Oral arguments were heard last week in a 2015 lawsuit filed in Massachusetts Suffolk County Superior Court challenging state laws allowing unions to make political contributions while barring corporations from doing the same.

The lawsuit is being brought by the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute on behalf of two state business corporations against Michael Sullivan, the director of the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF), which enforces the law. In 1A AUTO, INC. v Sullivan, the plaintiffs allege, “There is no legitimate justification for allowing unions to contribute thousands of dollars to candidates, parties, and political committees, while completely banning any contributions from businesses.” The plaintiffs argue the law violates “equal protection, free speech, and free association protected by the Massachusetts and United States constitutions” and are seeking a permanent injunction preventing the OCPF from enforcing the law banning corporate contributions.

Both parties made their arguments on December 7 in front of Judge Paul Wilson, who will decide the previously filed motions for summary judgement.

On April 8, the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) issued new regulations concerning coordination between candidates and independent expenditure-only political committees. The new regulations clarify definitions in the law for the terms “independent expenditure” and “electioneering communication” and try to “define situations in which a presumption of coordination exists between a candidate and an outside spender who is expressly advocating on the candidate’s behalf,” according to the OCPF.

The OCPF has said the regulations were created in response to frequent inquiries about the rules of coordination between candidates and other political entities.

On February 24, the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) held a public hearing on proposed regulations to clarify political expenditure coordination between entities. The proposed regulations seek to elucidate the differences between independent and coordinated expenditures, including “situations in which a presumption of coordination exists between a candidate and an outside spender who is expressly advocating on the candidate’s behalf,” according to an OCPF press release. “We get complaints all the time, so we’re trying to create a roadmap,” said OCPF Director Michael Sullivan, as reported in the New Boston Post. Written comments about the draft regulations will be accepted until 5 p.m. on March 4.