Private equity and venture capital executives are bankrolling the super PAC working to unseat Sen. Ed Markey and elect Rep. Seth Moulton in Massachusetts’ Sept. 1 primary, FEC filings show, with the largest checks coming from partners at Bain Capital, Berkshire Partners, and Insight Partners. More than 20 donors from the two industries have given more than $1.6 million to the super PAC, called Advance Progress, together accounting for over 40% of its total receipts.
Richard Wells, a director at Insight Partners, gave $400,000 across two donations. David Peeler and Robert Small, both of Berkshire Partners, gave a combined $350,000. Joshua Bekenstein and Christopher Gordon of Bain Capital gave $175,000 combined.
This finance industry support comes as Markey has pushed to eliminate a tax break that benefits private equity and venture capital fund managers. Markey is an original co-sponsor of the current Senate bill to close the carried interest loophole, which allows investment managers to have some of their compensation taxed at the lower capital gains rates. While Moulton said he supports closing the loophole in a tax plan he released while running for president in 2019, in his more than a decade as a member of the House, he has never cosponsored any of the standalone Carried Interest Fairness Acts introduced during his tenure, including the current House bill.
The PAC also received a $180,000 transfer in July from MA Progress Action, a 501(c)4 nonprofit also known as MA Advance Progress that doesn't disclose its own donors. MA Progress Action is run by Todd Kanter, a managing director at Boston-based investment advisory Silvercrest Asset Management and a strategic advisor to hedge fund CKM Partners. In April, the group ran an ad mocking Markey and other older members of Congress for suffering from what it called "chronic reelection disorder." The Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the ad should have been reported to the FEC as a political expenditure and that the group should be required to register as a PAC. MA Progress Action has called the complaint "frivolous" and said its ads are "educational."
Advance Progress has spent at least $5.4 million to support Moulton and oppose Markey, according to FEC data, far more than the $2.2 million that has been spent by the pro-Markey super PAC, Commonwealth Together.
The pro-Markey outside money hails from different donors. Commonwealth Together PAC received its largest donation from Public First Action, a nonprofit organization financed by Anthropic. Its next largest donors, both of whom gave $450,000, are Granite Telecommunications CEO Robert Hale and Triumvirate Environmental CEO John McQuillan. Labor unions including 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East and the Massachusetts Teachers Association provided more than a quarter of the pro-Markey group’s funds.
Facts Only
* Private equity and venture capital executives bankrolled the super PAC Advance Progress for the September 1 primary.
* The largest checks came from partners at Bain Capital, Berkshire Partners, and Insight Partners.
* More than 20 donors from the two industries gave over $1.6 million to Advance Progress, representing over 40% of its receipts.
* Richard Wells (Insight Partners) gave $400,000 across two donations.
* David Peeler and Robert Small (Berkshire Partners) gave a combined $350,000.
* Joshua Bekenstein and Christopher Gordon (Bain Capital) gave a combined $175,000.
* The PAC received an $180,000 transfer in July from MA Progress Action.
* Advance Progress spent at least $5.4 million to support Moulton and oppose Markey.
* Commonwealth Together PAC's largest donation came from Public First Action, financed by Anthropic.
* Labor unions provided more than a quarter of the pro-Markey group's funds.
Executive Summary
Private equity and venture capital executives are funding the super PAC Advance Progress, which seeks to unseat Senator Ed Markey and elect Representative Seth Moulton in Massachusetts' September 1 primary, according to FEC filings. The largest financial contributions came from partners at Bain Capital, Berkshire Partners, and Insight Partners, with over twenty donors from these industries giving more than $1.6 million in total to the PAC, accounting for over 40% of its receipts. Specific donations included $400,000 from Richard Wells of Insight Partners, a combined $350,000 from David Peeler and Robert Small of Berkshire Partners, and $175,000 from Joshua Bekenstein and Christopher Gordon of Bain Capital.
The financial support arises in the context of Senator Markey's efforts to remove a tax break benefiting private equity and venture capital fund managers. Markey is a co-sponsor of legislation aimed at closing the carried interest loophole. While Representative Moulton supports closing this loophole in a 2019 presidential tax plan, he has not cosponsored related standalone Carried Interest Fairness Acts during his tenure in the House.
Additionally, the PAC received an $180,000 transfer in July from MA Progress Action, a nonprofit group that does not disclose its donors. This nonprofit ran advertisements mocking Markey and other older members of Congress regarding reelection. The total spending by Advance Progress to support Moulton and oppose Markey is cited as at least $5.4 million, which is significantly more than the $2.2 million spent by the pro-Markey super PAC, Commonwealth Together.
Full Take
The narrative centers on the intersection of financial interests in tax policy and political action. The pattern involves using large private capital flows to directly influence electoral outcomes, particularly when those flows align with specific legislative goals—in this case, eliminating a tax break benefiting fund managers. The contrast between the funding sources for the two campaigns reveals a structural divergence: one side is funded by direct investment firms linked to specific tax policy positions, while the other relies on broader organizational and union support. This highlights how capital deployment can be leveraged as political leverage, shifting the focus from stated policy goals to the flow of money behind them.
The invocation of "carried interest" legislation suggests an attempt to redefine compensation structures within the political sphere, where private financial incentives are translated into legislative advocacy. The mention of MA Progress Action and its subsequent dispute over ad regulation introduces a layer concerning how non-profit entities operate within the political advertising space, suggesting friction points between regulated political spending and nonprofit communication. The disparity in spending figures—$5.4 million for one side versus $2.2 million for the other—points to a significant imbalance in resource allocation that warrants examination regarding the true cost of political mobilization versus the direct policy goals being advanced.
What are the unstated assumptions about the legitimacy of private sector funding in primary elections? If financial entities are incentivized to shape regulatory outcomes, how does this reshape the public mandate? Furthermore, what mechanisms exist to ensure that the pursuit of specific financial concessions does not entirely eclipse broader public interest concerns regarding tax fairness or representative governance? What happens when organizational advocacy, like that from labor unions, is juxtaposed against pure financial investment in shaping electoral narratives?
Sentinel — Human
This analysis is grounded in verifiable data and structured reporting, suggesting it originates from standard investigative journalism rather than purely synthetic generation.