{shortcode-6041b1aee5d34a15609d4567a4b2551351099200}
Amid multiple pending federal investigations, fights with a dozen federal agencies, and two high-profile lawsuits, Harvard’s fight with the federal government has been the main focus of attention for the past year.
But at the state level, the University has its own battles — and mainly uses an external lobbying tool to fight them, a tool that is now evolving to use federal pressure to its advantage.
Harvard’s three disclosed state lobbyists maintain regular contact with the statehouse. They are paid directly by Harvard to connect University faculty to top legislators, help liaison to alumni groups, and stay up-to-date on the latest developments on Beacon Hill.
But the real center of the University’s direct lobbying is the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, which they have lobbied through for more than 50 years. AICUM is a small organization — with only four people on their team and ten on their board of directors — but it represents 57 private universities across Massachusetts. AICUM collects feedback from these institutions and lobbies on their behalf on a range of higher education policies.
Harvard spends thousands of dollars to maintain their AICUM membership status, paying $112,969 in 2024 in dues to the organization. The dues make up 83 percent of what the University spends on membership dues for lobbying organizations, like the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.
{shortcode-16920122b1463126133b30aa06c13cbfeb7b4f54}
The University also paid $346,100 in lobbying in 2024, according to public lobbying disclosures. This includes $90,000 for the salaries of their internal lobbyists and $72,000 to Tremont Strategies, which the University works with on the Allston I-90 Multimodal Project to replace current highway ramps with a new grid system that allows for development on University-owned land.
As Harvard spends thousands of dollars on lobbying, the University has also reported its first budget deficit since the pandemic. But the University’s dollars on lobbying are an investment in their long-term financial stability, as state-level lobbying has increasingly focused on funding threats to Harvard.
“So we say, ‘Look at what, given what’s happened federally, any discussions about topics such as these are just wrong and will be just kind of layer on the harm that’s being done to such an important sector,’” McCarron said.
This pivot has largely been a move to prioritize the University’s financial stability. As state legislators file bills to impose increased state taxes on Harvard, AICUM has pushed back — arguing that the federal threats to higher education should stop the state from passing its own.
Harvard is currently facing two proposed bills which would impose increased taxes on the University.
State senator Adam Gómez proposed a bill that would impose an annual 2.5 percent excise tax on any colleges with an endowment over $1 billion — a tax that would easily apply to Harvard’s nearly $57 billion endowment. Another bill, proposed jointly by Harvard’s representative Marjorie C. Decker, would impose an endowment tax as a means of funding recruitment and education initiatives in the healthcare industry.
As of December, neither bill has advanced out of committee.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes is another hot-button issue on Beacon Hill. The program is voluntary, and asks tax-exempt nonprofits like Harvard to partially pay what they would otherwise pay in property taxes to help supplement a city’s budget. But the University regularly falls short of the requested PILOT amount for Boston, and a bill proposed this year would allow cities to mandate PILOT payments. The bill was last heard by the Joint Committee on Revenue in early October.
Bradley Freeman, AICUM vice president for government relations, testified against the PILOT legislation and endowment tax proposal at the October hearing — using recent federal attacks as a key argument against both legislative actions. He specifically cited “a time of unparalleled attacks by the federal government against colleges and universities” in his testimony.
“As private non-profit colleges and universities respond to the potential loss of billions in federal research funding and federal financial aid dollars, adjust to the market impact of state-funded free college programs at public institutions, and demographic challenges, it would be devastating for institutions if municipalities imposed additional tax burdens,” Freeman said.
Freeman also emphasized the role of university endowments on student financial aid and research projects “that are already losing federal funding.”
“Incredibly, the scope of this proposal is significantly more punitive to colleges and universities than the federal endowment tax championed by congressional Republicans and targeted at institutions in so-called blue states,” Freeman said of the proposed endowment tax.
AICUM is the nexus between the legislature and higher education, according to president Robert J. McCarron. McCarron meets with university presidents — including Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 — at least annually. McCarron last met with Garber virtually in the spring, amid the research funding freeze and the fight over international student enrollment. According to McCarron, the discussion with Garber centered on the legislation AICUM planned to prioritize at the state level.
McCarron also meets with other administrators, such as the Office of the General Counsel, University CFOs, and Harvard’s internal lobbying team. Administrators provide feedback on specific legislation, adding any input that they want AICUM representatives to present in their meetings at the statehouse.
McCarron meets with higher powers in the statehouse — the Senate president, the Speaker of the House, the Ways and Means Committee, or the governor’s office. Freeman, AICUM vice president, meets at the committee level — mainly with the chairs of the Revenue Committee and Higher Education Committee, the two most relevant to the legislation that AICUM follows.
“Information we provide them, they know it's coming from kind of a broad coalition of members,” McCarron said. “I think it is kind of the best information they can get as to how a particular issue is going to affect the college or university.”
McCarron ultimately sees AICUM as the core of higher education advocacy for Harvard and peer institutions.
“We try to act as their government relations, their eyes and ears on issues, and make sure that they're alerted to an issue that they need to be alerted to, or that we can tell them, ‘I don't think you need to worry about this issue.’”
—Staff writer Megan L. Blonigen can be reached at megan.blonigen@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X at @MeganBlonigen.
