On January 21, 2026, Free Speech For People and local counsel Peter J. Brann filed an amicus brief in federal district court in support of Maine’s law prohibiting political spending by corporations that are substantially owned by foreign governments.

A historic margin of Maine voters voted in favor of the law in 2022, which defines foreign-government-influenced corporations (FGICs) as those in which foreign governments hold at least 5% ownership. Several plaintiffs, including two corporations that control power and energy for most Mainers and which are wholly controlled by foreign entities, immediately challenged the law in federal court and obtained a temporary injunction. As a result, for the last three years, FGICs have remained free to make unlimited independent expenditures in Maine’s elections, in direct opposition to Mainers’ clear and commonsense choice.

The plaintiffs have now moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to permanently block the law without going through the ordinary processes of discovery and trial. If granted, Maine voters would be deprived of the opportunity to obtain information from the plaintiffs during discovery, and of the opportunity to defend the law at trial. 

To support their motions, the plaintiff corporations claim that they are “American” and that the law silences them. Neither claim is accurate, as Free Speech For People explains in its amicus brief. 

First, FGICs are not “American” for the purposes of establishing their First Amendment right to spend in U.S. elections. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court held that corporate speech is the speech of its owners acting in association, and that corporations have free speech rights because they are “associations of citizens.” But corporations that are substantially owned by foreign governments are not associations of citizens. They are, at best, a hybrid association of citizens and non-citizens. And the Supreme Court has made it clear that a total prohibition on both direct and indirect spending by non-citizens in U.S. elections is constitutional, because elections are at the heart of our democracy and states have a compelling interest in protecting their democratic self-government. 

Second, the law does not silence any person or entity. Individual U.S. citizens or permanent residents who hold stake in FGICs are free to continue to make political contributions individually or collectively with other citizens. And the FGICs themselves retain significant opportunities to speak about political issues and elections and to elected representatives. They can give interviews, distribute communications to their stockholders, publish social media and website posts, and lobby. They can engage in, pay for, or contribute to Get Out The Vote efforts. They can speak on political, social, and economic issues in a variety of forums. They are prohibited only from pouring money into campaigns or paying to have their election-related words amplified to a wider audience than those who might seek their opinions out voluntarily.  This is a far cry from being silenced. 

Eighty-four percent of Mainers—a margin unmatched in Maine’s history—supported the law in order to protect their democratic self-government from foreign interference and foreign money. Now corporate interests seek to silence them, quash their vote, and force them to allow Maine elections to be influenced by corporations that speak as, and answer to, foreign governments. The court should not allow it. Nor should the court take at face value the corporate defendants’ inaccurate representations of Supreme Court precedent, their own identities, and the law’s impact. The defendants in this case, including the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, should be allowed the opportunity to represent Mainers and their interests in further court proceedings, to obtain evidence from the defendants, and to present their case at trial. And Mainers should be allowed to protect their democratic self-government from foreign government interference.

Read FSFP’s amicus brief here.

To learn more about this case, visit our case page here.