The article below was originally published in the Boston Globe on June 27, 2025. Read the original article HERE.

Earlier this month, cellphones across Boston buzzed with an ominous, anonymous text. It was a photo of Mayor Michelle Wu against a rotation of bad headlines from The Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and Boston.com about a City Hall scandal.

“Did you see the news of a harassment investigation at City Hall?” read the text, sent on June 12. “A top aide to Mayor Michelle Wu is accused of making sexual advances towards a young female staff member. The young woman was fired by Wu. This story is breaking … more to come.”

There was no name attached, only a phone number — 617-514-2857 — and no way for recipients to know who sent it.

But the purpose was clear: to tie Wu to the fallout from her decision to fire two City Hall employees arrested in a recent domestic violence incident, while standing by city economic chief Segun Idowu who had been at the center of the dispute.

Yet, the real scandal may be that this anonymous text, sent to Boston voters in the midst of a heated mayor’s race, is perfectly legal and largely unregulated.

More than a decade ago, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that barred limits on independent campaign spending, Massachusetts passed a law requiring, at least, disclosure of who was behind campaign ads. But technology has long since outpaced that law, which focused on traditional outlets like TV and radio but said little about text messaging, which has become a key form of communication, and an increasingly effective one during election season.

“Any disclosure in the form of a text message is optional,” said Geoff Foster, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, a nonpartisan group that advocates for transparent government. “From our perspective, that’s one of many loopholes dark money can still influence the opinions of voters.”

The June 12 text was particularly crafty. By not asking anyone to vote for or against any candidate, the text feels ambiguous: Is it from a political campaign? A media outlet? A friend who’s not saved in your contacts?

I called the phone number several times over the course of a few days, always getting a “User busy” signal. Google and online phone directories turned up nothing useful. Enough people got the missive that complaints were filed to the Federal Communications Commission about it being an unwanted call.

But it sure smelled like a political ad. And if that was the case, there was one likely source. So I followed the money, straight to the super PAC backing Wu’s challenger, Josh Kraft — already $2.5 million deep in its quest to unseat the mayor.

A spokesperson for Your City Your Future confirmed by email that text is theirs, and without even me asking, I was told it’s in full compliance with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance.

“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,” according to the spokesperson.

I checked with OCPF, which could not comment on specific text messages but provided regulations indicating that the super PAC’s anonymous political text followed the rules. A text can be anonymous, but if a campaign has paid for a communication, that expenditure should be disclosed in a campaign finance report.

Sure enough, Your City Your Future filings show it has spent about $38,000 with Mansfield-based political firm Opinion Diagnostics to send out text messages. Opinion Diagnostics was founded by Republican political consultant Brian Wynne, who managed the 2018 reelection campaign of Governor Charlie Baker and is now working on the gubernatorial campaign of Mike Kennealy, a former economic secretary under Baker.

The pro-Kraft super PAC, per state election rules, is not allowed to coordinate with Kraft or his campaign. A Kraft spokesperson was aware of the text but did not know who sent it.

A Wu campaign spokesperson, in a statement, accused Kraft and his supporters of “running a Trump-like grievance campaign focused on stoking fear and confusion to buy the election.”

During last year’s presidential election, voters were bombarded with political texts, often fund-raising asks making it easy to donate in just a couple of clicks. Text campaigns are effective because it’s hard to ignore something on your phone, says Alex Quilici, CEO of YouMail, a company that makes software to protect consumers from robocalls.

The text campaigns are done by connecting voter registration rolls with phone numbers, and it can cost as little as two to three cents per text, said Quilici.

“It’s not that hard to do,” he said, and “it’s pretty cheap.”

The anonymous text wasn’t the first sent by the pro-Kraft super PAC. In May, Boston residents received texts about how Wu is spending close to $100 million to renovate White Stadium for Boston Public Schools athletes and a new professional women’s soccer team, while at the same time closing four schools.

That text was clearly labeled as coming from Your City Your Future and provided a link for more information. But the June 12 text, there was no such disclosure.

And with this mayoral campaign expected to be most expensive ever, voters should brace themselves for more.

As to whether lawmakers will update the campaign disclosure law to treat texts like other communications, state Senator John Keenan, who chairs the Joint Committee on Election Laws, said any entity or candidate who is registered with OCPF and sends a mass communication like a text should reveal who they are.

What’s more difficult is trying to come up with regulations for entities and individuals that are not registered while at the same time protecting their First Amendment right to anonymous political speech.

“Those are really tough ones,” said Keenan.

It would be nice if the June 12 anonymous text attacking Wu was the first and last of this campaign, and that anyone who pays for a text campaign simply discloses who’s behind it.

But barring a quick change to the law, said retired University of Massachusetts Boston professor Maurice Cunningham, who tracks dark money in politics, that’s unlikely.

“In politics, it isn’t what’s illegal that is the scandal,” he said, quoting longtime political journalist Michael Kinsley. “It’s what’s legal.”

###