Senate · Democrat

Karen E. Spilka

Current member · Middlesex and Norfolk

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

Ashland

First elected

House 2001 (special); Senate 2004

Prior public offices

Chair, Ashland School Committee (1998-2000)

Occupation

Attorney; Arbitrator/Mediator

Seats held, General Courts 189–194 (the FY2017–FY2026 budgets)
Session	Chamber	District	Lines
189th (2015–16)	Senate	Second Middlesex and Norfolk	2011 lines
190th (2017–18)	Senate	Second Middlesex and Norfolk	2011 lines
191st (2019–20)	Senate	Second Middlesex and Norfolk	2011 lines
192nd (2021–22)	Senate	Second Middlesex and Norfolk	2011 lines
193rd (2023–24)	Senate	Middlesex and Norfolk	2021 lines
194th (2025–26)	Senate	Middlesex and Norfolk	2021 lines

Posts and stipends

Karen E. Spilka was paid $955,537 in leadership and committee stipends from 2016 to 2026 (2026 to date).

Posts and stipends by session (stipends by calendar year)
Session	Posts	First year	Second year
189th (2015–16)	W&M Chair	not available	$25,000
190th (2017–18)	W&M Chair (to Feb 2019); President from Jul 26 2018	$70,200	$74,233
191st (2019–20)	President	$86,656	$86,656
192nd (2021–22)	President	$90,893	$90,893
193rd (2023–24)	President	$109,163	$109,163
194th (2025–26)	President	$119,632	$93,047 (to date)

Posts: the Legislature’s leadership and roster records as compiled for this project; where those name no post, the member’s committee chair, vice-chair and ranking roles from the Legislature’s member profiles. Stipends: additional compensation in the Comptroller’s payroll data (CTHRU dataset 9ttk-7vz6), 2016–2026; 2026 is the year to date. Stipends for 2015 are not available. Base salary is not included.

The district

Middlesex and Norfolk on its 2021 lines: 6 cities and towns, 175,069 residents (2020).

Framingham 41% · Natick 21% · Ashland 11% · Hopkinton 11% · Holliston 9% · Medway 7%

Percentages are each place’s share of the district’s 2020 residents; for a town split between districts, the share of the town inside this one follows.

Population-weighted Fairness Index of the district’s cities and towns: 42 for all state aid and 41 for discretionary money (50 is a fair share).

Local earmarks are counted three ways. District money uses the first, clauses that name a place in the district; the second table adds organizations located in the district (placed in the district) and state facilities located there (everything placed). Three ways to count a local earmark.

District money, first measure: enacted earmarks in clauses naming a place in the district, by session (district money, not the member’s)
Session	District	Dollars	In corrective clauses	Per resident per budget, rank	Without corrective clauses, rank
189th (2015–16)	Second Middlesex and Norfolk	$613,000	$0	$3.53 · 15th of 40	$3.53 · 15th of 40
190th (2017–18)	Second Middlesex and Norfolk	$2M	$4,698	$5.73 · 7th of 40	$5.72 · 7th of 40
191st (2019–20)	Second Middlesex and Norfolk	$2.7M	$0	$7.65 · 3rd of 40	$7.65 · 3rd of 40
192nd (2021–22)	Second Middlesex and Norfolk	$2.6M	$62,000	$7.43 · 18th of 40	$7.25 · 20th of 40
193rd (2023–24)	Middlesex and Norfolk	$4.4M	$0	$12.43 · 10th of 40	$12.43 · 10th of 40
194th (2025–26)	Middlesex and Norfolk	$1.8M	$0	$10.06 · 13th of 40	$10.06 · 13th of 40

District money is where enacted earmarks land, by the place a clause names, mapped to districts by 2020 population; it is not attributed to the member and does not include leadership’s base-text money that names no place. Ranks are of district money per resident among the chamber’s districts, 1 = most. “In corrective clauses” is the part carried by a Ways and Means chair’s corrective amendments, which is leadership’s money; the last column gives the per-resident figure and rank without it. Sessions are labeled by the General Court that enacted each budget. Per-resident figures use the district as drawn for each session (2011 lines through the 192nd General Court, 2021 lines from the 193rd), so they will not equal a session’s dollars divided by the resident count above.

The same district on the other two measures, by session (enacted; includes any corrective-clause money)
Session	District	Placed in the district	Per resident per budget, rank	Everything placed	Per resident per budget, rank
189th (2015–16)	Second Middlesex and Norfolk	$1.6M	$9.01 · 5th of 40	$1.6M	$9.01 · 5th of 40
190th (2017–18)	Second Middlesex and Norfolk	$3.1M	$9.02 · 6th of 40	$3.2M	$9.31 · 6th of 40
191st (2019–20)	Second Middlesex and Norfolk	$3.6M	$10.36 · 7th of 40	$3.6M	$10.36 · 9th of 40
192nd (2021–22)	Second Middlesex and Norfolk	$3.4M	$9.88 · 14th of 40	$8.4M	$24.29 · 5th of 40
193rd (2023–24)	Middlesex and Norfolk	$7.4M	$21.19 · 5th of 40	$7.4M	$21.19 · 6th of 40
194th (2025–26)	Middlesex and Norfolk	$3.3M	$18.97 · 8th of 40	$3.3M	$18.97 · 12th of 40

Budget amendments

Karen E. Spilka filed no budget amendments of their own in FY2017–FY2026; the three Ways and Means corrective amendments filed in the chair’s name are leadership’s.

Filed as Ways and Means chair; leadership corrective amendments: three amendments, with $282,000 in enacted items matched to them (189th and 190th General Courts). This is leadership’s money moved through the chair’s amendments; it is not counted in the member’s own amendments or items. Items that name places in the district are included in the district money below.

The amendment corpus covers every amendment filed to the House and Senate budgets, FY2017–FY2026. Leadership shapes the budget mostly through base text and conference, which no member is credited with here.

Bills sponsored

Karen E. Spilka filed 85 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; two were enacted on their own. In completed sessions, 2% of their lead bills were enacted on their own, against chamber medians of 1% to 4% for the same sessions.

Most bills die in every legislature, and many policies pass inside other bills; the chamber median for the same session is the fair comparison.

Bills filed as lead sponsor, by session and outcome
Session	Chamber	Lead bills	Enacted	Folded into an enacted bill	Sent to study	Reported favorably, then died	No action	Pending (session open)	Enacted rate	Chamber median	Cosponsored
189th (2015–16)	Senate	58	1	0	36	14	7	0	2%	4%	27
190th (2017–18)	Senate	20	1	1	9	7	2	0	5%	3%	20
191st (2019–20)	Senate	3	0	0	0	1	2	0	0%	3%	0
192nd (2021–22)	Senate	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0%	2%	0
193rd (2023–24)	Senate	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0%	1%	0
194th (2025–26)	Senate	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0%*	1%	0

Enacted bills as lead sponsor

S2238 (189th): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Evelena Brown, an employee of the Department of Children and Families · Chapter 118 of the Acts of 2016
S2044 (190th): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Gail Weinberg-Kraus, an employee of the Trial Court of the commonwealth · Chapter 49 of the Acts of 2017

Outcomes are the furthest point each bill reached in the record. “Folded into an enacted bill” means the history names the enacted bill that absorbed it. “Passed both branches; no chapter recorded” means the bill was enacted by both branches and laid before the Governor, with no chapter or veto in the history; in the 194th General Court such bills are shown as laid before the Governor (pending). The 194th General Court is in session until January 2027, so its open bills are pending, not dead, and its rates (*) are not comparable with completed sessions. Chairs and leaders control the calendar, which raises their rates. Source: malegislature.gov bill histories.

Recorded votes on accountability measures

Karen E. Spilka cast 17 yes-or-no votes on the 20 accountability roll calls in this file (11 yes, six no, three for a named candidate).

Roll calls on rules, audits, public records, term limits and pay
Date	Measure	Vote	Chamber result
January 26, 2017	Senate engrossment of the pay-raise bill	Yes	Yeas 31, nays 9
February 2, 2017	Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Matters considered in an informal session	Yes	Yeas 38, nays 0
February 2, 2017	Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Time to consider matters in an informal	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 2, 2017	Amendment 7.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Provided with text of bills prior to poll	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 2, 2017	Special orders by majority instead of two-thirds (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
February 2, 2017	Amendment 11.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
February 2, 2017	Amendment 13.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Timely Local Aid Notification	No	Yeas 7, nays 32
February 2, 2017	Senate override of the veto of the pay-raise bill	Yes	Yeas 31, nays 9
not available	Senate President election (contested meaning)	Voted for Karen E. Spilka	not available
February 11, 2021	Amendment 6.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent to go past midnight	No	Yeas 6, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Amendment 7.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Going past 10 pm	No	Yeas 6, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Amendment 8.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Successive formal sessions	No	Yeas 6, nays 34
not available	Senate President election (contested meaning)	Voted for Karen E. Spilka	not available
not available	Senate President election (contested meaning)	Voted for Karen E. Spilka	not available
not available	Joint rules (S15), rules package: question on passing the bill to be engrossed (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 13, 2025	Senate rules (S19), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
June 26, 2025	Joint rules (conference report) (S2545), rules package: question on acceptance of conference committee report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 40, nays 0
May 28, 2026	S.3104 resolutions limiting the Senate's response to the Auditor to the SJC-defined 4 requests; no votes 5 Republicans + Montigny; contested (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 33, nays 6
July 30, 2026	Press shield amendment to S.3200; adopted 40-0; not about the Legislature's records (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 40, nays 0
July 30, 2026	Senate passage of H.5469 34-6; no votes 5 Republicans + Montigny (too weak); contested (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 34, nays 6

Votes marked “contested meaning” are rules-package and public-records passage votes; reform advocates were on both sides of them. Descriptions are the project’s plain summaries of each question, or the question as recorded for rules-package roll calls; the official record is on malegislature.gov. Votes are facts; no score is computed.

Campaign money in

Karen E. Spilka’s committee reported $1.9 million in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2015–2026.

By year (years in the Legislature)
Year	Contributions
2015	$94,000
2016	$88,000
2017	$85,000
2018	$218,000
2019	$238,000
2020	$74,000
2021	$169,000
2022	$139,000
2023	$203,000
2024	$216,000
2025	$220,000
2026	$142,000

By kind of contributor
Kind	Total	Share
Individuals	$1.6M	85%
Political committees and PACs	$225,000	12%
Unions and associations	$59,000	3%

Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reported	Share
A named employer	65%
Self-employed	24%
Retired	2%
Not employed	4%
Student	under 1%
Homemaker or at home	1%
Not reported or withheld	4%

Not counted as contributions: $333,000 in other receipts of $250 or more in the same years (candidate loans and the candidate’s own money, transfers, refunds, bank interest and aggregated small receipts).

Largest employers and organizations
Employer or organization	Kind	Total	Contributions
BCBS	individuals, by employer	$24,000	59
HORIZON BEVERAGE	individuals, by employer	$24,000	30
BCBSMA	individuals, by employer	$18,000	47
ARBELLA INSURANCE GROUP	individuals, by employer	$15,000	34
MERRIMACK VALLEY DISTRIBUTORS	individuals, by employer	$12,000	14
ARBELLA INSURANCE	individuals, by employer	$12,000	15
MS WALKER	individuals, by employer	$11,000	14
ATLAS DISTRIBUTING	individuals, by employer	$10,000	17
QUALITY BEVERAGE	individuals, by employer	$10,000	12
EMC	individuals, by employer	$10,000	15

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Spilka Committee (CPF 13758). Individuals are grouped by the employer they reported; no individual contributor is named, and an employer field that is a person’s name is withheld. Massachusetts bars business contributions to candidates. Employer shows affiliation, not instruction.

Sources

Every figure traces to a public record.

Facts only: posts, stipends, sponsored amendments, enacted items, roll-call votes and district money. No score or grade is computed. Associations shown here are not evidence of cause. Method.