Hey, there! Log in / Register

Court upholds state ban on corporate campaign contributions to political candidates

The Supreme Judicial Court today upheld the state's 111-year-old law against political contributions by companies to candidates for state and local offices, saying it is not only constitutional but a safeguard against political 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 state's highest court said.

The owners of an auto-parts store in Pepperell and a self-storage facility in Ashland sued against the prohibition, arguing it infringes on their free-speech rights under the US and state constitutions - as well as their rights to equal protection under the law, because unions and non-profit organizations are not barred from making direct contributions. One of the brothers who owns 1A Auto is Rick Green, who is running for Congress in the Third District as a Republican.

But citing a series of federal cases, the state's highest court drew a distinction between contributions to candidates and contributions to "independent" political action committees or to directly funding information campaigns not explicitly tied to a particular candidate and said that under the US constitution, a ban on direct contributions is permissible. The SJC noted the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, but said that that did not overturn the 2003 Beaumont case that called for a distinction between direct contributions to a candidate and independent political spending.

The court said that when a corporation gives money directly to a candidate, it's the candidate who is doing the talking, not the company, while a company that spends its own money on an information campaign is speaking strictly for itself.

Citing a 1976 Supreme Court decision, the court said:

contribution limits encroach to a lesser extent on First Amendment interests than independent expenditure limits: whereas independent expenditures are themselves a form of political expression, lying "at the core . . . of the First Amendment freedoms," a contribution is merely "a general expression of support for the candidate and his views, [which] does not communicate the underlying basis for the support."

"[C]ontributions may result in political expression if spent by a candidate . . . to present views to the voters, [but] the transformation of contributions into political debate involves speech by someone other than the contributor." Thus, although limits on independent expenditures "necessarily reduce[] the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached," limits on contributions "entail[] only a marginal restriction upon the contributor's ability to engage in free communication."

The court added:

To our knowledge, every Federal circuit court that has considered a constitutional challenge to laws banning corporate contributions since Citizens United has applied the controlling precedent in Beaumont and concluded that the laws were constitutional under the First Amendment.

The court rejected the companies' arguments that the ban is unnecessary in Massachusetts because there is no evidence of "quid pro quo corruption" from companies giving money to candidates. The court noted that's because such contributions have been illegal for more than a century, but added that the state needs to remain vigilant, because we've had plenty of political corruption just in the past decade, citing the bribery convictions of Sal DiMasi, Chuck Turner and Dianne Wilkerson.

In addition, the record here shows that OCPF has prosecuted several cases involving corporations that sought to circumvent § 8 [the state ban on corporate contributions] by making contributions through individual employees, who were later reimbursed with corporate funds. Such schemes indicate that, if not for § 8, the inverse also would be possible, with individuals circumventing the limits on their own political contributions "by diverting money through . . . corporation[s]." Beaumont, 539 U.S. at 155.

The court then returned to the free-speech issue, noting that, like federal law, state law allows corporations to knock themselves out spending money on "independent" campaigns not directly tied to a specific candidate, both directly and through contributions to "independent" political action committees.

OCPF records indicate that independent expenditures in connection with State elections have risen sharply since the ban was lifted ...

Where corporations in Massachusetts are free to spend as much money as they would like independently advocating for their preferred candidates, or to contribute to an independent expenditure PAC, we cannot conclude that § 8 denies corporations the opportunity meaningfully to participate in the political process.

The court then rejected the companies' argument that they are being denied equal rights under the 14th Amendment and the comparable section of the state constitution, because corporations are not among the classes of people for whom the issue brings special scrutiny - since they have not historically been discriminated against because of the race, gender or national origin.

The court specified how corporations can spend money politically on Massachusetts state or local elections:

To illustrate, if a Massachusetts corporation wants to support a certain John Hancock for Massachusetts governor, it may not contribute money directly to Hancock or to Hancock's campaign committee. Nor may it establish and administer a PAC to solicit contributions for Hancock, or contribute to a PAC that in turn makes campaign contributions to Hancock. The corporation may, however, spend as much money as it likes advocating on behalf of Hancock, as long as it does so independently from him and his campaign. For example, it may, on its own initiative and without coordinating with Hancock, pay for a television advertisement urging viewers to vote for Hancock. It may also contribute to an independent expenditure PAC, which, provided it does not coordinate with Hancock, may spend money promoting him to the public.

Free tagging: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete SJC ruling297.47 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Yes?

up
Voting closed 0

Thanks for noting who one of the players was behind this.

up
Voting closed 0

Mercer or Koch shadow puppet is the victim of this injustice....

up
Voting closed 0