The incident has sparked some dialog about the difference between issue advocacy and electioneering. But best of all, it has inspired a poem. See attorney Bob Bauer's comments. His poem is printed below:

The ACLU speaks!
Those incorrigible sneaks!
Their advocacy is far too "express"!
In these final few weeks,
With editorial tweaks,
They might have avoided a mess.

But you need to remember:
They spoke of "November,"
And shamelessly used the word "vote."
They say it's all issues,
Which is or is not true,
But they sounded an electoral note.

For while the nation is reeling
At a time of bad feelings,
We must take care with the words that we choose;
We must edit and cut
With the help of rules and our gut,
And keep legal the expression of views.

For issue speech is permitted,
But still we're committed
To limiting its effect on elections;
You may raise high your voices
But nowhere near voters’ choices;
Such are the limits of constitutional protection.

The cases the Supreme Court declined to hear are Christian Civic League of Maine v. FEC, which challenged the federal rule banning broadcasts referring to federal candidates 60 days before an election or 30 before a primary, and Alaska Right to Life Committee v. Miles, which challenged a similar rule that applies to all public communications, but requires disclosure rather than banning the communication. In the Maine case the court said the case is moot because the legislation referred to in the ad has already been voted on. In declining to hear the Alaska case the court let stand a March ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that upheld the Alaska law.

Posted by Kay Guinane, 05:11:16 PM