Did the ACLU support Citizens United?

[bluestateguy]

Sure seems like they did. I can understand (but not be real happy about) them going to bat for Rush Limbaugh, the Nazis in Skokie and the Westboro Baptist Church, but to defend unlimited corporate spending in elections is just unconscionable.

And it would be nice if these self-professed stalwarts of the Bill of Rights would just once stand up for the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Any fundraiser mail I get from them goes directly into the garbage can. I'd just as soon give money to a Blue Dog Democrat before giving anything to the ACLU.


http://www.alternet.org/rights/145447/why_the_aclu_supported_the_supreme_court%27s_shocking_assault_on_free_speech

[PeaceNikki]

1. Here

http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_17229907

[Silent3]

2. The ACLU lost me with Citizens United

I'd been a long time, literally "card carrying" supporter, but I let my membership lapse after Citizens United, and answered several of their requests for donations with letters expressing my feelings on the issue.

While under many circumstances it might not be right to hold one bad thing against an organization that does many good things, the one bad thing of Citizens United greatly undermines everything else they do.

The ACLU won't get me back until they publicly renounce their role in CU and start working to repair the damage.

[enough]

3. Some info on ACLU's work to defend gun rights:

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/07/21/aclu-defending-gun-rights-but-that-wont-convince-the-wingnuts-nobodys-coming-after-their-guns/

Somehow I missed the story about their support of Citizen's United. Thanks for the reminder on that.

[X_Digger]

6. State level branches of the ACLU have been coming around..

But the national org still has it's collective head up it's ass..

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right.

[banned from Kos]

4. the ACLU is an absolutist on the First Amendment

remember that they supported the Klan's march?

or the right to publish a web site for NAMBLA?

How is this different?

Even the worst among us are protected by the First Amendment.

[PeaceNikki]

5. Their client in the Bill of Rights; not the left or the right. Not positions or "sides"

[mmonk]

7. Yes, they jumped the shark.

I no longer support them. I prefer the Center for Constitutional Rights.

[Puregonzo1188]

13. CCR is great as well and they have been trailblazers with their Alien Tort litigation.

[X_Digger]

8. They support the first amendment...

specifically, the repeal of parts of the McCain-Feingold Act that was prior restraint on political speech.

[Logical]

9. Their stance is how can you tell a corporation they cannot run ads.....

that are in their best interest?

How do you legally tell Exxon they cannot run an advertisement saying "Bill xxx will cost Exxon 1 billion dollars and cause layoffs" and at the same time allow Green Peace to run an add saying "Bill xxxx will save the environment"?

[wellst0nev0ter]

10. Yeah, But They Seem To Forget How Money Talks

And those with more money often drown out all the others, which is why we needed to level the playing field in the first place.

[PeaceNikki]

11. They certainly did not forget this.

Why did the ACLU choose to get involved this case? We got involved because political advocacy speech lies at the heart of the First Amendment.

This vaguely worded ban on electioneering communications was a threat to robust political speech. It covered big and small corporations, unions, and genuine issue ads by nonpartisan organizations like the ACLU, which is also a corporation. Felony charges could be brought based on the government`s opinion of what would be the hypothetical response of a reasonable listener, which would still leave speakers guessing about what speech is lawful and what speech is not.

That uncertainty invited arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by the government. It also led many speakers to self-censor and not participate in political advocacy rather than risk sanctions or undertake the expense of suing the Federal Election Commission prior to speaking, especially since most suits would not be resolved until long after the speech is timely and relevant.

In short, Section 203 of the McCain-Feingold law, while well-intentioned, was a poorly conceived effort to restrict political speech. The ACLU argued that it should be struck down. That`s what the Court did.

Many in the ACLU loathe the influence of money in politics. The inequities of speech that flow from the inequities of wealth distort our democracy. Unfortunately, this has always been so -- and not just during elections. Citizens can demand that their elected representatives pass constitutional laws that address these inequities.

But this is not the role of the ACLU. We are non-partisan and apolitical. Our client is the Bill of Rights, and there`s no more important right in our view than defending the First Amendment rights of all to petition the government for redress of grievances and to freely and openly engage in political speech.

from: http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_17229907

[Puregonzo1188]

12. If I recall correctly that had a very narrow objection to part of McCain-Feingold, which they

thought could have been used against groups like them, as they are technically a corporation. Their fear stems from experience they had with the FEC under Nixon accusing them for electioneering by running an newspaper ad critical of the Nixon's Administration handling of busing. That strikes me as a legitimate grievance on their part.

I loathe the Citizens United ruling though.

[PeaceNikki]

14. Exactly. I've posted a link to the ACLU discussion of it in this thread.