An offhand comment in Robert McChesney's book Rich Media, Poor Democracy mentions a relationship between the ACLU and Big Tobacco.

A search for 'ACLU Tobacco' led to mentions of the name Morton Mintz, who turned out to be a former reporter for the Washington Post. Mintz reported on the 1,000,000+ dollars paid by RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris to the ACLU, apparently in exchange for help arguing against tobacco-related safety labels, workplace restrictions, and advertising restrictions. Of particular interest is the fact that the ACLU had made no comment on these issues before the industry's payment, but promptly began working on them once the check had been cashed.

I might have been mollified if the ACLU had made a statement refuting Mintz' version of the story, or had admitted it, but realized that it had been a mistake and would avoid such shenanigans in the future. Unfortunately, they haven't.

The ACLU does still seem to be doing good work on some critical issues, most notably in fighting off the things Bush, Ashcroft & friends are doing to work around the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections. Is this tobacco-money-for-p.r. move really reason to stop supporting them?

For me, it is. There are plenty of other groups fighting important fights that manage to avoid selling out to organizations as corrupt and malignant as Big Tobacco; in fact, avoidance of such deals means that it's all the more important that I lend my support to such groups.

The clear connection between the tobacco money and the ACLU's sudden interest in the freedom of commercial speech is also troubling, as it creates doubts about the validity of the ACLU's position. Can we believe that the ACLU truly thinks that the freedom of individual speech depends on unrestricted commercial speech? Must ACLU supporters agree that advertisers be free to mislead and manipulate the populace, if we are to retain our rights to speak against the government?