will initiate criminal prosecution against them and their corporate officers, employees, and agents” should they do so. Complaint at 4. Although Appellants h ppellees have taken an oath to enforce Minnesota law. Moreover, § 211B.15, subd. 2, is not a dormant law; it recently was enforced by a county attorney in another county. See State v. Eiben-steiner, 690 N.W.2d 140 (Minn.Ct.App. 2004) (discussing Mower County Attorney’s prosecution of insurance company and insurance company officers who made corporate contributions to a state political party for the purpose of defeating a candidate for Minnesota governor). Appellants “are thus not without some reason in fearing prosecution” should they make the political expenditures that they propose. Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 302, 99 S.Ct. 2301 (<HOLDING>); see also Butler, 146 F.3d at 560 (holding
holding that the threat of injury was not speculative because the plaintiffs had been previously charged under the challenged statute holding that fear of prosecution was not imaginary or speculative even though the challenged criminal penalty provision had never been applied to plaintiffs proposed conduct where statute on its face proscribed the proposed conduct and where the state has not disavowed any intention of invoking the criminal penalty provision holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct holding that criminal conduct on premises was not foreseeable holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired