Corporate Contributions

ONE OF THE MOST disturbing aspects of this fall's election campaign was the pervasive influence of corporate contributions on the outcome of referenda questions on the Massachusetts ballot.

While companies are barred from contributing to individual candidates' campaigns--as are labor unions--and the amount an individual can contribute to any one candidate or committee is limited to $1000, there is no legal limit on the amount a corporation can contribute to help defeat a ballot question that affects its business.

Without any limits on contribution, corporations are free to use the raw power of capital to fund massive negative advertising campaigns.

For example, opponents of the bottle bill spent a total of $1.2 million this fall. Of that, Coca-Cola contributed $140,000, Pepsi Cola $100,000, and Anheuser-Busch, Joseph Schlitz and Miller breweries all gave more than $50,000 each. Of the $585,000 spent to defeat the public power authority proposal, Boston Edison contributed $179,000 and Massachusetts Electric gave $195,000.

Most of the committees supporting these questions had no ties to or sympathy for corporate interests, and were forced to rely on individual contributions. As a result, the campaigns in favor of the bottle bill, the handgun ban, and the public power authority were, when compared to the opposition, poorly financed.

The bottle bill especially suffered from an extraordinary campaign against it that included newspaper ads, radio and television commercials, billboard and subway advertising, and banners and stickers on most soft drink trucks, machines and packages.

Many of the mainstays of the campaign were ads that distorted or misled and served not to educate the electorate but to confuse it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are a form of political expression, and come under the freedom of speech guarantees in the Constitution. But it has also ruled that limits on contributions are constitutional. In this case, limits on corporate spending--if not an outright prohibition--must be adopted to provide for fair as well as free expression.