Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Why I didn't donate $50 today to the ACLU

The national board of the ACLU needs to rethink its support of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010. America's leading defender of First Amendment rights and of some of the nation's most unpopular speech-- opponent of censorship in all forms-- has been arguing for some time that limits t0 campaign contributions violates free speech rights, a position that puts the group in the same legal corner as Justices Scalia and Thomas. But where does "speech" end, and "corruption" begin?

With the spending caps effectively removed by our highest court, we've seen the campaign contributions of just a handful of individual Americans dwarf much of the rest of the nation's combined, and in a very short time. Newt Gingrich's sugar daddy is Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate who cut Gingrich a check for $10 million this month on top of millions he's already contributed to Gingrich PACs. Foster Friess, an investment manager who believes that women should put aspirin between their knees to avoid getting pregnant, gave Rick Santorum a million dollars the day after the New Hampshire primary.

What democracy do we have left when elections are sold at auction? The First Amendment has no meaning without a democratic system. My speech and your speech have no meaning when it can't be heard, and that's what these outrageous financial contributions are doing-- they're diminishing... drowning... our speech. The Supreme Court-- and the ACLU-- are effectively arguing that money amplifies speech. If it does, it's doing it to the point of distortion.

---

Quote/paraphrase of the week: from a commenter on Deadspin, "ESPN Boston. That's like saying Fox News Conservative."

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home