OK, so having declared Charlie Baker a loser on Tuesday, it’s easy enough to declare him a winner on Thursday.
Why?
Because Charlie Baker is the candidate the corporations are most likely to love. And on Thursday, the Supreme Court pretty much wiped out Mass. General Laws chapter 55, section 8, which reads in pertinent part:
no business corporation incorporated under the laws of or doing business in the commonwealth … shall directly or indirectly give, pay, expend or contribute, or promise to give, pay, expend or contribute, any money or other valuable thing for the purpose of aiding, promoting or preventing the nomination or election of any person to public office, or aiding or promoting or antagonizing the interest of any political party.
Yeah, well, so much for that. For now, corporations still can’t directly contribute to candidates, so they still can’t pitch in a measly $500 to the campaign coffers. But after Thursday’s decision, it seems likely that they can spend all they want on advertising promoting candidate A or attacking candidate B — notwithstanding chapter 55, section 8.
To be clear: this law is still on the books, and there has been no court decision invalidating it nor (as far as I know) statement from the Attorney General’s Office or OCPF that they no longer think it’s enforceable. So, for now, the prohibition remains in place. But I can’t see how the law can survive a simple challenge. And when the inevitable challenge comes, be prepared for corporate money to flow with abandon into the 2010 race for Governor. Particularly given MA’s anemic individual contribution limits, corporate money could be a major factor in the upcoming election cycle, competing with or even drowning out spending by the campaigns themselves. And that seems likely to benefit Charlie Baker.
let’s not pretend that the relative spending abilities of unions and corporations are comparable.
Their leadership may not know their asses from their eyeteeth, but rank and file voted for Scott Brown.
The rank and file were probably pretty split. A quick survey the day after the election among my union member colleagues in our SEIU-affiliated union showed nearly unanimous support for Coakley.
For you to infer that union spending on Democrat’s campaigns in Mass. is insignificant is…well…
First, the Supreme Court case did not concern unions, so that issue remains technically unresolved.
<
p>Second, the statute I cited does not mention unions.
<
p>Third, I didn’t “infer” anything. You did. Please learn the meaning of the word.
<
p>If you want to write a post about union spending, please do so. That’s one of the marvelous features of BMG.
<
p>Carry on.
Perhaps, I am suffering from amnesia, but I do recall that Gov. Patrick, as a candidate enjoyed significant financial support support or did corporate legal work for corporate managers and leaders from Coca-Cola, CitiGroup, Ameriquest, NSTAR, Verizon etc…
<
p>Why would these corporate leaders/managers not encourage their employees or their respective boards to continue to support an incumbent Governor who has essentially protected their financial interests at nearly every turn? With the exception of the substantial sales tax increase and some aspects of health insurance reform, I fail to comprehend why most corporations in Mass. would support a challenger, Charley Baker, during an election year against a Governor who has actually been quite friendly and cooperative with big business interests in the state.
<
p>Deval Patrick can be legitimately accused of many shortcomings, however, failing to protect the economic interests of medium and large corporations operating in the state is not one of them.
I seriously doubt the Massachusetts statute is constitutional after Citizens United. That said, while this decision will have far-reaching and mostly negative effects on future elections, I doubt it will have much affect on the gubernatorial race this year. Even if there’s a challenge to the law tomorrow, it won’t work its way through the system until after the election. Besides, right now the most important time for fundraising, and the law is still on the books.
<
p>In any case, it’s only a small comfort.
If I were the CEO of GigantiCorp and I wanted to run $5 million of ads in the 2010 MA election, I’d just do it. If OCPF wants to come after me for doing so, good luck enforcing that statute, ha ha ha. Didn’t you hear? GigantiCorp is a citizen, just like you and me.