ChristiansUnite Forums

Ad Against Lieberman Divides ACLU


    The hard-fought Connecticut Senate race that has split Democrats in the Constitution State is also causing a rift between the American Civil Liberties Union’s national headquarters and its Connecticut chapter.

    Leaders of the ACLU’s Connecticut affiliate have objected to an advertisement placed by the national ACLU that ran in the Hartford Courant late last month. The advertisement focused on Senator Lieberman, a Democrat who is running as an independent after losing a primary bid to an anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont.

    “Will Senator Joe Lieberman pass this test on American values?” the ad asks. It features Mr. Lieberman’s photograph and office telephone number, along with warnings about pending legislation about detainees, torture, and wiretapping. “Tell Joe Lieberman his votes on this assault on American values will help determine your vote in November,” the ad says.

Hey, what happened to the ACLU’s proud claim of being non-partisan? How can they maintain a tax-exempt status while getting involved in local politics? This seems to be a question in the mind of the Connecticut ACLU as well.

    The chairman of the board of the Connecticut ACLU, Don Noel Jr., said he and several other board members felt it breached the organization’s pledge to stay out of electoral politics.

    “It seemed to us to cross the line on partisanship, or to cross the line on not being nonpartisan,” Mr. Noel told The New York Sun yesterday. “I have complained and the national office has agreed with me. They have said they are sorry this might have been seen as partisan.”

    A spokeswoman for the ACLU, Emily Whitfield, said the national group had agreed to make wider notification to local affiliates about similar ads in the future. However, she said there was no apology for the content of the ads, which she said ran in a dozen states and mentioned Democratic and Republican incumbents who might be persuaded to heed the organization’s concerns about antiterrorism legislation.

I think it is obvious that the ACLU are walking the line on this one. Despite the controversy, the ACLU have no apologies and will continue with ads. They say they are issue oriented ads, and do not officially endorse any candidate. Heh, no…but they expressively walk the line to oppose certain candidates based on those issues which leads to the common sense conclusion on who to actually pull the lever for.

    A former member of the Federal Election Commission, Scott Thomas, said the ads would not meet the standard to be considered an improper donation to a federal campaign. “My gut feeling is that that probably would not be deemed express advocacy,” Mr. Thomas said. “It does seem to be done in the context of a legislative battle.”

    Asked about the reference to the November election, Mr. Thomas said,”Obviously, that is a veiled public threat, if you will, that does tie into the election, but I have a feeling you wouldn’t get four votes at the FEC for saying that’s express advocacy.”

Where's the IRS on this one. They are quick to go for the Churches tax exempt status for preaching politics from the pulpit but I don't see them going for the ACLU yet.