Summary
- Maine can’t enforce voter-approved foreign election
law. - Federal appeals court says law likely unconstitutional.
- The law limits political donations from foreign-owned
entities. - Court finds law overly broad, violates First Amendment.
- Legal challenges keep the law suspended for now.
A ban on foreign governments and businesses with
5% or more foreign government ownership from funding state referendum elections
was overwhelmingly supported by voters. The bill is one of several nationwide
efforts to reduce foreign influence on U.S. elections.
Utilities firms and media outlets have filed
federal lawsuits challenging the law’s constitutionality, putting it on hold.
In July, the Boston-based U.S. District Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
said in court documents that it upheld a decision by a lower court that the
statute probably violates the First Amendment.
“The prohibition is overly broad, silencing U.S.
corporations based on the mere possibility that foreign shareholders might try
to influence its decisions on political speech, even where those foreign
shareholders may be passive owners that exercise no influence or control over
the corporation’s political spending,”
wrote Judge Lara Montecalvo.
Danna Hayes, a spokesman for the Maine attorney
general’s office, stated on Monday that there has been no significant progress
on the case in recent weeks and that it was returned to the lower court, where
it will proceed. According to Hayes, although the law is in effect, the state
is unable to implement it as long as legal challenges are pending.
By a vote of 86% to 14% in 2023, the law was
enacted. It came after a utility owned by a Canadian company spent millions
trying to sway a project in Maine in which it is a partner.
“Mainers spoke with one voice: our elections
should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign
governments whose interests may not align with our own,”
Bennett said in a
statement.
What constitutional issues did courts cite in
blocking Maine’s foreign interference law?
The law’s ban on contributions from corporations
with 5% or more foreign government ownership was considered overbroad and not
narrowly tailored.
It silenced U.S. corporations simply based on
the possibility that foreign shareholders might influence political speech
decisions, even when those shareholders are passive investors lacking control
over political expenditures.
The courts found that Maine had not demonstrated
that such a broad curtailment of First Amendment rights was necessary to
achieve the state’s interest in preventing foreign interference in elections.
