearly rankled, said “for you to say that certain councillors just get ideological and don’t think about the whole picture or are not thoughtful is pretty insulting to your colleagues. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them an ideologue.”
Fellow councillor Wilson more gently chided Zusy, and ended up inviting her for coffee.
Fresh faces
Incumbents were often accused of being too similar in perspective. Azeem, the lone incumbent at the first forum, was often put in the role of having to defend the council, which he said “does a good job of disagreeing and then coming to agreement. We try to get to a place that’s consensus-oriented. That wasn’t always the case.”
The question arose of whether there was a need for fresh faces on the council. Azeem pointed out that the council has seen substantial turnover, and now averages about four years of service among its members.
Winters, who was not born in Cambridge but had even native son McGovern deferring to his encyclopedic knowledge of Cambridge political history, said the council could sometimes decide to pursue “the shiny new thing, and sometimes the shiny new thing is going to get tarnished pretty quickly.” He said it was important to bring in new perspectives.
Bullister said the council “could benefit from fresh ideas. There is some value for being outside of the political sphere. You get to see the water in which everyone swims.”
Sherin is 24 but said what’s key is “you need to know what you don’t know, and you need to know who knows it. I know I can get mentors who have been longtime residents.” He also noted that being from elsewhere can mean bringing useful ideas – he lived in Ithaca, New York, which has developed an effective method for dealing with some of the bike-related parking issues Cambridge is still trying to get a handle on.
Role of the councillors
Bisio said that the council members can’t be experts at most things “but are supposed to ask good questions,” especially when interacting with the city’s professional staff.
People “want ideas, fresh ideas, somebody who represents my experience in life,” Hanratty said. “Are we working on the right things, the right priorities? Does this represent my values? Those are the things they’re looking for.”
Wilson, who is in her first term, says that it has been eye-opening to come to the council after having been on the School Committee. She said “I may not have a planning degree … but I have a Ph.D. in advocacy. And I can open up eyes to” new perspectives.
While every candidate had things they wanted to see changed, all would probably agree with Bullister that “We’re a special place.”
CCTV hosts videos of forum 1 and forum 2 on its website.
End-of-forum boosts
During end-of-forum lightning rounds, attendees were asked to offer endorsement or support among local businesses or organizations. Here’s what they shouted out:
Al-Zubi: Cambridge’s struggling artists – and finding affordable housing for them. And Andala Coffee House, a Palestinian-owned business in Cambridgeport by Central Square.
Azeem: The mocha at the 1369 Coffee House in Central and Inman squares and the latte at Satellite, a bar in Inman Square.
Bisio: Jamie’s ice cream, for its sorbet and amazing flavors.
Bullister: Cantab Lounge, with its mix of people from college kids to people in their mid-90s, is a reason to love Central Square, along with The Middle East and Phoenix Landing, which does so much.
Hanratty: Small businesses, which need nurturing.
McGovern: So many nonprofits he couldn’t pick just one – though Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee does get a mention – and Bagelsaurus (where he has a family tie: a sister in-law).
Rivkin: Sofra, with its pastries and baklava. The Concord Avenue Cafe, with its Taiwanese-inspired menu. And the Community Arts Center, a treasure of our community.
Sherin: Nonprofits such as The Dance Complex, Cambridge Community Center and Multicultural Arts Center.
Venden: The Foundry creativity hub’s programs, workshops and classes.
Wilson: Bred Gourmet in The Port. The restaurant specializing in smoked burgers is struggling, like many, one year in. And Paddy’s Lunch, the North Cambridge institution.
Winters: The Central Square Business Improvement District, which created Starlight Square but is quietly re-creating its energy and doing a lot to defeat pessimism about empty storefronts.
Zusy: Somerville-Cambridge Elder Services.
Levy: The hot chocolate at Simon’s, in Neighborhood 9 near Porter Square.
Emack: The student-athletes who rep Cambridge and its values, staff at Danehy Park and the people at Cambridge Community Television.
This post was updated Sept. 23, 2025, to correct that Super Pacs cannot give money directly to candidates and to clarify the formal name Massachusetts gives super Pacs.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
“Super Pacs, or independent expenditure-only political action committees, can give unlimited funds to candidates, circumventing individual donation limits, which in Massachusetts are $1,000. Cambridge has three such PACs, A Better Cambridge, the Cambridge Citizens Coalition and Cambridge Bicycle Safety.”
These reads to me as if the *purpose* of forming an IEPAC is to circumvent those limits, rather than it being the only legal way for advocacy groups to participate in electoral politics via signs, mailers, etc.
A Better Cambridge (ABC, no “the”) voluntarily (and verifiably – it’s all public data) limits individual donations to $500. Meanwhile another IEPAC got over $15k from just a single Cambridge address over 3 years, and has almost certainly received more from that address since. They’re both IEPACs, but I think those are meaningful differences in how they raise funds!
I appreciate the article and also think it would have been appropriate to include more detail and context.
I like how Hanratty, while claiming questionnaires eliminate nuanced discussion, still admitted they were “extremely detailed”.
An important topic, no doubt. But it’s strange that the piece omits donations by developers, their lawyers, architects, construction unions, and others who benefit directly from Cambridge’s building boom. Historically, these business interests have had far more impact than the PACs mentioned here. All of these donors, especially those who live outside of Cambridge, tend to pull our City Council away from what’s best for our residents
Given that there are pretty much three local IEPAC groups (CBS, ABC, and CCC) who generally raise a small amount of funds locally for printing mailers and flyers and some administrative help but are for the most part all local volunteers, it would have ben fair for to simply reach out to these three groups for comment. There aren’t other mechanisms for people in Cambridge to collect and spend money around a political campaigns and issues and the city council election really matter: zoning and bike lanes in particular. The presidents and treasurers of all three organizations are local and readily available to answer questions or concerns and ABC and CBS ensured all surveys are sent to every candidate with ample opportunity to add nuance to their positions. Survey responses are published on websites regardless of whether a candidate was endorsed. This article is insinuating something more nefarious than people organizing and raising funds to print cards to support a shared goal.
I have to agree with Peter Glick on this one. Where the developers are throwing their money and at who (and which ones are throwing money into the PACs) is a big deal.
I know that I will seriously think AGAINST supporting or voting for candidates that are taking developer money or endorsed by the PAC system as NEITHER is in the interest of the long term residents of this city like myself . After 28 years I’ve learned that we can’t trust those organizations or the developers.
Rapidly made legislation which is not examined by people with a critical eye can easily result in disasters that disrupt the neighborhoods community feel.
Joe and Peter,
I believe Ayah, Dana, Stan and Zion are the only candidates I know not taking money from developers.
To my knowledge all incumbents along with Tim and Ayah have received PAC money. I would love Cambridge Day to do a report on candidates finances as a whole.