Senate · Democrat

Michael F. Rush

Current member · Norfolk and Suffolk

Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.

Residence

Boston

First elected

House 2002; Senate 2010

Prior public offices

Massachusetts State Library Trustees

Occupation

History Teacher/US Navy Reserve Officer

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

Posts and stipends

Michael F. Rush was paid $573,641 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)	Chair, Senate Committee on Personnel and Administration; Vice chair, Joint Committee on Community Development and Small Businesses	not available	$15,000
190th (2017–18)	Chair, Senate Committee on Personnel and Administration; Vice chair, Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture	$32,126	$35,200
191st (2019–20)	Majority Whip	$54,160	$54,160
192nd (2021–22)	Majority Whip	$56,808	$56,808
193rd (2023–24)	Majority Whip	$68,227	$68,227
194th (2025–26)	Majority Whip; Chair, Senate Committee on Personnel and Administration	$74,770	$58,154 (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

Norfolk and Suffolk on its 2021 lines: 5 cities and towns, 180,666 residents (2020).

Boston 45%, 12% of the town · Norwood 17% · Walpole 15% · Dedham 14% · Westwood 9%

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: 36 for all state aid and 30 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)	Norfolk and Suffolk	$821,000	$76,000	$4.95 · 6th of 40	$4.49 · 8th of 40
190th (2017–18)	Norfolk and Suffolk	$1.8M	$16,000	$5.53 · 11th of 40	$5.48 · 11th of 40
191st (2019–20)	Norfolk and Suffolk	$2M	$162,000	$6.15 · 8th of 40	$5.66 · 9th of 40
192nd (2021–22)	Norfolk and Suffolk	$3.4M	$280,000	$10.15 · 10th of 40	$9.31 · 12th of 40
193rd (2023–24)	Norfolk and Suffolk	$3.6M	$0	$9.90 · 18th of 40	$9.90 · 17th of 40
194th (2025–26)	Norfolk and Suffolk	$2.4M	$0	$13.35 · 9th of 40	$13.35 · 9th 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)	Norfolk and Suffolk	$906,000	$5.47 · 10th of 40	$906,000	$5.47 · 12th of 40
190th (2017–18)	Norfolk and Suffolk	$2.1M	$6.34 · 13th of 40	$2.1M	$6.37 · 14th of 40
191st (2019–20)	Norfolk and Suffolk	$2.4M	$7.15 · 11th of 40	$2.4M	$7.15 · 12th of 40
192nd (2021–22)	Norfolk and Suffolk	$4M	$11.93 · 9th of 40	$4M	$12.01 · 11th of 40
193rd (2023–24)	Norfolk and Suffolk	$5.8M	$16.04 · 11th of 40	$5.9M	$16.22 · 12th of 40
194th (2025–26)	Norfolk and Suffolk	$2.8M	$15.49 · 10th of 40	$3.2M	$17.47 · 14th of 40

Budget amendments

Michael F. Rush sponsored 281 budget amendments in FY2017–FY2026, asking for $49.8 million in all.

Amendments sponsored

281

FY2017–FY2026 budgets

Adopted, known outcomes

47%

131 of 281

Chamber rate, same ask sizes

48%

expected at the chamber’s rates

Of the 281 with a known outcome, 131 were adopted (47%). At the chamber’s adoption rate for amendments of the same size, about 134 (48%) would have been.

Largest enacted items matched to an amendment Michael F. Rush filed (strong text matches)
Year	Amount	Enacted budget text (excerpt)	Amendment
FY2024	$500,000	“the Italian Home for Children, Inc.’s behavioral health services for children”	S3 #515
FY2023	$500,000	“the Italian Home for Children, Inc.’s behavioral health services”	S4 #563
FY2026	$250,000	“Walker, Inc. for continuation of behavioral health and positive parenting and caregiving services and resources to service and support incarcerated…”	S3 #444
FY2024	$250,000	“Walker, Inc. for programming relative to the development of behavioral health and positive parenting, caregiving services and resources for services…”	S3 #510
FY2023	$250,000	“conduct a feasibility study for a pedestrian and bicycle access from the Readville section of the Hyde Park section of the city of Boston and the…”	S4 #74

Strong matches: 81 enacted items, $8.9 million (the member’s share where several amendments claim one clause). A further two weaker text matches are not listed; attribution is inferred from amendment text and is less certain there.

For 27 amendments the sponsor is the first mover named in the amendment text, because the Legislature’s record listed none. Ask size is the larger of the earmark dollars and the line-item change an amendment requests; bands: no dollar amount, under $50,000, $50,000–$250,000, $250,000–$1 million, $1–5 million, $5 million or more. Leadership’s unattributed base-text and corrective-amendment money is never assigned to a member. The comparison describes outcomes; it is not a measure of merit.

Bills sponsored

Michael F. Rush filed 389 bills as lead sponsor in these sessions; nine 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	Reported adversely or withdrawn	No action	Pending (session open)	History not available	Enacted rate	Chamber median	Cosponsored
189th (2015–16)	Senate	54	0	1	28	18	0	7	0	0	0%	4%	112
190th (2017–18)	Senate	57	2	2	34	16	0	3	0	0	4%	3%	143
191st (2019–20)	Senate	49	3	0	27	14	3	2	0	0	6%	3%	141
192nd (2021–22)	Senate	67	1	2	34	30	0	0	0	0	1%	2%	72
193rd (2023–24)	Senate	78	1	2	29	38	1	7	0	0	1%	1%	46
194th (2025–26)	Senate	84	2	0	30	0	0	0	51	1	2%*	1%	24

Enacted bills as lead sponsor

S1985 (190th): An Act designating a certain bridge in the town of Needham as the James J. Delaney II, UMSC Veterans Memorial Bridge · Chapter 70 of the Acts of 2018
S2540 (190th): An Act relative to a certain parcel of conservation land in the city of Boston · Chapter 175 of the Acts of 2018
S1904 (191st): An Act observing United States Navy Day · Chapter 18 of the Acts of 2020
S2272 (191st): An Act designating certain bridges in memory of certain members of the United States Armed Forces who lost their lives while serving in the Military · Chapter 36 of the Acts of 2019
S2329 (191st): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Linda Kenney, an employee of the Center for Health Information and Analysis · Chapter 104 of the Acts of 2019
S3165 (192nd): An Act establishing a sick leave bank for Sean Bruen, an employee of the Trial Court of the Commonwealth · Chapter 446 of the Acts of 2022
S2501 (193rd): An Act relative to the date set by the charter of the town of Walpole for the annual town election · Chapter 90 of the Acts of 2024
S1907 (194th): An Act directing the city of Boston Police Department to waive the maximum age requirement for police officer Cherell Mellace · Chapter 27 of the Acts of 2026
S3087 (194th): An Act relative to the creation of a sewer and water advisory board in the town of Walpole · Chapter 221 of the Acts of 2026

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

Michael F. Rush cast 68 yes-or-no votes on the 71 accountability roll calls in this file (26 yes, 42 no, two for a named candidate); recorded as not voting on one.

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
January 31, 2019	Amendment 1.1 (Bruce E. Tarr): Posting of Committee Roll Call Votes	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 1.0 (Walter F. Timilty): Improving Access to Records	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Informal Session	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Conference Committee Report	No	Yeas 8, nays 31
January 31, 2019	Amendment 11.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Audit of accounts	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
not available	Joint rules (S9), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 1.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Non disclosure agreements	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 7.1 (Rebecca L. Rausch): anti-harassment and assault	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
January 31, 2019	Amendment 5.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Numbers of bills considered at a hearing	No	Yeas 8, nays 31
January 31, 2019	Amendment 17.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Matters considered in an informal session	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
January 31, 2019	Amendment 25.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
not available	Senate rules (S8), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
not available	Senate President election (contested meaning)	Voted for Karen E. Spilka	not available
February 11, 2021	Amendment 3.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Members receiving SWM GAA recommendation	No	Yeas 4, nays 35
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
February 11, 2021	Amendment 15.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Anti-harassment and bystander intervention training	No	Yeas 10, nays 29
February 11, 2021	Amendment 20.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Amendments to other appropriations bills	No	Yeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Accessibility; adopted 39-0 (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 11, 2021	Supplier diversity; adopted 39-0 (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
February 11, 2021	Amendment 42.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Consideration of further and redrafted amendments	No	Yeas 7, nays 32
February 11, 2021	Amendment 44.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Hearings	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
February 11, 2021	Amendment 49.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Adoption amendment - Rule 24	No	Yeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Minority Leader appointments to committees (partisan allocation) (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 4, nays 35
February 11, 2021	Amendment 24.0 (Diana DiZoglio): Notice of legislative matters	No	Yeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): New items on the calendar	No	Yeas 5, nays 34
February 11, 2021	Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Filing of conference committee report	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
February 11, 2021	Amendment 14.0 (James B. Eldridge): Lengthening public notice period for legislative hearings	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
not available	Senate President election (contested meaning)	Not voting	not available
February 9, 2023	Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Successive Legislative Days	No	Yeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023	Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Time of recess for consideration of new matters	No	Yeas 5, nays 33
February 9, 2023	Amendment 5.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Going past 10 pm	No	Yeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023	Amendment 6.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Unanimous consent to go past midnight	No	Yeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023	Amendment 10.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Manner of how member voted	No	Yeas 5, nays 33
February 9, 2023	Amd 23 (Rodrigues) strikes Rule 11B, the 8-year term limit on the Senate President; adopted 32-6	Yes	Yeas 32, nays 6
February 9, 2023	Strike remote-participation rules 57C/57D (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 3, nays 35
February 9, 2023	Remote voting conditions (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 4, nays 34
February 9, 2023	Senate rules (S17), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 37, nays 1
February 9, 2023	Amendment 1.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Filing of Conference Committee Report	No	Yeas 4, nays 35
February 9, 2023	Amendment 12.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Adding a Minority Report	No	Yeas 3, nays 36
not available	Joint rules (S18), rules package: question on acceptance of the report (contested meaning)	Yes	Yeas 39, nays 0
not available	Senate President election (contested meaning)	Voted for Karen E. Spilka	not available
February 12, 2025	Amendment 2.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Number of bills to be heard	No	Yeas 5, nays 33
February 12, 2025	Amendment 9.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Minority conference committee report	No	Yeas 6, nays 32
February 12, 2025	Amendment 10.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): 48 Hours for conference committee reports	No	Yeas 5, nays 33
February 12, 2025	Amendment 13.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Timeline for review of conference committee reports	No	Yeas 6, nays 32
February 12, 2025	Amendment 22.0 (John F. Keenan): Considering Conference Reports	No	Yeas 9, nays 29
February 12, 2025	Amendment 26.0 (John F. Keenan): Preventing Unjustified Financial Gain for Members and Their Familes	Yes	Yeas 38, nays 0
February 12, 2025	Amendment 29.0 (John F. Keenan): Limiting Joint Committee Extensions	No	Yeas 6, nays 32
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	In-person voting conditions (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 5, nays 32
February 13, 2025	Amendment 36.0 (John F. Keenan): Continuing Beyond Midnight	No	Yeas 6, nays 31
February 13, 2025	Shorten period in which a matter can be laid on the table (dilatory motions) (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 5, nays 33
February 13, 2025	Amendment 10.0 (Bruce E. Tarr): Going past 10PM	No	Yeas 6, nays 32
February 13, 2025	Amendment 19.0 (Ryan C. Fattman): Virtual vote designation	No	Yeas 6, nays 31
February 13, 2025	Legislative days for Rule 24 (dilatory motions) (contested meaning)	No	Yeas 6, nays 32
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	Amd 18 (Tarr): apply the public records law to the General Court more fully	No	Yeas 6, nays 33
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

Michael F. Rush’s committee reported $256,000 in contributions of $250 or more in years the member served, 2015–2026.

By year (years in the Legislature)
Year	Contributions
2015	$16,000
2016	$18,000
2017	$14,000
2018	$19,000
2019	$17,000
2020	$13,000
2021	$21,000
2022	$8,650
2023	$14,000
2024	$17,000
2025	$34,000
2026	$67,000

By kind of contributor
Kind	Total	Share
Individuals	$159,000	62%
Political committees and PACs	$84,000	33%
Unions and associations	$13,000	5%

Individuals’ money by the employer they reported
Employer reported	Share
A named employer	62%
Self-employed	16%
Retired	8%
Not employed	4%
Homemaker or at home	4%
Not reported or withheld	5%

Not counted as contributions: $47,000 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
ANTHROPIC	individuals, by employer	$5,598	7
JLL	individuals, by employer	$5,500	6
RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PAC	committee or PAC	$5,000	10
HILL HOLIDAY	individuals, by employer	$5,000	9
MA CORRECTION OFFICERS FEDERATED UNION PAC M C O F U PAC	committee or PAC	$4,500	9
ANTHROPIC PBC	individuals, by employer	$3,643	4
NEW CAR DEALER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	committee or PAC	$3,500	7
MA & NORTHERN NE LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL POL ACTION COMM	committee or PAC	$3,500	7
REIMBURSEMENT FOR AUTO USE	individuals, by employer	$3,453	5
GREATER BOSTON REAL ESTATE BOARD PAC	committee or PAC	$3,000	10

Source: Office of Campaign and Political Finance, itemized receipts of $250 or more since 2015; OCPF filer record: Rush Committee (CPF 13946). 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.