A Suffolk Superior Court judge has upheld the Massachusetts campaign finance laws, which bar the political contributions by businesses but allow the contributions by unions.

The two Massachusetts businesses, named 1A Auto and 126 Self Storage, whose owners Rick Green and Michael Kane are active in the fiscally conservative advocacy group of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, had challenged the law.

Judge Paul Wilson issued an order on Tuesday dismissing the challenge. The businesses, represented by the lawyers from Goldwater Institute, a conservative Arizona-based think tank, had argued that same political donation rules should apply to the businesses and also to the unions.

But the attorneys for Office of Campaign and Political Finance argued that the businesses are different from unions, and also the government is within its rights to regulate each entity differently. Under the Massachusetts campaign finance law, businesses are not allowed to contribute to the candidates. Individuals can donate up to $1,000 per year and the unions can donate up to $15,000 per year.

Wilson also noted that the Massachusetts laws banning business contributions to the state politicians date back to 1907 and 1908, around the same time when Congress passed a similar law on a federal level at behest of the Republican President Theodore Roosevelt.

The 2010 U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling allowed the corporations to make unlimited independent expenditures, the money spent to help a candidate without coordinating with that candidate directly. But the Supreme Court specifically did not address the question of whether the businesses can be barred from donating to a candidate directly.

Now talaq through advertisements

The businesses had argued that barring the business contributions limits their rights to free speech, and treating them differently from the labor unions violates 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 the corruption or appearance of corruption, and the corporations and unions are different entities that can be governed differently.

Wilson found that previous Supreme Court rulings serve to uphold the OCPF's position. He said that the state has a legitimate interest in avoiding the corruption by barring corporate campaign contributions, and plaintiffs did not bring the enough evidence to show that unions are similarly situated to the businesses and must be governed by the same laws.

Paul Craney, the executive director of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said that Wilson is "on the wrong side of history" with his ruling.

Jim Manley, Goldwater Institute attorney representing the businesses, said that the organization stands by its position and also believes Wilson's ruling conflicts with recent U.S. Supreme Court and federal court decisions.

Mrudula Duddempudi.