105 N.E.3d 1175
Mass.2018Background
- Massachusetts G. L. c. 55, § 8 (dating to 1907) bars business and profit-making entities from making contributions to state or local candidates; corporations may still make unlimited independent expenditures and give to independent‑expenditure PACs.
- Plaintiffs: two family‑owned Massachusetts corporations (1A Auto, Inc.; 126 Self Storage, Inc.) sued the director of OCPF seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing § 8 violates free speech/association (U.S. First Amendment and Mass. arts. 16 & 19) and equal protection (U.S. Fourteenth Amendment and Mass. art. 1).
- Procedural posture: plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction denied; after discovery, trial judge granted summary judgment to OCPF and denied plaintiffs’ summary judgment; plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court.
- Core statutory distinction: contribution bans (subject to lesser scrutiny) vs. independent expenditure limits (subject to strict scrutiny); under Massachusetts law corporations cannot contribute to candidates or most PACs but may make independent expenditures.
- The court applied U.S. Supreme Court precedent (notably Beaumont) and rejected plaintiffs’ claims, holding § 8 is "closely drawn" to serve the important anticorruption and anticircumvention interests and does not violate equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 8 violate free speech/association under the First Amendment? | Ban unlawfully restricts corporate political speech; OCPF must show evidence of quid pro quo corruption in Massachusetts. | Beaumont controls: contribution limits are subject to less rigorous review and § 8 furthers anticorruption and anticircumvention interests; independent expenditures remain allowed. | Court: No violation. Applied Beaumont's "closely drawn" standard; § 8 is justified to prevent corruption/appearance of corruption and circumvention. |
| Do arts. 16 & 19 of the Mass. Declaration of Rights provide greater protection than the First Amendment? | Plaintiffs urge broader state‑constitutional protection for corporate contributions. | State constitution historically affords protections comparable to the First Amendment; no reason to afford greater corporate contribution rights. | Court: No broader protection; § 8 constitutional under arts. 16 & 19. |
| Is § 8 unconstitutionally underinclusive (permits unions/nonprofits to contribute but bars corporations)? | Differential treatment renders the ban not closely drawn and may reflect viewpoint/class discrimination. | Underinclusiveness alone does not invalidate statute; no evidence of illicit legislative motive; Legislature may target corporate corruption specifically. | Court: Not underinclusive in an unconstitutional sense; no showing the Legislature disfavored corporate speech; upheld. |
| Does § 8 violate equal protection by singling out corporations? | Plaintiffs argue heightened equal protection scrutiny should apply and the classification fails. | Corporations are not a suspect class; contribution limits implicate lesser scrutiny (same as First Amendment analysis); classification is aimed at legitimate anticorruption interests. | Court: No violation. Applied "closely drawn" standard; § 8 survives equal protection review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Federal Election Comm'n v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (upholding federal ban on corporate contributions as "closely drawn" to prevent corruption)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (invalidating ban on corporate independent expenditures; reiterating distinction between contributions and independent expenditures)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (distinguishing contribution limits from independent‑expenditure limits; political spending as protected speech)
- McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n, 572 U.S. 185 (plurality) (discussing anticorruption interest and limits on aggregate contribution bans)
- Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Gov't PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (contribution limits reviewed under less rigorous standard if "closely drawn" to important interest)
- Wagner v. Federal Election Comm'n, 793 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (applying analogous analysis to reject attempts to obtain strict scrutiny via equal protection challenge)