With no Republican candidates in the race, Tuesday’s Democratic primary will all but settle a fierce rematch between incumbent state Representative Marjorie C. Decker and challenger Evan C. MacKay ’19.

The two have repeatedly traded barbs in debates, newsletters, and social media posts throughout the campaign. On the eve of the primary, the attacks have grown increasingly personal.

Both candidates have turned to written statements, videos, and dedicated fact-checking pages on their campaign websites to dispute the other’s account of the race, with each accusing the other of misleading voters.

MacKay has accused Decker of being “deeply enmeshed” in a State House leadership they describe as corrupt and resistant to change, positioning themselves as an alternative to the political establishment on Beacon Hill. Decker has characterized MacKay’s campaigning as “desperate” and accused them of cherry-picking details of her legislative record to intentionally “construct a false narrative.”

Ahead of Tuesday’s election, The Crimson reviewed campaign finance records, released since Jan. 1, legislative votes, state law, financial disclosures, and statements from both candidates to assess some of the most prominent claims in the race.

Who Is Funding the Race?

Decker and MacKay have each raised six figures this year — and have frequently attacked the sources of the other’s support. In the filings reviewed by The Crimson, Decker’s latest contributor report was filed on Aug. 26 and MacKay’s latest was filed on Aug. 4.

What was said:

“My opponent has taken money from donors that build bombs, that actually own data centers,” Decker said in a July 14 candidate debate.

False as stated. MacKay accepted contributions from four donors who worked for defense contractors in 2024, including General Dynamics, BAE Systems, and Anduril, though campaign finance records reviewed by The Crimson show no such contributions this year. MacKay has also received two $250 donations this year from a donor listed as a data center technician for CoreSite. But the records do not show that the donor owns a data center, as Decker claimed.

MacKay also signed the Cambridge Democratic City Committee’s People’s Pledge, which seeks to limit outside and special-interest spending in the race.

What was said:

“Lobbyists, developers, and even billionaires are pouring money into this race on behalf of my opponent, Representative Marjorie Decker,” MacKay said in an Aug. 20 social media post.

True in substance. Campaign finance records reviewed by The Crimson show that 168 donors identified as lobbyists have given Decker a combined $33,475. Decker has also received $14,225 from donors whose listed occupations are in real estate and development.

What was said:

MacKay, citing contributions reported by the campaigns by July 31, wrote in an Aug. 17 social media post that they were “proud to be the candidate in this race who has the most support from Cambridge residents.”

Outdated information. While MacKay had donations from eight more Cambridge-based supporters than Decker as of July 31, Decker’s local support had surpassed MacKay’s by the time the post was made on Aug. 17 — when she had donations from 234 Cambridge residents, compared to MacKay’s 229.

As of Monday, Decker has reported $73,053 in donations from 252 Cambridge residents, compared to MacKay’s $64,904 from 229 residents.

Decker has far outraised MacKay outside of Cambridge, though — a signal of broader state support, fueled by her work in the legislature, she wrote in a Saturday newsletter. MacKay has blasted the amount of outside support for Decker, arguing that these donors want to defend an opaque political system on Beacon Hill. She has raised $171,392 from non-Cambridge donors, making up 70 percent of her total funding. Support from outside of Cambridge for MacKay comes in at $45,525, 41 percent of their donations.

In an Aug. 20 social media post, MacKay claimed that a “super PAC is flooding Cambridge with mailers” on Decker’s behalf.

True. Six super PACs have spent nearly $140,000 in support of Decker’s reelection, with the most generous support coming from Progressive Cambridge, an IE-PAC filed in July, created to support Decker’s reelection. The group has spent more than $118,000 on digital advertisements, mailers, and a mobile billboard truck to drive around the district. PAC support for MacKay’s campaign is substantially smaller, with one group, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, spending $8,000 in digital advertising for the challenger.

Where Does Decker Stand on Increasing Legislative Transparency?

MacKay has repeatedly championed increasing transparency and accountability in the legislature — and accused Decker of voting against efforts to do so during her nearly 13 years in office.

What was said:

“Representative Decker, unfortunately, repeatedly voted against forcing the committees to make their committee votes public,” MacKay said at the July candidate debate.

This is true, but needs context. Decker has voted against proposals that would have required fuller disclosure of legislative committee votes, including a 2021 amendment that would have made full committee votes public.

But Decker also voted for the broader 2021 rules package, which included more modest transparency reforms, including requirements to disclose aggregate committee vote totals and identify members who voted against legislation.

On her website, Decker has accused MacKay of selectively highlighting procedural votes while ignoring her support for broader rules reforms. Her campaign points to a set of 11 amendments filed by Republican Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. that nearly all House Democrats opposed.

But a separate 2021 proposal, which Decker voted against, was filed by Democratic state Representative Erika Uyterhoeven and rejected by the House in a 117-41 vote. The measure would have required committees to release the votes of their individual members.

What was said:

MacKay wrote on their campaign website that Decker has “voted to constrain the audit of the legislature.”

This needs context. In debates throughout the campaign, Decker has vocally supported auditing the state legislature — an effort led by State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, who endorsed MacKay’s campaign. In June, however, Decker voted in support of a House measure to limit the scope of the audit.

Was MacKay a Republican?

While MacKay has heavily criticized Decker’s voting record, Decker has claimed that her opponent “has no record” and repeatedly drawn attention to MacKay’s past voter registration.

What was said:

“My opponent, a former Republican, has taken a page out of the Trump playbook,” Decker said in an Aug. 15 social media post.

This is true, but needs context. In a July social media post, MacKay explained that they registered as a Republican in order to vote in primary elections in their home state of Florida — which holds closed primaries, only allowing voters to vote in their registered party’s race. MacKay said they did so to “vote for the lesser of two evils” in Florida, noting that they have never been a registered Republican in Massachusetts.

What Is Decker’s Record on Immigration Policy?

Decker has touted her efforts to pass the PROTECT Act — a law curbing state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, which was signed into law Aug. 5 — as one of her biggest legislative wins this cycle. MacKay has criticized the law for not going far enough to protect immigrants.

What was said:

MacKay called the PROTECT Act “watered down” in a statement on their website, and has criticized the bill for maintaining an “active 287(g) contract enacting a formal collaboration with the federal government for immigration enforcement.”

This needs context. The PROTECT Act prohibits state and local law enforcement from entering into new agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but allows the state’s only existing agreement to continue. Renewal or expansion of the agreement, which allows Department of Correction employees to carry out limited federal immigration enforcement duties, will require approval from the governor.

The bill incorporates legislation Decker had previously filed, barring state-level courts and the Registry of Motor Vehicles from voluntarily sharing information with ICE.

What Do Decker and MacKay Do Outside of Their Campaigns?

Both candidates have also scrutinized the other’s employment and activities outside the campaign.

What was said:

“Representative Decker, you seem to have two full-time jobs: one as a legislator, and another doing something that has earned you at least $100,000 a year from the law firm Berman Tabacco,” MacKay said in a prepared question at the July debate.

This is partially true. Decker has worked as the director of community affairs for Boston-based law firm Berman Tabacco since 2016, while serving as a state legislator. However, neither Decker nor the firm has publicly disclosed how many hours she spends at Berman Tabacco per week, or her salary — disclosing on required ethics forms only that she earns at least $100,001 annually.

Decker had largely avoided a public spotlight on her position at the firm prior to this cycle, filing required disclosures with the state with sparing detail about her responsibilities for the firm. But, in her Saturday newsletter, she claimed to be “proud of that work because it connects individuals with people who can help them stand up to powerful corporate interests.”

What was said:

“They’re just waiting to finish up their Ph.D. before they start private law school that they’ve already been accepted into,” Decker said during the same debate, “Not all of us can afford to be sent to Harvard for 11 years and then take a break while we campaign.”

Misleading. MacKay has primarily been a student at Harvard since September 2015, but they are also enrolled in a joint JD-Ph.D. in Sociology and Social Policy, which they paused to run their campaign. After completing their bachelor’s and concurrent master’s degrees at Harvard in 2019, MacKay spent one year at the University of Cambridge before returning to Harvard in September 2020. MacKay also works as a resident tutor and undergraduate advisor in Currier House and previously served as the president of the Harvard graduate students’ union.

—Staff writer Shawn A. Boehmer can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at shawnb.18. Follow him on X @ShawnBoehmer.