Free Speech Arguments – Can States Ban Political Spending by U.S. Companies with Minor Foreign Ownership? (Central Maine Power Company)

The Free Speech Arguments Podcast brings you oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases across the country. Find us on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

October 9, 2024   •  By IFS Staff   •    •  

Episode 19: Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al.

Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Senior Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Howard, and Circuit Judge Seth Aframe in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on October 9, 2024. Argued by Jonathan Richard Bolton, Maine Assistant Attorney General (on behalf of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al.),  Joshua D. Dunlap (on behalf of Central Maine Power Company, et al.), Paul McDonald (on behalf of Versant Power and ENMAX Corporation), and Timothy Woodcock (on behalf of individual voter plaintiffs).

*Note: a full transcript of the argument may be found under “resources” at the bottom of the page

Statement of Issues Presented for Review, from the Brief of Plaintiff—Appellee Enmax Corporation and Versant Power:

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by preliminarily enjoining enforcement of 21-A M.R.S. § 1064 (the “Act”), which bars all campaign spending of a domestic corporation if 5% or more of its stock is owned by certain foreign entities or such a foreign entity directly or indirectly participates in its campaign-spending decisions, on the grounds that the Act facially violates the corporation’s First Amendment rights.

2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that the Act is expressly preempted by federal law as applied to federal elections when the Act’s plain text does not limit its application to state elections.

3. Whether the district court’s decision enjoining the Act should be affirmed on two alternative grounds left unaddressed by the district court: (i) the Act violates the United States Constitution’s “dormant foreign commerce clause,” Article I, Section 8, Clause 3; and (ii) the Act, as applied to Versant Power, violates its rights under the First Amendment.

Resources:

(Note: The transcript was automatically generated from Apple Podcasts. We have added speaker names, but the transcript has not been verified by a human. Please excuse any typos or inaccuracies resulting from the automatically generated transcription.)

Listen to the argument here:

     

The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform.

IFS Staff

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap