Corporations fight to give political donations
Corporations can’t make political donations under Massachusetts law, but the state’s highest court is prepared to hear arguments from two business owners who say the ban on company cash is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Judicial Court earlier this week agreed to hear the appeal from the owners of 126 Self Storage in Ashland and 1A Auto Inc. in Pepperell — two companies that are seeking to make contributions to candidates or political action committees.
“Plaintiffs do not want a special privilege to flood Massachusetts elections with money; they want simple equality and fairness in the rules that apply to all organizations,” wrote Gregory Cote, an attorney for the companies, in his appeal.
Cote is joined by attorneys from the Goldwater Institute, a heavy-hitting conservative think tank in Arizona. Together, they argue, since unions and nonprofits are allowed to make political contributions, treating for-profit corporations differently violates the state and federal constitutions.
“You have one side of the bargaining table that is completely shut out of supporting candidates,” said Jim Manley, a senior attorney with the Goldwater Institute. “What we’re asking for is equality and fairness in these rules.”
Manley said the institute found the Bay State case because his colleagues have been “watching this issue for awhile.” In fact, his legal team won a case in Kentucky last year. A federal judge found that a corporate bar that didn’t apply to unions and nonprofits violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
“There is no justification for treating the political activity of businesses differently from that of unions or non-profits,” Cote wrote in the pitch to the SJC. “Many cases enforce equal protection guarantees in this context.”
They also argue that the Bay State’s bar on corporate contributions, which has been around in some form for decades, violates the First Amendment because it chills both expressive activity and association rights.
Superior Court Judge Paul Wilson ruled in April that the state law withstood the constitutional challenge and that the state has an interest in “preventing quid pro quo corruption” that could flow from corporations funding candidates.
Attorney General Maura Healey, whose office has and will defend the law, agreed.
“Our office is committed to defending the state’s longstanding authority to ban corporate campaign contributions to avoid the risk of political corruption,” Emily Snyder, a spokeswoman for Healey, said in a statement. “We are confident that the Superior Court’s decision will be affirmed.”
In their bid to have Wilson toss the suit, attorneys from Healey’s office argued the law was necessary because it “deters entities with the state-conferred power to amass financial wealth from using their resources to elicit favor from politicians.”