neither violated the Minnesota Statutes nor been threatened by Appellees with prosecution should they engage in the proposed activity, Appellants’ fear of prosecution is not imaginary or speculative. The Minnesota Statutes, on their face, prohibit corporate political expenditures of money or service for the purpose of promoting or defeating a candidate for federal office, and the penalty provisions apply both to the corporations and their agents. While Appellees assert that they have never prosecuted anyone under the Minnesota Statutes or “made any public statements threatening to do so,” Brief of Appellees at 9, Appellees have not disavowed an intent to enforce the statutes in the future. See United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union v. IBP, Inc., 857 F.2d 422, 429 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, as counsel conceded at oral argument,
holding that plaintiffs had standing to challenge stops by the united states border patrol because plaintiffs could be stopped without engaging in illegal conduct holding that representation by state officials that they have no present plan to enforce a statute does not divest plaintiffs of standing to challenge the statute because the states position could well change holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another states statute it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the model in determining the proper construction   holding that a plaintiffs reference to himself and all similarly situated future petitioners did not change the essence of his action from a particularized challenge of the state courts decision against him to a general challenge of a statute