Two businesses with ties to the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance had argued that businesses should be treated the same way as unions.
BOSTON -- A Suffolk Superior Court judge has upheld Massachusetts campaign finance laws, which bar political contributions by businesses but allow contributions by unions.
Two Massachusetts businesses, 1A Auto and 126 Self Storage, whose owners Rick Green and Michael Kane are active in the fiscally conservative advocacy group Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, had challenged the law.
Judge Paul Wilson issued an order dated Tuesday dismissing the challenge. "To find for the Plaintiffs, I would have to ignore binding and directly applicable United States Supreme Court precedent," Wilson wrote. "To do that is beyond my power."
The businesses, represented by lawyers from the Goldwater Institute, a conservative Arizona-based think tank, had argued that the same political donation rules should apply to businesses and unions.
But attorneys for the Office of Campaign and Political Finance argued that businesses are different from unions, and government is within its rights to regulate each entity differently.
Under Massachusetts campaign finance law, businesses are not allowed to contribute to candidates. Individuals can donate up to $1,000 per year and unions can donate up to $15,000.
Wilson noted that the Massachusetts laws banning business contributions to state politicians date back to 1907 and 1908 -- around the same time Congress passed a similar law on a federal level at the behest of Republican President Theodore Roosevelt.
"In the ensuing century, the ban on corporate contributions has been an essential part of the Legislature's efforts to prevent corruption in Massachusetts elections," Wilson wrote. Similar laws remain in place on a federal level. He noted that individuals who are associated with a business can still make political contributions as long as the money does not come from the corporation itself.
The 2010 U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling allowed corporations to make unlimited independent expenditures, money spent to help a candidate without coordinating with that candidate directly. But the Supreme Court specifically did not address the question of whether businesses can be barred from donating to a candidate directly.
The businesses had argued that barring business contributions limits their rights to free speech, and treating them differently from labor unions violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions. The Office of Campaign and Political Finance responded that the rules are narrowly tailored to address the state's interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, and corporations and unions are different entities that can be governed differently.
Wilson found that previous Supreme Court rulings serve to uphold OCPF's position. He said the state has a legitimate interest in avoiding corruption by barring corporate campaign contributions, and the plaintiffs did not bring enough evidence to show that unions are similarly situated to businesses and must be governed by the same laws.
Emily Snyder, a spokesman for the attorney general's office, which represented OCPF, said, "The court's order affirms our longstanding right to ban corporations from making campaign contributions and avoid even the risk of political corruption. This decision is a victory for our democracy."
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said Wilson is "on the wrong side of history" with his ruling.
"Throughout the country, you are seeing court case after court case allowing for more free speech and more equal protection under the law," Craney said in a statement. "Unfortunately in this case, our judge decided to preserve the status quo, which unfairly protects the interests of unions, over the interests of citizens and employers in state campaign finance law."
Jim Manley, the Goldwater Institute attorney representing the businesses, said the organization stands by its position and believes Wilson's ruling conflicts with recent U.S. Supreme Court and federal court decisions.
"There is room to debate many campaign finance regulations, but this is not one of them," Manley said in a statement. "A total ban on businesses participating in the political process -- while their counterparts from the other side of the bargaining table dole out stacks of cash to their preferred candidates and committees -- is unfair from any perspective."
This story was updated to include comments from Snyder.