I am heartbroken to discover the ACLU wrote an amicus brief in support

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

of Citizens United - the Corporate "free speech" case.

I can't see how they can't distinguish that a limitless corporate money pit completely dimishes the worth of an individual voter's free speech.

I have contributed to them for YEARS. How could they get it so wrong?

[HillbillyBob]

1. What the Fuck?!

nt
I will ask that directly of them.

[SnakeEyes]

29. self-delete

misreply

[gateley]

2. Thom Hartmann was reading the Dissent (is that what it's called?) this morning,

and it rightly states that corporations are not individuals, and not afforded the same freedom of speech protection. It made so much sense, so I'm equally baffled at how the ACLU came to that decision. Maybe, although rare, they just screwed up this time. :shrug:

[MrCoffee]

3. From the ACLU website

"Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibits unions and corporations (both for-profit and non-profit) from engaging in “electioneering communications.” The legislative definition of an “electioneering communication” was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003 and then substantially narrowed by the Supreme Court in 2007. In scheduling this case for reargument, the Court specifically requested briefs on whether section 203 should now be struck down as facially unconstitutional. The ACLU has consistently taken the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech, and our amicus brief takes that position again."

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission

That page contains a link to the brief itself.

[Orsino]

31. They haven't seen suppression of core political speech yet.

That comes when no individual can purchase a significant amount of expression to compete with the will of a corporation, and legislatures everywhere are stuffed with corporate-owned and -operated "representatives."

It's coming. We've been flirting with it for decades or centuries, but now it's the law.

[LeftHandPath]

4. They just lost a member...

I was about to renew my ACLU membership for the year, until I read this.

WTF are they thinking?

[Political Heretic]

17. This has ALWAYS been their position, and they have a good argument as to why.

I disagree with them, but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Of the 99 issue where they are dead right on civil liberties and one of the only organizations tirelessly fighting in court, there has always been this 1 issue where they are wrong.

They believe that restricting money is a restriction of a persons political speech and expression. And they make a damn intelligent argument in defense of that position.

But the bottom line is, it may be speech, but in the interest of the common good, it needs restricted. We say you can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater either. We limit free speech to protect the common good in that case, and we MUST do that in this case as well.

But the ACLU is very purist on its interpretation of defending the bill of rights.

Again... they get 99 issues right, 1 issue wrong. Don't abandon them.

[paulsby]

21. oh god, please. not the false/fire/theatre meme AGAIN

you can disagree witht he scotus and ACLU w/o dragging out that tired, overruled (see: brandenburg), fire thang. fwiw, the false/fire/theatre analogy was used to justify prosecution of a WAR PROTESTOR. it's a poor analogy.

you can argue against free speech for corporations/unions w/o making an analogy to the whole imminent risk of stampede thang.

cause it makes no sense.

[Political Heretic]

27. Fair enough. Point taken.

[paulsby]

28. i appreciate that

i try not to sound snarky, but sometimes fail :)

[old mark]

32. They are wrong on 2nd ammendment issues, too. They have always refused to

support individual rights.

I stopped believing they were a "good" organization a long time ago.

mark

[struggle4progress]

20. Why? ACLU didn't ask SCOTUS to overturn Austin, which is the big shocker here

[no_hypocrisy]

5. I had a couple discussions about this with Nadine Strossen, former national president of the ACLU.

This was when the Supremes were deciding whether it was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to let kids organize and run christian clubs at public high schools. I was advocating for the Establishment Clause and Nadine was gung ho for the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. She insisted that her clause was inviolate and shouldn't be diminished, even by a competing clause of the same Amendment, and that the Free Speech clause was seminal to our constitutional democracy.

Today's decision doesn't surprise me. Another SC decision equated donating any amount of money by anybody was a free speech right. Today just clarifies that a corporation is a "person" like you and me.

[ima_sinnic]

6. fuck them. I almost joined but won't bother

what they consider "important" is not what I do.

[MrCoffee]

8. Did you bother to read the brief AT ALL?

The ACLU brief addressed one specific question about Sec. 203 of the BCRA. They have been opposed to that section since the bill was passed. They did not change their position one iota in this brief.


Or could you not be bothered to read the brief?

[ima_sinnic]

10. I don't DO legalese--could you please explain it to me? is it beneficial

for We The Actual Human Beings?

[MrCoffee]

14. The ACLU brief had nothing to do with the Outrage du Jour

The ACLU brief addressed one specific provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold); specifically, the prohibition on "electioneering communications" in Sec. 203 of the BCRA. The ACLU has consistently voiced its opposition to this provision as being facially unconstitutional, in that it is an overbroad ban on protected speech.

That is the only issue the amicus brief mentions. In fact, it specifically states that it does not address the question of whether the Court should overturn Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. It is the overturn of Austin that people are freaking out about today.

[paulsby]

24. it;'s a LEGAL argument.

the law isn't (necessarily) about what is "beneficial".

that's not how rule of law works.

[Greybnk48]

13. READ MRCOFFEE'S POST. eom

[ima_sinnic]

16. I read it, and all I could gather was that their priorities are misplaced

I have limited funds for donating to causes, and upholding the "free speech rights" of corpos is not near the top of my list. (or am I not understanding something here?)

better they fight the "right" of corpos to be considered "persons."

[paulsby]

23. i have to agree with strossen

on the establishment clause issue, but good to see we have a poster here who actually understands the law, and the issues involved.

good posts!

[AspenRose]

7. Wow.

What a depressing week this is turning out to be.

[Armstead]

9. Same reason they defend Nazis and rapists -- They are absolutists

Whether it's a good thing or not, they are totally oriented to certain principles, including the right to free speech, including the right to free speech of assholes and awful organizations.

[quiller4]

11. I don't think they got it wrong even though I fear what the impact

will be. I think the ACLU was right on this. Organizations on the left fought this unconstitutional muzzling of speech, too.

[Egnever]

12. The ACLU gets it wrong all the time

I still apreciate a lot of the work they do.

[Political Heretic]

15. As a former employee of the ACLU, I must say that the ACLU has always, always been wrong on this.

They take the most literalist interpretation of free speech, and thus argue that you cannot restrict anyone's involvement in campaigns in any way, including monetarily.

The problem with this is that - as we see in our society - democracy doesn't function when money is treated as speech, and even if it means a limit to free speech, money must be regulated. You can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater either without breaking the law, because even though that's free speech, its harmful to the common public.

Well unrestricted money-as-speech is harmful to the very fabric of a representative democracy.

[FiveGoodMen]

18. "Money = Speech" ==> "One dollar, one vote"

Didn't know that about the ACLU.

Very disappointed.

[paulsby]

25. you can't restrict speech merely because it's "harmful to the common public"

that's exactly the sort of crap that leads to censorious restrictions like we already see in europe and canada.

we have a constitution and a first amendment. whatever you think about the instant case, we don't prohibit speech because it's "harmful".

that's exactly the reason why i am glad we have a constitution, and the ACLU. so that people who want to prohibit "harmful" speech are checked.

[theboss]

19. The ACLU's position has always been that any limitation on political speech in any form is wrong

I see the danger in the court's ruling today. But I see the danger the other way as well.

And frankly, I would rather know that Senator X took $1 million from corporation Y than having to track the $1 million to various PACS, non-profit think tanks, national parties, etc.

[ddeclue]

22. OK. Did not know that.. next time they call they can jump up my ass!

[Rabrrrrrr]

26. That's because the ACLU defends the Constitution and what's legal - not what morally right.

Which is not to disparage the ACLU at all.

Just as they defend the rights of the KKK to speak, even though probably most ACLU members find the KKK reprehensible, they look to the law as it is - not as how they want it to be.

[SnakeEyes]

30. That doesn't explain

How they counter the argument that a corporation is not a person. Are they saying that because a corporation is made up of people they can influence politics collectively just the same as other groups can (excluding non-profits); only different being these are businessmen?

[Quantess]

33. Weird. That's a shame.

[gkhouston]

34. The court went light years beyond the issue the case was actually addressing.

It was like a legal decision sponsored by the Fascist Society for Non Sequiturs in White Wine Sauce.