[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 82 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1188-E1189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FORMER ACLU LEADERS ARE WRONG

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM DeLAY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 22, 1998

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the issue of freedom of 
speech and campaign reform, the New York Times and so-called 
``reformers'' take a curious position. They ignore the warnings of the 
ACLU and argue the Shays/Meehan bill is constitutional because former 
leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have changed their 
position and now support overturning the Buckley decision.
  The attached statement by the current ACLU leadership sets the record 
straight. On the issue of campaign reform and freedom of speech the 
current board of the ACLU is absolutely correct--overturning Buckley is 
a threat to the First Amendment of the Constitution. These former ACLU 
leaders are pushing proposals that run counter to our first freedom--
freedom of speech. These former leaders do not have the support of the 
ACLU's national board and do not represent the over 250,000 members of 
the ACLU. These former leaders are wrong.

          ACLU Campaign Finance Position Protects Free Speech

   (Statement of Nadine Strossen, President; Ira Glasser, Executive 
          Director; and Laura W. Murphy, Legislative Director)

       Washington.--Nine former leaders of the American Civil 
     Liberties Union today released a statement saying that they 
     have changed their positions on campaign finance and now 
     disagree with legal scholars, Supreme Court Justices and the 
     ACLU's longstanding policy to seek the highest constitutional 
     protection for political speech.
       In their statement, these leaders argue that the Supreme 
     Court misread the First Amendment in 1976 when it issued its 
     ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which struck down legislative 
     limits on campaign expenditures in a holding that reflected 
     many legal precedents and has been repeatedly reaffirmed. Our 
     former ACLU colleagues say that our opposition to current 
     legislation allows members of Congress to hide behind an 
     unjustified constitutional smokescreen.
       We are untroubled by the questions they raise and believe 
     that it is they who allow members of Congress and President 
     Clinton to hide behind so-called reforms that are both 
     unconstitutional and ineffective. As long as measures like 
     McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan are allowed to masquerade as 
     reform, neither Congress nor President Clinton will get 
     serious about adopting true reform, which we believe lies in 
     the direction of fair and adequate public financing.
       Just last year, we offered Burt Neuborne, a former ACLU 
     Legal Director and one of the

[[Page E1189]]

     principal opponents of our campaign finance policies, the 
     opportunity to argue his position before the ACLU's 83-member 
     National Board. After hours of debate and discussion, 
     Neuborne completely failed to shift the ACLU Board to his 
     view. Many Board members in fact argued that Neuborne's 
     position was in direct conflict with the First Amendment 
     rights that form the foundation of our democracy. Ultimately, 
     the one Board member who had offered a motion to radically 
     alter our long-standing policy withdrew it rather than 
     allowing it to come to a vote.
       Yet our former ACLU colleagues persist, offering sweeping 
     proposals that would constitute a wholesale breach of First 
     Amendment rights and that ignore the real-world impact of 
     limits on speech. They speak approvingly of efforts to impose 
     ``reasonable limits on campaign spending'' without saying 
     specifically what such regulations would do. But when we 
     look at those consequences it becomes clear that current 
     campaign finance measures would do immeasurable damage to 
     political speech. The devil as the cliche goes, is in the 
     details.
       A key provision of both McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan 
     would, for example, establish limits that effectively bar any 
     individual or organization from explicitly criticizing a 
     public official--perhaps the single most important type of 
     free speech in our democracy--when the official is up for re-
     election within 60 days. If that kind of law had governed the 
     recent New York City mayoral election, it would have 
     effectively barred the ACLU (and other non-partisan groups) 
     from criticizing incumbent Mayor Giuliani by name on the 
     subject of police brutality in the wake of the horrific Abner 
     Louima incident precisely during the pre-election period when 
     such criticism is most audible. That prohibition would have 
     gagged us even though the ACLU has never endorsed or opposed 
     any candidate for elective office and is barred by our non-
     partisan structure from doing so. Similarly, anti-choice 
     groups like the National Right to Life Committee would be 
     effectively barred from criticizing candidates who support 
     reproductive freedom. Yet such criticism of public officials 
     is exactly what the First Amendment was intended to protect.
       In contrast, there are many reform measures the ACLU 
     supports that would protect and increase political speech. 
     These include instituting public financing, improving certain 
     disclosure requirements, establishing vouchers for discount 
     broadcast and print electoral ads, reinstating a tax credit 
     for political contributions, extending the franking privilege 
     to qualified candidates and requiring accountability of and 
     providing resources to the Federal Elections Commission. None 
     of those proposed reforms would run afoul of the First 
     Amendment.
       Still, our former ACLU colleagues press proposals that 
     would inevitably limit political speech. We continue to shake 
     our heads, wondering how such measures can be regarded as 
     ``reforms'' by anyone who is genuinely committed to the First 
     Amendment.

     

                          ____________________