In a dramatic legal showdown that has captured national attention, Maine’s ambitious attempt to shield its elections from foreign influence has been put on ice by a federal appeals court. On August 11, 2025, the Associated Press reported that the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston had ruled Maine cannot enforce its voter-approved law banning foreign governments and companies with significant foreign government ownership from donating to state referendum races. The decision, which echoes growing nationwide debates about money in politics, leaves Mainers in limbo over the fate of a measure they overwhelmingly supported just two years ago.
The law, known as Question 2, was passed by a staggering 86% of Maine voters in 2023. It specifically prohibits foreign governments and companies with at least 5% foreign government ownership from contributing to state referendum campaigns. The measure was a direct response to a multimillion-dollar campaign by Hydro-Quebec—a Canadian-owned utility that poured money into a controversial Maine energy project in which it was a partner. For many Mainers, the episode highlighted how easily outside interests could sway local decisions, fueling a grassroots push for tighter controls.
But the story didn’t end at the ballot box. The Maine Association of Broadcasters, Maine Press Association, Central Maine Power, and Versant Power quickly sued to block the initiative, arguing that it trampled on constitutional rights. Their legal challenge set the stage for a battle that would pit popular will against the bedrock principles of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment.
In July 2025, the 1st Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the law likely violates the Constitution. Judge Lara Montecalvo, writing for the court, minced no words: “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.” According to the Associated Press, this language struck at the heart of the law’s rationale, suggesting that its sweeping restrictions could stifle legitimate voices—corporate and otherwise—without sufficient evidence of actual foreign meddling.
The case has now been sent back to the lower court for further proceedings, but as of early August, there’s been no substantive movement. For now, the law remains on Maine’s books, but it’s unenforceable while legal challenges play out. Danna Hayes, a spokesperson for the Maine attorney general’s office, confirmed to the press that the state is in a holding pattern: “The law is on the state’s books, but the state cannot enforce it while legal challenges are still pending.”
Supporters of the law, however, aren’t giving up without a fight. Rick Bennett, chair of Protect Maine Elections—the committee that spearheaded the 2023 ballot initiative—remains steadfast. In a statement echoed by multiple outlets, he declared, “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.” For Bennett and his allies, the legal wrangling is just the latest chapter in a broader struggle to defend the integrity of Maine’s democracy.
Yet the pushback hasn’t been limited to the courts. Months before voters approved Question 2, Democratic Governor Janet Mills vetoed the ban, warning that it could inadvertently silence “legitimate voices, including Maine-based businesses.” Mills had also vetoed a similar measure in 2021, expressing concern that the law’s broad language might sweep up local companies with minor foreign shareholders who have no real say in corporate decisions. Her veto was ultimately overridden at the ballot box, but her reservations found new life in the courtroom.
The tension between popular sentiment and constitutional safeguards is hardly new in American politics, but the Maine case has become a touchstone for activists and legal scholars alike. As Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard professor and founder of Equal Citizens, told News Center Maine in July, “We are exhausted, all of us, especially people in Maine, with the enormous influence money has in our politics, and we want to do something about it.” Lessig, whose nonprofit helped put a related anti-super PAC measure on the ballot, expressed optimism that the courts might eventually reconsider: “We think ultimately the court of appeals is going to reverse this decision because it’s grounded in a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court has said.”
Maine’s fight against big money in politics didn’t stop with Question 2. Just a year after voters approved the foreign interference ban, they backed another ballot measure aimed at restricting super political action committees (PACs)—the powerful groups that can raise and spend unlimited sums on campaigns. But in July 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf blocked that measure, known as Question 1, further underscoring the legal headwinds facing campaign finance reformers.
For many in Maine, these setbacks have been deeply frustrating. The state has long prided itself on its tradition of clean elections and civic engagement, and the overwhelming support for both ballot measures suggests a broad-based desire for change. But as the legal process drags on, some worry that the momentum for reform could stall—or that the courts could ultimately side with corporate and media plaintiffs, leaving voters’ wishes unfulfilled.
At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: How far can states go to protect their elections from outside influence without infringing on free speech? The Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision in 2010 opened the floodgates for corporate spending in U.S. elections, making it much harder for states to draw bright lines against foreign or corporate involvement. Maine’s experience is now a test case, watched closely by reformers and critics across the country.
Meanwhile, the real-world stakes remain high. The Hydro-Quebec campaign that sparked Maine’s crackdown was just one example of how foreign-owned entities can wade into local politics, sometimes with eye-popping sums. For those who see democracy as a fragile trust between citizens and their government, the specter of foreign money—however indirect—feels like a clear and present danger. For others, the greater risk lies in overcorrecting, muzzling legitimate participants in the democratic process and chilling public debate.
For now, Mainers are left waiting, watching, and wondering what comes next. The courts will ultimately decide the fate of Question 2, but the broader conversation about money, influence, and democracy is far from over. As the legal battle continues, one thing is clear: the question of who gets to shape Maine’s future—its people, its businesses, or interests from beyond its borders—remains as urgent and unsettled as ever.