Too late to deal with the ACLU. I ended my membership when they signed on to Citizens United, one of the most politically destruction decisions ever. Attended a meeting at a local college where an ACLU rep lawyer tried to explain their position on it after the decision was rendered, and three quarters of us present ceremoniously tore up …
Too late to deal with the ACLU. I ended my membership when they signed on to Citizens United, one of the most politically destruction decisions ever. Attended a meeting at a local college where an ACLU rep lawyer tried to explain their position on it after the decision was rendered, and three quarters of us present ceremoniously tore up our cards as we walked out the door. I remain unforgiving about this.
Thank you for bringing up this stance of the ACLU. I was not currently aware of that. I read a few ACLU posts about it, which I found arrogant, tone-deaf and counterfactual. While giving lip service to concern about how the massive amounts of money in politics "has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system", and that "the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected", they nonetheless hold onto the notion that their "constitutional commitment to freedom of speech" means no limits are permissible. The distinction between a corporation and an individual are erased, and they make the exaggerated assertion that campaign finance laws serve to "ban political speech", which is ludicrous. They naively suggest that the solution is to "expand...the resources available for political advocacy...a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate...[and] carefully drawn disclosure rules." Really? When and how will that pipe-dream happen? I also read one very good article from 2012 from former ACLU attorneys, who were critical of the ACLU position (The Nation, 4/9/2012, Why the ACLU Is Wrong About ‘Citizens United’), for the exact reasons that progressives generally cite to explain why Citizens United was such a harmful decision. The logic offered in the case is reminiscent of the same sort of blind assertion that the Supreme Court relied upon in cutting loose the states to re-engage in voter suppression without a need for federal review, which anyone who knew anything about it predicted would happen virtually immediately, which it did.
Too late to deal with the ACLU. I ended my membership when they signed on to Citizens United, one of the most politically destruction decisions ever. Attended a meeting at a local college where an ACLU rep lawyer tried to explain their position on it after the decision was rendered, and three quarters of us present ceremoniously tore up our cards as we walked out the door. I remain unforgiving about this.
Thank you for bringing up this stance of the ACLU. I was not currently aware of that. I read a few ACLU posts about it, which I found arrogant, tone-deaf and counterfactual. While giving lip service to concern about how the massive amounts of money in politics "has created a growing skepticism in the integrity of our election system", and that "the escalating cost of political campaigns may make it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money often plays a significant role in determining who runs for office and who is elected", they nonetheless hold onto the notion that their "constitutional commitment to freedom of speech" means no limits are permissible. The distinction between a corporation and an individual are erased, and they make the exaggerated assertion that campaign finance laws serve to "ban political speech", which is ludicrous. They naively suggest that the solution is to "expand...the resources available for political advocacy...a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate...[and] carefully drawn disclosure rules." Really? When and how will that pipe-dream happen? I also read one very good article from 2012 from former ACLU attorneys, who were critical of the ACLU position (The Nation, 4/9/2012, Why the ACLU Is Wrong About ‘Citizens United’), for the exact reasons that progressives generally cite to explain why Citizens United was such a harmful decision. The logic offered in the case is reminiscent of the same sort of blind assertion that the Supreme Court relied upon in cutting loose the states to re-engage in voter suppression without a need for federal review, which anyone who knew anything about it predicted would happen virtually immediately, which it did.