A group backing a ballot question that would decriminalize psychedelics for mental health treatments raised more than $4.2 million from out-of-state donors over the past two years as other campaigns reported millions in contributions from beyond the Bay State’s borders, according to state campaign finance data.

The dollars, cataloged in a compilation of mid-October reports published by the Office of Campaign and Political Finance Friday, show the extent to which interest groups and individuals outside Massachusetts have continued to wade into the fight over consequential voter-approved policies.

Massachusetts for Mental Health Options, which supports a policy that would allow those 21 and older to purchase psychedelics for use at licensed facilities, collected 72% of its dollars from out-of-state donors as of mid-October, the records show.

The group has pitched Question 4 as a key way to address mental health issues among veterans and received $500,000, its single largest donation so far in 2024, from the California-based Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies.

The contribution drew condemnation from opposition group The Coalition for Safe Communities, which slammed the association’s founder, Dr. Rick Doblin, in a statement earlier this month.

Massachusetts for Mental Health Options also took in $285,070 in July from The Outreach Team, an Ithaca, New York-based progressive organization, and $100,000 in October from William Sterling, a Texas-based rancher, according to state data.

The ballot question also accepted $250,000 in October from All One God Faith, the California-based company that does business as Dr. Bonner’s, the organic soap and personal care products producer. That comes after Dr. Bonner’s donated $1 million to the cause last year.

A spokesperson for Massachusetts for Mental Health Options said the campaign has received contributions as small as one dollar from dozens of individuals who “are extremely passionate about finding new pathways to health for themselves and anyone else who feels like they are out of answers.”

“The bulk of our expenditures went toward ballot access, a resource-intensive process that often requires spending outside the means of the countless veterans, terminal patients, and others who are determined to find solutions to this mental health crisis,” the spokesperson said in a statement to the Herald.

Question 4 continued: Psychedelic opponents also have ties outside Massachusetts

The Coalition for Safe Communities is no stranger to out-of-state dollars either.

The opposition group has raised nearly all of its cash, or 93%, from a contribution from Sam Action, Inc., an Alexandria, Virginia-based group that is opposed to drug legalization policies, according to state filings.

The organization is tied to SAM, the non-profit founded by former Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy; David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush; and Kevin Sabet, a former White House Office of National Drug Control Policy advisor under the Bush, Obama, and Clinton administrations.

A spokesperson for The Coalition for Safe Communities said comparing fundraising between supporters and opponents is “like comparing apples to uranium.”

The proponents, the spokesperson said, have “received over two-thirds of its funding from venture capital firms and partners who have a direct financial stake in growing the psychedelics market and from an organization that openly brags about using veterans as a publicity ploy to serve their own agenda.”

“The Coalition for Safe Communities has received contributions from a national organization that openly advocates for health and safety measures when talking about drugs,” the spokesperson said.

Jerold Duquette, a professor of political science at Central Connecticut State University and co-author of the MassPoliticsProfs blog, said voters should not automatically think out-of-state money is bad.

“I think it’s incumbent upon a reasonable voter to not just assume it’s bad, but to give it a chance by looking at the authenticity and also whether it is on the merits rather than a self-interest,” he said in an interview with the Herald.

Question 2: MCAS opposition draws money from New York

An effort to remove the MCAS as a graduation requirement for high school students in Massachusetts is so far the most expensive ballot question fight this election and the group opposing the issue has raised more than half of its money from outside the state.

The Protect Our Kids’ Future: Vote No on 2 Committee raised $5.1 million as of Oct. 20, of which 53%, or $2.7 million, came from outside the Bay State. Nearly all of that is attributed to a $2.5 million donation from Michael Bloomberg, the New York-based billionaire and Medford native, according to state records.

But other organizations and individuals from out-of-state have also shuttled dollars to the opposition campaign like Education Reform Now and its affiliated advocacy group, Education Reform Now Advocacy.

Both are based in New York and have donated $48,000 and $50,000, respectively, campaign finance data shows. The organization maintains a chapter in Massachusetts, which is a founding member of the opposition group.

A spokesperson for Protect Our Kids’ Future: Vote No on 2 said the support the campaign has received from a “variety” of donors stands in contrast to the group pushing the question, the Massachusetts Teachers Association.

“We appreciate the support of fierce advocates for our children, and for their support of our broad and bipartisan coalition of Massachusetts teachers, parents, education and business organizations, and elected officials in opposition to Question 2,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Question 5: Tipped worker question opponents haul in $1M from out-of-state

Another group, The Committee to Protect Tips, is opposing a ballot question, Question 5, that would gradually raise the sub-minimum wage for tipped workers over five years. It also allows employers to combine all tips into a “pool” to distribute to all workers, including those who are non-tipped.

The committee has raised $2.7 million as of Oct. 20, of which nearly $1 million, or 35%, has come from out-of-state entities, according to state campaign finance data.

That includes $500,000 this year from the Darden Corporation, a Florida-based group that owns restaurant chains like Olive Garden and Ruth’s Chris Steak House, according to state data.

A spokesperson for the committee said all of the money it has raised came from businesses and associations with a presence in Massachusetts.

“They pay property, meals, and payroll taxes in Massachusetts. And, collectively they represent tens of thousands of employees who earn a living and pay income taxes here. Each of them knows the devastating impacts Question 5 will have on neighborhood restaurants, servers, and bartenders and we are grateful for their support,” the spokesperson said.

Question 3: Unions say accounting explains out-of-state dollars

United for Justice, the committee asking voters to approve a question granting app-based drivers for companies like Uber and Lyft the right to unionize, reported raising $6.3 million exclusively from out-of-state entities, campaign finance data shows. This is ballot Question 3.

The organization is backed by SEIU 32BJ, a property services union with a heavy presence in Boston, and has drawn its largest donations — two separate $2 million contributions — this year from Washington, D.C.-based SEIU International.

But the campaign said its funding has largely come from the 120,000 members it represents in Massachusetts and is only reported as out-of-state by regulators because of how the union processes dues and donations through its regional apparatus.

“Those Massachusetts-based workers and families contribute funding for campaigns backed by their union to expand and improve union rights and public services within key industries,” Roxana Rivera, assistant to the SEIU 32BJ president, said in a statement.

Michael Foley, marketing director and bartender at J.J. Foley’s, speaks during a press conference in opposition to Question 5. (Nancy Lane/Boston Herald)

Massachusetts ballot Question 3 asks voters to let rideshare drivers, like those for Uber and Lyft, to unionize. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images/TNS)

Boston, MA – Combat veteran James Cunningham joins supporters of No on Question 4 to speak outside the State House. (Nancy Lane/Boston Herald)