Posted on 04/30/2010 6:57:44 PM PDT by neverdem
If that headline has a certain man bites dog quality, it's because for almost 40 years the ACLU was the one major liberal organization that opposed campaign finance restrictions as violating the First Amendment. Although it supported disclosure of large contributions to candidates and public financing of campaigns to facilitate more speech, it resolutely opposed any limits on campaign giving and spending—including limits "voluntarily" accepted as the price of taking public funding.
Expenditures by candidates (including of their own funds), contributions, advertising by political parties, labor unions, nonprofit organizations and even business corporations were all viewed by the ACLU as embodying fundamental constitutional rights. As a result, its policy was clear and concise: "Limitations on contributions or expenditures made by individuals or organizations for the purpose of advocating causes or candidates in the public forum impinge directly on freedom of speech and association. Their implementation poses serious dangers to the First Amendment. They should be opposed in candidate as well as referenda elections." Until now.
Over the objections of some key senior staff and by a very narrow vote, the ACLU National Board of Directors rejected core aspects of that longstanding policy earlier this month.
The organization will now accept "reasonable" government limitations on contributions to candidates. The ACLU doesn't say what "reasonable" means, so the government will doubtless supply the definition. This will inevitably benefit those who are already elected and disadvantage challengers. Indeed, for 35 years "reasonable" limits on contributions have demonstrably helped incumbents and suppressed insurgent candidates.
When Eugene McCarthy challenged incumbent President Lyndon Johnson in the 1968 New Hampshire primary over the Vietnam War, his candidacy was only made viable by three wealthy supporters. Had McCarthy been required to raise large amounts of money in small donations from lots of people, his campaign would not have...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Americans have lost control of the country and the government. The ACLU’s side is in total control now. This isn’t a big deal to them anymore.
No one should be surprised.
The only surprised people are the ones presuming the ACLU has something to do with civil liberties. Of course, these are the same people who assumed that when Obama said "change" he meant positive change.
ACLU has been communist from the get-go, now they want restrictions because their people finally have real power.
The ACLU is the twisted pseudo-legal backup for the perverse Marxist/fascists the way Sharia law is the twisted backup for perverse Islam.
Whatever is best for their Rat homies.
I don’t know what they ACLU position is exactly but as far as campaign finance goes, campaigns should all be publicly financed. The contributions are nothing short of corruption and it will be the undoing of America (ok, well, add it to the list of things undoing America).
Broadcast companies should be required to provide air time for mandatory debates.
Anyone caught contributing to a candidate or elected official should be put in jail for bribery.
Any candidate or office holder accepting campaign contributions should be barred from ever holding public office and jailed depending on amounts involved.
No groups, no organizations, no companies should be allowed to offer any monetary support and their support should be limited to endorsement only with the endorsement message distributed to its direct membership only.
The ACLU, a Communist organization, simply wants all the money stopped as it is going to the Republicans and Independents. It seems some big donors are not going to be giving to the Demonrats this time around.
My own position is that people proposing Fascist legislation should be rounded up, tried, and hanged.
You would not be calling me a fascist would you?
The Fascists in power have to round up the Fascists out-of-power in a continuous circle.
Especially since the ACLU has been trying to suppress religious speech, specifically speech of Christians, for decades.
The ACLU is Marxist organization. It only supports the speech that fits their agenda, obscene speech that harms society or speech that makes groups they don't like look foolish.
I alas' sez "If the Foo Sh**z....."
I have absolutely no idea what the above says. What is with the "?" at the begining of a sentence. That is grammatically incorrect. Why the possesive " ' " after the word "alas" and what is the word "sez"? Do you mean the word "says"?
Equally incomprehensible is this: "If the Foo Sh**z...."
Are you writing in some sort of texting language? please explain/translate the above into English. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.