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.