Since the 1994 election campaign began, millions of dollars have been spent in a high-priced political war of television advertising and negative campaigning.

But the battles are not about the candidates.

The rancorous debate has focused on the nine ballot questions that will appear on this year's November 8 ballot.

Although voters will decide several statewide and national races--including elections for U.S. Senate and governor--it is the verdicts on some of the ballot questions that could dramatically affect the Bay State longer than the respective terms of any elected official.

Some of the questions would repeal recent laws passed by the state legislature. And one would change the state's constitution.

It is no wonder, then, that many lobbying groups have poured a considerable amount of money into the campaign, even taking to the airwaves to pitch their support for a ballot question.

Among the most hotly contested questions are Questions 6 and 7 which if approved would replace the current flat rate income tax system with a graduated system.

Much of the debate has also focused on Question 2 which, if approved, would preserve the state law requiring the use of seat belts; Question 4 which, if approved, would impose term limits for certain state offices and Question 5, which if approved would reform the state's "blue laws" and would allow stores to open on Sunday mornings and on certain holidays.

For Cambridge voters, Question 9 is the most contentious question because, if approved, it would eliminate rent control in most housing units.

GRADUATED TAX PROPOSALS

Among the nine ballot questions, Questions 6 and 7--the graduated tax proposals--could affect Massachusetts voters the most. If passed, Question 6 would change the state's constitution and would allow the state to collect its income taxes at a graduated rate, instead of at the current flat rate. Question 7 would set the specific rates and force higher-income residents to pay higher taxes.

Massachusetts residents currently pay 5.95 percent of their taxable income every year. If Questions 6 and 7 are passed, the tax laws would be modified to require married couples who earn less than $102,000 a year to pay 5.5 percent, couples who earn between $102,000 and $150,000 to pay 8.8 percent and couples who earn more than $150,000 to pay 9.8 percent.

But the new rates would only kick in for income made above the minimum salary in that rate category. For example, a couple making $110,000 a year would have to pay 5.5 percent of the first $102,000 and would then have to pay 8.8 percent on the remaining $8,000.

Proponents of the graduated tax say that Massachusetts should do away with its antequated income tax and adopt a tax system which is more progrssive.

"We need to get out of the dark ages and get Massachusetts up to speed," says Paul Capizzi, administrative director of the Tax Equity Alliance for Massachusetts. "The people on the bottom of the pay scale wind up proportionally paying just as much as Bay State millionaires."

"Progressive taxation is important to pursue . . .the idea for each of us to give a share for the common good," says former Cambridge mayor Alice K. Wolf. "Ninety-two percent of Massachusetts will benefit from the point of view of their own pocket-books."