SJC hears arguments on voter registration, campaign donations

The future of how voters register — and how candidates can receive money — is now in the hands of the state’s highest court, which is considering a pair of decisions that could have a lingering impact on Bay State elections.

The Supreme Judicial Court is weighing whether the requirement that most voters be registered 20 days before an election is constitutional. Simultaneously, the SJC is considering whether the state can constitutionally bar corporations from making political contributions, while allowing labor unions and nonprofits to do so. Both cases were argued yesterday.

“I’m going to try to understand the world you’re asking us to create in Massachusetts,” SJC Chief Justice Ralph Gants said during the political contribution case. “Under the law as you would have us apply it, a corporation, whether it be 126 (Self Storage) or GE or Raytheon, could essentially contribute to a PAC, which is devoted to a single candidate.”

James Manley, an attorney representing two Massachusetts businesses — 126 Self Storage Inc. and 1A Auto Inc. — said his clients simply want corporations to be on equal footing with other entities, and that federal law requires it.

“Whatever campaign finance laws apply to unions and nonprofits should apply to businesses,” Manley said. “We’re not asking for any special treatment. We’re asking for equality and fairness across the board for all entities.”

Assistant Attorney General Julia Kobick was pressed by Justice Scott Kafker as to how the state law barring corporate contributions was properly keeping corruption out of politics when deep-pocketed unions have shown in the past that they don’t always operate above board.

“We’ve got a history of bad guys on both sides. We have the old Teamster stuff from the Jimmy Hoffa era. We’ve got bad corporate behavior,” Kafker said. “Do we have a record that we’re going to be able to say: ‘Well, there’s more fear of corruption on the corporate side than there is on the union side?’ ”

Kobick said “there is unquestionably a record.”

The thrust of her argument was that the state law barring corporate contributions has served its purpose for years and is still a good law.

“The commonwealth’s bar on corporate contributions remains as constitutionally sound as when the Legislature enacted it 100 years ago to address the risk of quid pro quo corruption and its appearance,” she said.

In the voter registration case, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts argued that the state’s 20-day voter registration cutoff law is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

“There is no evidence that this 20-day deadline is necessary, warranted or even rational,” ACLU attorney Jessie J. Rossman said.

But Kafker pushed back, saying it is the Legislature’s job to determine how to run the state’s elections.

“Having an orderly election is clearly rational,” he said. “I don’t know if you need 20 or 15 or 10, but those are the types of decisions we leave to the Legislature.”