The organization said it feared that internal criticism might harm its fund-raising and public support. Yes, dissent can affect a group's reputation, but not as much as the squelching of dissent by alleged advocates of free speech.
One trigger for the no-criticism standards was the loud, open dissent by board member Wendy Kaminer on the ACLU's backing of a bill calling for federal regulation of ads placed by anti-abortion counseling centers. The bill, introduced in Congress by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D.-N.Y., would instruct the Federal Trade Commission to ban ads, under headings like "abortion" and "clinics," by centers that oppose abortion and try to convince women to keep their child. Kaminer, a Boston attorney who is "very strongly pro-choice," said, "I don't believe the pro-choice movement has the copyright on the term 'abortion services.' That seems to me a very clear example of government being the language police."
The ACLU applauded Maloney's bill and urged lawmakers to pass it, but after some resistance inside the group, the message disappeared from the ACLU Web site. A spokeswoman said the issue had not been fully vetted.
Kaminer and another board member, Michael Meyers, said the ACLU was ready to take action against them last year for criticizing ACLU stances, but the leadership decided against disciplinary action after the news media reported the story. Meyers, founder of the New York Civil Rights Coalition, has since been removed from the ACLU board. Kaminer and Meyers complained that Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, had authorized extensive research on the organization's donors and members, without explaining what data would be collected and who would do the collecting. The ACLU has opposed similar data mining when government or corporations do the collecting.