Massachusetts Ban Of Corporate Money In Politics Stands

Watching Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings in the Senate has put on display what can go wrong with an out-of-control Supreme Court controlled by far right extremists like Kavanaugh. But on Thursday the opposite was on display in Massachusetts where the state Supreme Judicial Court held that the longtime ban on corporate money in politics-- to candidates, parties and candidate-focused PACs-- does not violate the First Amendment, and that overturning it could lead to instances of quid pro quo corruption. That's the kind of Supreme Court the country needs, not the horror show Trump and his Republican enablers and rubber-stamps are putting together.

The ustices ruled unanimously that the samecannot be said for unions, nonprofits or trade associations, which means this ruling will certainly be headed to the union-hating U.S. Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Ralph Gants wrote, "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 decision was in response to a lawsuit filed by two business owners one from Pepperell and another from Ashland, MA, who argued that the ban on corporate contributions was unconstitutional, infringed on their right to free speech and harmed their right to equal protection. They are both members of the pro-business 501(c4) group Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.

Attorneys for the state counter-argued that the laws are necessary to prevent corruption.

Although Massachusetts businesses cannot contribute to a candidate or a candidate's political action committee, they can make independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a campaign.

Massachusetts, 21 other states and the federal government ban corporate contributions to state and local candidates. The Republicans are eager to end all controls on campaign bribes and hope that Kavanaugh will be the vote needed to do just that.