ACLU May Reverse Course On Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling

[babylonsister]

ACLU May Reverse Course On Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN, Special to the Sun | January 24, 2010


The first big impact of the Supreme Court’s decision lifting restrictions on certain corporation campaign spending may be at the American Civil Liberties Union, which, after years of opposing restrictions on free speech grounds, is considering whether to reverse course and endorse government limits on money in politics.

The ACLU has long opposed government limits to how much a donor can give to a political campaign or spend airing advertisements on an issue during an election. On this point, the ACLU has been in agreement with conservative organizations that believe money contributions are a form of political speech and deserving of First Amendment protection. It has been at odds with many liberal organizations, which have argued money in politics must be strictly limited so that rich organizations and individuals don't wield outsize influence.

But Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, which would enable corporations to spend freely on political causes, is forcing the ACLU to address what one internal memo describes as a "Skokie moment," a reference to the controversy in which the organization defended the right of American Nazis to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie. The moment is often seen as one of the acid tests of the ACLU’s willingness to stick to its First Amendment principles.

more...

http://www.nysun.com/national/aclu-may-reverse-course-on-campaign-finance/86899/

[Cassandra]

1. I thought the NY Sun folded last year.

They couldn't give their neo-con crap paper away. So why are they online and who's backing them?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DJ13]

2. Feeling the heat from supporting the latest travesty, 'eh?

Its about time they acted more responsibly, looking past the narrow issues and seeing that there may be consequences to these actions that end up being worse than the issue they supported in the original complaint.

[WA98296]

3. Does anyone know how the ACLU makes these decisions? If so please post.

[izquierdista]

5. Myopically

[Tesha]

15. This decision was made in consultation with their national Board of Directors.

The ACLU national board is a combination of members elected
by the boards of directors of the local ACLU affiliates and at-large
members elected by all of the board members of the local affiliates.

Tesha

[groundloop]

4. You'd have thunk that they'd consider this before endorsing corporate "personhood"

Better late than never, but IMHO they had a serious OOPS moment when they backed that lawsuit. I generally agree with what they do, but this is one time I feel that they blew it.

[Krashkopf]

13. In Defense of the ACLU . . .

It did not "endorse corporate 'personhood.'"

It said, in light of the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized the right of corporate personhood, we, the ACLU, defend the right of all "persons" to free speech.

It is not inconsistent, at all, for the ACLU to now take a position AGAINST "corporate personhood."

[scheming daemons]

23. No.. the filed an amicus brief in FAVOR of Citizens United BEFORE the SCOTUS decision

They were on the wrong side of history.



They blew it.

[Krashkopf]

25. Yes, I know . . .

I've actually read the ACLU's amicus brief, have you?

No where in it does it does the ACLU argue in favor of "corporate citizenship."

Instead, in its very narrow amicus brief, the ACLU argues that, in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 the term "electioneering communications" is unconstitutionally vague.

In its amicus brief the ACLU explicitly states that the brief "does not address the issue . . . of whether the BCRA's ban on express advocacy by corporations and unions should struck down."

It is absolutely SHOCKING to see so many supposed "Democrats" "liberals" and "progressives" buy into right-wing smears against a such a stalwart defender of the Constitution like the ACLU.

[Luminous Animal]

27. The idiocy on DU is only remarkable in light of the idiocy that they mock

from their fellow idiots on the right.

[Uncle Joe]

44. The ACLU's mistake was political, they trusted this Supreme Court to be just, wise and respectful

of precedent.

The primary lesson to any organization dedicated to civil rights, freedom, the Constitution, and/or people power is that if you give this Supreme Court an inch, they will take a mile.

[omega minimo]

45. rather than corrupt, pandering and deceitful?

Merely being "professional" would have helped. Doing their jobs.

[Kingofalldems]

6. RWers use the argument that the ACLU is for this decision.

I even saw that idea posed on DU.

[Orsino]

It's a logical step.

If we buy into the fallacious equation of money with speech at all, we should at least ensure that no entity can buy up most or all of the speech.

[Skinner]

7. Just in time!

Not.

[omega minimo]

21. you funny

:spray:

[arcadian]

8. Wonder how many people sent the ACLU their ripped up membership cards

To make this happen.

[scheming daemons]

24. At least one.... me

.

[omega minimo]

9. FUCK ACLU

[Tesha]

19. After all, what have they done for *YOU* lately? (NT)

[omega minimo]

20. U got it

[librechik]

43. Funny--if it weren't for the ACLU you counldn't say "FUCK YOU" on this forum

[Deep13]

10. I don't support them and this is the reason. nt

[Luminous Animal]

30. Que?

Do you even know what point the ACLU argued in their brief? Do you understand the underlying motivation for making their argument against Section 203 of McCain Feingold? Their argument has been that Section 203 is too vague given that "electioneering communications" are allowed in one venue but not another (that is, a corporation can print - a book, perhaps - an electioneering communication, but a corporation cannot broadcast an electioneering communication - well actually, they can broadcast an electioneering communication but they have to prove that the reach of that communication does not exceed a maximum threshold of viewers).

The brief did not argue a broad interpretation, in fact, it explicitly stated that it was addressing only a narrow ruling. It did not argue for unfettered corporate funding, it did not argue for "corporate personhood". Their argument was based on the fact that Section 203 was so vague that it effectively could result in the self-censorship of legal electioneering communications due to the cautiousness of organizations trying to avoid lawsuits.

[Deep13]

42. So you agree that they oppose campaign finance reform. nt

[gmoney]

12. "I hate Illinois Nazis..."

[thereismore]

14. This won't boost ACLU's credibility, unfortunately. nt

[ima_sinnic]

16. ironically, I remember Bush I (?) ridiculing "card-carrying ACLU members"

it might have been someone before Bush I, but I remember wondering at the time how anybody (let alone a president) could ridicule an organization that fights for constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.
but now I say, fuck 'em for equating money with speech.

[gkhouston]

17. I'm expecting the Supreme Court to be too busy to hear any relevant cases.

Although they'll find time to hear an abortion case, I'm sure. :grr:

[Joanne98]

18. Oh thanks!

[scheming daemons]

22. Too late. They filed an amicus brief in FAVOR of Citizens United... they've lost me

...forever.

They argued on behalf of turning the U.S. into the "Rollerball".


The ACLU is dead to me.

[Luminous Animal]

29. No they didn't. Their brief made a very narrow argument.

To quote a well read, intelligent DUer upthread:

"I've actually read the ACLU's amicus brief, have you?

No where in it does it does the ACLU argue in favor of "corporate citizenship."

Instead, in its very narrow amicus brief, the ACLU argues that, in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 the term "electioneering communications" is unconstitutionally vague.

In its amicus brief the ACLU explicitly states that the brief "does not address the issue . . . of whether the BCRA's ban on express advocacy by corporations and unions should struck down."

It is absolutely SHOCKING to see so many supposed "Democrats" "liberals" and "progressives" buy into right-wing smears against a such a stalwart defender of the Constitution like the ACLU."

[omega minimo]

26. BWAHAHAHEAHAH bwahHAHAHAHAHAHHHA HHHAHAHAHAHAHHH hahahahaha hahHAHAHAHhahaha

:banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak:
:banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak:
:banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak:
:banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak:v:banghead: :freak:vvvv:banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak:vvv:banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak:v
v:banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak:v
v:banghead: :freak:v
vv
:banghead: :freak::banghead: :freak:
:banghead: :freak:v
:banghead: :freak:
:banghead: :freak:
v
:banghead: :freak:

[Lorien]

28. Money does not equal speech. Bribery is illegal

those two facts alone should be enough.

[TexasObserver]

31. They started hearing from their contributors.

Oh, NOW they get it.

[Luminous Animal]

32. I upped my contribution.

I actually took the time to read the brief AND to read the source of their contention. They lost 10s of thousands of members after Skokie (I agreed with them on that, as well) but, ultimately, they were vindicated on Skokie and they will be vindicated on this, too.

[TexasObserver]

33. Let me know when you're RIGHT about something.

[Luminous Animal]

34. Thank you for your insight. You are, indeed a master debater.

[omega minimo]

35. Can you encapsulate how they are right about this?

:hi:

[Luminous Animal]

36. Ultimately, it will result in regulations that don't run up against the Constitution.

[omega minimo]

38. to prop up a SCOTUS decision that does?

[Luminous Animal]

39. Do you even know the ACLU's position?

Did you read their brief? If you expect to engage in any kind of discussion, you need to start from their position and not some right wing style oppositional low information smear.

[omega minimo]

41. Back off

That's not what I'm doing. I know enough to comprehend an answer if you gave one. Since you said you'd read so thoroughly, I thought you might share with others. Forgetaboutit. I'm sure someone will come along to have the fight you're looking for.

:thumbsdown:

[Dappleganger]

37. Well did anyone inform the ACLU that SCOTUS already handed down their decision?

It's too damn late for them to change their mind, the damage is done. Asshats.

[Last Stand]

40. I wish you could only donate to specific causes of the ACLU.

Too much cash dumped into the wierdest and most questionable crusades.