• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

RightinNYC

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ACLU May Reverse Course on Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling - January 24, 2010 - The New York Sun

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 convening this weekend to decide whether to reverse course and endorse government limits on campaign spending. 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.

...

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.
Click to expand...

But a contrary view was expressed by another one of the invited attorneys, Floyd Abrams, who was one of the lawyers for the victorious side in Citizen’s United and who yesterday urged the ACLU not to change its position. Mr. Abrams warned that the organization would be allowing its political sensibilities to get the best of its principles. “The worst thing you could do – the absolutely worst thing you could do – is transform a civil liberties organization into a liberal political organization,” Mr. Abrams, one of the most famous First Amendment laywers in the country, told the board. Mr. Abrams pointed out that the ACLU had itself filed a brief in the Citizen's United case on behalf of the side that ultimately won. “There will be some people who think you’re a little fickle for changing your policy three days after one of the greatest victories in this organization,” Mr. Abrams said.
Click to expand...

I hope that the ACLU stands up for its principles here and listens to Mr. Abrams. A change in course now would severely undermine their credibility.
 
RightinNYC said:
ACLU May Reverse Course on Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling - January 24, 2010 - The New York Sun





I hope that the ACLU stands up for its principles here and listens to Mr. Abrams. A change in course now would severely undermine their credibility.
Click to expand...

agreed, if the ACLU wants to protect the first amendment whenever possible, then they need to be supportive of the Supreme Court ruling, even if they realize that the ruling will harm our country.


Principled groups (for better or worse) can not be caught up in the practical results of policies, because that would make their primary goal practical, when in fact they are suppose to be principled.
 
The ACLU is going to come down on whichever side of this issue that best supports their Liberal agenda.
 
apdst said:
The ACLU is going to come down on whichever side of this issue that best supports their Liberal agenda.
Click to expand...

They have argued for Limbaugh in the past.
 
winston53660 said:
But what if one group can just buy up all the media time?
Click to expand...

that is a different issue then protecting the first amendment. the ACLU is a civil liberties protection group who protects the first amendment, not a group working to protect society
 
ACLU has remained in my mind, out of all the countless organizations that have come and gone, relevant by being above all easy and trite classifications. It'd be disappointing to see them renegade on that.
 
nerv14 said:
that is a different issue then protecting the first amendment. the ACLU is a civil liberties protection group who protects the first amendment, not a group working to protect society
Click to expand...

They protect for all to have freedom of expresion not just the monied.
 
MrVicchio said:
How will this ruling hurt the country?
Click to expand...

:D :D thats another issue. I have been arguing that with some other people for way too long in another thread.

to put it briefly, organizations with large amounts of money could influence popular opinion on candidates or issues much too strongly if there is no limits on how much one corporation or labor union can contribute. This isn't the thread for that debate though.
 
Well, that'll put Oliver Stone plum out of business.
 
American said:
They have credibility? :lol: Hey, why should they start defending civil liberties now? :rofl
Click to expand...

They have a pretty decent record if you set aside your partisan perspective. They've made dubious decisions like most groups, but on speech, they're usually quite good.
 
apdst said:
The ACLU is going to come down on whichever side of this issue that best supports their Liberal agenda.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like they did when they stuck up for the Nazis, Limbaugh, right-wing Christian groups, and Jerry Falwell. :roll:

For the record, the ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of overturning the law, which the court did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom