Reply #11: They certainly did not forget this. [View All]

[PeaceNikki]

Why did the ACLU choose to get involved this case? We got involved because political advocacy speech lies at the heart of the First Amendment.

This vaguely worded ban on electioneering communications was a threat to robust political speech. It covered big and small corporations, unions, and genuine issue ads by nonpartisan organizations like the ACLU, which is also a corporation. Felony charges could be brought based on the government`s opinion of what would be the hypothetical response of a reasonable listener, which would still leave speakers guessing about what speech is lawful and what speech is not.

That uncertainty invited arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by the government. It also led many speakers to self-censor and not participate in political advocacy rather than risk sanctions or undertake the expense of suing the Federal Election Commission prior to speaking, especially since most suits would not be resolved until long after the speech is timely and relevant.

In short, Section 203 of the McCain-Feingold law, while well-intentioned, was a poorly conceived effort to restrict political speech. The ACLU argued that it should be struck down. That`s what the Court did.

Many in the ACLU loathe the influence of money in politics. The inequities of speech that flow from the inequities of wealth distort our democracy. Unfortunately, this has always been so -- and not just during elections. Citizens can demand that their elected representatives pass constitutional laws that address these inequities.

But this is not the role of the ACLU. We are non-partisan and apolitical. Our client is the Bill of Rights, and there`s no more important right in our view than defending the First Amendment rights of all to petition the government for redress of grievances and to freely and openly engage in political speech.

from: http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_17229907