CORPORATE DONORS BAN UPHELD
SJC says rules aim to cut down on corruption
The Supreme Judicial Court upheld a state ban on corporate political contributions as constitutional in a case brought by a business owned by 3rd Congressional District Republican candidate Rick Green.
Lawyers representing Green’s auto parts dealership in Pepperell and an Ashland storage company took yesterday’s loss in stride and said they wanted to press the argument to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jim Manley, a senior fellow with the conservative Arizona Goldwater Institute, said he disagreed with the SJC’s holding that also kept in place avenues for unions and nonprofits to contribute to campaigns.
“We think the U.S. Supreme Court has actually said the opposite, has said that that is unconstitutional, and it’s my hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in and change the outcome in this case,” Manley told reporters on a conference call.
The Goldwater Institute also challenged limitations on company political contributions in Kentucky, where it won and the state now allows corporations to contribute to political action committees.
Massachusetts is one of six states where unions and nonprofits can make campaign contributions but companies cannot.
In a ruling joined by two concurring opinions, the SJC declined to side with the businesses, saying the prohibition on corporate campaign spending was meant to tamp down corruption.
“Both history and common sense have demonstrated that, when corporations make contributions to political candidates, there is a risk of corruption, both actual and perceived,” the court wrote.
Massachusetts established its ban on corporate political contributions in 1905, immediately after President Theodore Roosevelt pressed Congress to pass a similar ban.
The court explained that businesses cannot contribute directly to a campaign, run a PAC to solicit contributions for a candidate or contribute to such a committee. It can, however — on its own and without coordinating with a candidate — “spend as much as it likes advocating on behalf of” a candidate, as long as it’s done independently from the campaign.
The SJC even cites reasoning the much-maligned Citizens United decision in 2010 from the U.S. Supreme Court that reaffirmed distinctions between independent expenditures and campaign contributions, saying the latter presented “a special risk of quid pro quo corruption because, unlike independent expenditures, they are coordinated with candidates.”
Paul Craney of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which participated in the case, said the ruling was a disappointment.
“This is a major defeat for proponents of campaign finance reform,” Craney said. “Since it was first enacted decades ago, the union loophole has tainted countless elections across our state, even giving a louder voice to out-of-state union bosses than Massachusetts residents and employers.”