Technology & Innovation:
Ensuring Massachusetts Leads
the Next Innovation Economy
Massachusetts has long been a global center for research, entrepreneurship, and technological advancement. The next era of innovation will be shaped by artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, and other emerging technologies. The question is not only whether Massachusetts can continue to innovate, but how innovation can create broad opportunity and prepare residents for the future of work.
At a Glance
Azeem frames this around entrepreneurship and competitiveness (noncompete bans, cost of living, keeping founders in-state). Barber gives qualified support, arguing innovation policy should be judged by whether it raises living standards outside the innovation economy itself, and centers workforce and consumer-protection guardrails. McLaughlin emphasizes distributing AI-era gains through unions, taxation, and a sovereign-wealth-fund-style mechanism. Uyterhoeven, drawing on her work on the state's AI procurement contract, focuses on competitive markets, data privacy legislation, and public-sector AI accountability.
The Question Candidates Answered: "I support policies that help Massachusetts remain the nation's leader in innovation while ensuring technological progress creates broad economic opportunity and prepares residents for the future of work."
Burhan Azeem: I support this principle
How would you advance this principle if elected? I've had 3 startups in Massachusetts. It's important that we first don't do something that makes it hard for companies to survive here and go backwards. Proactively, we need to make sure that all students who come here and start companies actually grow them here. That means addressing the cost of living crisis so that people who are just starting out in their careers are able to stay. We're also behind on banning noncompetes, which would make a huge impact, and was a key factor in why Silicon Valley had so much growth. We also need to invest in having more fun nightlife so people want to stick around.
What would success look like? Right now we're #3 for best place to build a company. It would be great to overtake New York and start challenging CA and SF.
Christine P. Barber: I generally support this principle with qualifications
How would you advance this principle if elected? I support this with one qualification: innovation policy has to be judged by whether it raises living standards for people who do not work in the innovation economy.
Massachusetts is losing federal research dollars. Cuts to NIH and NSF funding hit our universities, teaching hospitals, and the companies that spin out of them. The state cannot backfill all of it, but we can stabilize the pipeline. That means sustained MassCEC and Life Sciences Center investment, state bridge funding for researchers who lose federal grants, and housing costs that let those workers afford to stay. I have funded this work before, including $1 million in MassCEC grants for offshore wind innovation partnerships that reached Greentown Labs.
On AI and automation, put the money where the disruption lands. Community college and vocational-technical capacity, employer-backed apprenticeships, and retraining funded before layoffs, not after. My first bill as a legislator created the Somerville Jobs Trust, a linkage fee on developers that funds local jobs and training. That is the model. Growth pays for the workforce it depends on.
On safeguards, I do not accept the premise that consumer protection impedes innovation. Clear rules on data, on algorithmic decisions in housing, hiring, credit, and public benefits, and on disclosure when government uses AI give companies certainty and residents recourse. Weak rules erode public trust, and lost trust slows adoption more than regulation does.
What would success look like? A young person from this district who does not go to a four-year college can still earn a credential that leads to a job paying enough to live here. Labs that stay in Massachusetts when Washington pulls funding. AI systems used by the state that residents can see, question, and appeal. Innovation measured by who it lifts in the community.
Matt McLaughlin: I support this principle
How would you advance this principle if elected? The technology economy is going to be a big part of Massachusetts, and we need to make sure that the benefits that come from that technology are distributed equitably. In the same way that biotech and pharma took greater Boston by storm, we need to prepare for a future economy that is more closely tied to tech and the AI innovation economy. But how do we protect workers from negative externalities like job loss due to automation? Well we need to continue to support workers unions and collective bargaining that accounts for changes in specific industries and specific workplaces. And we also need to ensure that the profits are being taxed fairly and distributed equitably. I was inspired by Bernie Sanders' proposal for a sovereign wealth fund for AI providers. There is extraordinary innovation in Massachusetts and that innovation is going to lead to a lot of investment and wealth. We need to ensure we have the mechanisms in place to ensure that the community at large is benefiting from that innovation, because that innovation comes from the backs of decades and decades of work and local, state, and federal investment in the infrastructure that made it all possible.
What would success look like? Success looks like a fairly taxed innovation industry that is distributed equitably. Success looks like strong unions negotiating to ensure that jobs are not cut at the expense of automation. Success is supporting the academic independence of our universities and institutional partners from overreach by the federal government, but standing strong for the workers and their unions. And success looks like a state government that is agile and deft enough to keep up with the fast pace of innovation, ensuring that growth is not at the expense of workers, consumers, or residents.
Erika Uyterhoeven: I support this principle
How would you advance this principle if elected? I spent my career as an antitrust economist, and that work taught me where innovation comes from: competitive markets where new firms and innovative ideas can challenge entrenched incumbents. When I obtained the records on the state's OpenAI contract and found a scoring rubric that never once weighed safety or accuracy, I filed the Digital Commonwealth Act to set real procurement standards, because a state that buys technology well is a state innovators can trust and are drawn to. In the Senate, I will fight to pass the strongest Consumer Data Privacy Act now in conference, with the geolocation ban and private right of action intact, giving residents protection and giving responsible companies one clear standard instead of a patchwork regulatory framework. Workers deserve to shape this transition, and I will fight to expand free community college, vocational education, and registered apprenticeships. And as Washington slashes federal research funding, I will defend the university research and public higher education that anchor our innovation economy. Massachusetts leads on innovation when markets stay competitive and rules stay clear, and I will make sure the people building here share in what gets built.
What would success look like? Success looks like a Massachusetts where residents control their own data, data centers pay their own grid costs and meet the highest environmental and public health standards before any project breaks ground, and community college graduates walk into jobs in the industries we are building. It looks like state procurement that weighs safety and accuracy, a research base defended even as Washington cuts, and competitive markets where the next breakthrough comes from a startup. That is an innovation economy built for the people who live and work here, and I will fight to make it real.