Submitted by Carol Cross, Jan 23, 2011 01:23

I can understand the use of the term "a Skokie moment" to describe the turmoil in which the ACLU now finds itself in regard to Citizens United v. FEC, but the two cases are quite different in terms of what ACLU has always stood for, which is a strict adherence to the US Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

In the Skokie case, the ACLU was correct in supporting the right of the Nazis to march; as repugnant as their beliefs are to the majority of us, they have a right to express themselves.

Citizens United is quite a different matter, however. Whether there should be limits on campaign contributions per se is not the question. The question is: should a legal entity be treated as a person, with the same rights and privileges as a "natural" person? The ACLU would not by any means be abandoning its staunch support of First Amendment rights to free speech to conclude that a corporation is NOT a person, and therefore doesn't have the same right to privacy, the same right to marry or divorce, the same right to vote, and the same right to spend money on political campaigns. Seriously: how difficult is that to understand?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.