In a decision that tramples over a state’s right to protect its own democratic self-governance from foreign interference, a federal district court judge in Minnesota on February 7, 2025, permanently enjoined Minn. Stat. § 211B.15, a Minnesota statute that bars foreign-influenced corporations from spending unlimited money in Minnesota’s elections. The decision undermines the state’s authority to protect its elections and empowers corporations to serve as conduits through which powerful foreign entities can exert influence over U.S. corporations. And it is based on a misreading of prior Supreme Court rulings and of the evidence before the court.

The ruling veers sharply from Supreme Court precedent, which has recognized that states have a compelling interest in protecting its democratic self-government—even in the context of campaign finance, even where that protection requires it to impinge on individuals’ First Amendment rights.

Federal law prohibits any foreign entity from spending even a single dollar to directly or indirectly influence elections in the United States—a law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. In a decision written by then-D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia explained that the law was constitutional because the government has a compelling interest in protecting its democratic self-government from any political spending by foreign actors—even those who live in the United States, even those who want to spend just $50 of their own money to print political fliers.  The government’s compelling interest in protecting its elections overcomes even those foreign actors’ First Amendment rights. And the Supreme Court agreed, summarily affirming this ruling.

But while a legal resident of the United States cannot spend $50 on political fliers, powerful foreign governments, individuals, and entities can buy millions of dollars’ worth of shares in U.S.-based corporations and so obtain significant influence over those corporations—who in turn can spend unlimited money on U.S. elections. Minnesota’s law prevents this kind of influence over its own elections—or did, until the court blocked the law.

The court relied in part on Citizens United; but its reliance is misplaced. Citizens United concluded that corporations as “associations of citizens” have a First Amendment right to make independent expenditures related to U.S. elections. But it did not extend its protection to mixed associations of citizens and non-citizens. Indeed, the only four justices who spoke to the issue indicated that “the government obviously has the power to bar foreign nationals from making campaign contributions and expenditures.” And even after the Citizens United ruling, the Supreme Court summarily upheld a complete prohibition on election spending by foreign parties.

But now, a federal district court judge in Minnesota has concluded that corporations that are, at best, mixed associations of citizens and non-citizens cannot be limited to reasonable campaign finance restraints even to protect a state’s democratic self-government. The court ruled that “Because Defendants have not identified evidence that minority foreign shareholders exercise influence or control over corporations’ political expenditures, the challenged provisions of section 211B.15 sweep too broadly as a matter of law.” But it is the court’s ruling that sweeps far too broadly.

First, the state in fact put significant evidence before the court that (1) minority shareholders that satisfy the law’s threshold can and do exert direct and indirect influence over corporate decisionmaking; (2) that such influence is hidden from public view and impossible to track; (3) that foreign governments are seeking to influence U.S. elections and have spent millions of dollars to do so; and (4) that foreign entities in fact have used corporations to unlawfully funnel money into U.S. elections. But the judge found none of this persuasive.

Second, the ruling provides foreign-influenced corporations with protections to which individuals are not entitled and demands states meet arbitrarily high evidentiary standards to support its interest in democratic self-government. It will allow corporations to benefit from the opaque systems and processes that enable minority shareholders—no matter how large that minority stake is—to influence corporate direction. It ties Minnesota’s hands, requiring it to sacrifice its democratic self-government in order to prove that its self-government is at risk.

The court expressed concern that Minn. Stat. § 211B.15 creates an inevitable slippery slope. But fear of a slippery slope is no legal basis for rejecting an otherwise constitutional law. Moreover, the federal government, with full support of the Supreme Court, has long prohibited any and all spending by foreign individuals and entities, even legal U.S. residents, that directly or indirectly influences U.S. elections; and that law has not led to other unconstitutional limits on these entities’ speech. Neither will Minn. Stat. § 211B.15. And in fact, Minnesota’s law leaves significant avenues open for corporations to make political speech—they can write op-eds, post to their websites, and their individual shareholders and employees can speak without constraint and form citizen-only PACs if they wish to make political expenditures under the corporation’s banner. What they cannot do, under Minn. Stat. § 211B.15, is spend unlimited money on Minnesota elections from massive million- billion- and trillion-dollar treasuries when they are subject to influence by substantial foreign owners.

Minnesota passed § 211B.15 because it recognized the serious risk that foreign-influenced corporations pose to its local and state elections. It placed reasonable political spending limitations on corporations that can be influenced by significant foreign owners, and was well within its legal right to pass such a law. Minn. Stat. § 211B.15 should have been upheld. And Free Speech For People will continue to support the legislative and legal battles of local and state governments which, like the people of Minnesota, seek to protect their communities’ democratic self-government.

Click here to read the order.