The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently upheld a state law that bans business campaign contributions, while allowing unions to give up to $15,000 to candidates during each election cycle.

In my opinion, the SJC's decision is unfair and shows preferential treatment to unions.

Among the reasons for blocking business donors is to avoid the the appearance of corruption that might come with politicians taking money from small business and larger commercial interests. But if business donations come with "the appearance of corruption," then why can't labor contributions? It goes without saying that union money has strings attached.

Businesses and unions have so many ways to influence elections. They both can lobby, and they both can give to PACs, but they both can't contribute directly, except for the unions?

The SJC's misguided decision should be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It looks like that's the only way this question will get justice.

Phil Paleologos is the host of The Phil Paleologos Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard weekdays from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m. Contact him at phil@wbsm.com and follow him on Twitter @PhilPaleologos. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.