ACLU question

[HelenWheels]

Is it true the ACLU actively pushed for the Citizen's United ruling? Is it true they accepted 20 million from the Koch Robbers?
If either is true I will drop my ACLU membership that I have held for about 7 years.

[yardwork]

1. Ask the ACLU. They discuss it on their website:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united

[TreasonousBastard]

2. That's been the rumor, but NOT for Citizen's United...

the money was was to fight the Patriot Act. the Patriot Act is the kind of thing that gives true libertarians fits. It gives us fits too, no? Funny how we can actually agree on some things...

The Koch's are strict libertarians, and one even tried for Veep on a platform of eliminating drug laws and the IRS. Restricting corporate speech would be anathema to them. Government restricting any speech isn't popular with them. (Restricting speech is the private sector's job!)

Restricting anyone's speech is anathema to the ACLU, too, so, yeah, they all saw eye-to-eye at the beginning of arguments, and the ACLU even filed an amicus brief.

But, there was a lot of soul-searching after the decision opened the floodgates and billions in anonymous donations flooded elections. It's the kind of thing that happens when your ideals get hit in the head with reality.

BTW, the Kchs are known for throwing vast sums at what we normally consider good works (libraries, charities hospitals...) and possibly vaster sums at libertarian causes, but they're not so big on actually funding campaigns. Throwing money at candidates also runs afoul of their peculiar ideology. And nobody's confirmed that 20 million figure.

So, I'm keeping my ACLU membership-- remembering that this is not a perfect world and sometimes we have to swallow the nasty stuff with the good. After all, would I refuse treatment at a hospital that took Koch money?

[GeorgeGist]

3. In part

Here is the ACLU's amicus brief ...

Supreme Court of the United States
CITIZENS UNITED,
Appellant,
—v.—
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,
Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT
ON SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTION

http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/scotus/citizensunited_v_fec_acluamicus.pdf

[kenny blankenship]

4. A possible reason to support Citizens United

The Citizens United decision should overturn the ban on direct political advocacy by unions (as in: vote for this candidate/ don't vote for that one) , imposed on unions by the extremely repressive Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, as well as lifting the ban on speech by corporate entities. That ban muzzles Planned Parenthood along with Exxon-Mobil, it bans the ACLU itself, as well as Halliburton, NARAL as well as Bank of America.

On balance though, it's not difficult to see which side has the most money to throw at political ads. If the ruling had come in 1948, it probably would have been greeted as a great triumph for organized labor.

[Nye Bevan]

5. The ACLU does support the Citizens United decision.

They filed an amicus brief in the case.

It's not such a black and white issue as some DUers seem to think.

[Sgent]

6. Yes to Citizen's United

not sure about the Koch thing...

Citizen's United is a difficult problem. I agree with the ACLU's stance:

1) Anonymous speech is protected (see federalist papers)

2) Groups of people have the same free speech rights as individuals (see freedom of association & speech in the first amendment).

The problem -- and how to control it -- can be a little more nuanced though.

1) Is speech in commerce protected? Generally, it is, but to a lesser extent.

2) Does money = speech? Certainly to some extent -- the media and newspapers, or even the internet -- require money. But is there a limit?

These are not easy questions, and the ACLU when it comes up against a grey area always goes in favor of freedom.