A report by the New York Times has confirmed what we already knew, the ACLU values the promotion of progressive ideology more than its core missions such as protecting freedom of speech. The article explains:

Its national and state staff members debate, often hotly, whether defense of speech conflicts with advocacy for a growing number of progressive causes, including voting rights, reparations, transgender rights and defunding the police.

This morning, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been a steadfast defender of First Amendment rights, spoke on the Senate floor about the SHIELD Act under consideration by the House today.  He called it "the latest installment in Speaker Pelosi’s campaign to expand government’s control over Americans’ political speech."  

Speaker Pelosi's current crusade against Americans' political speech rights began with H.R. 1, and the SHIELD Act contains portions of H.R. 1, the Honest Ads, and other dangerous provisions.  The RNLA sent a letter to the House opposing it.

House Democrats and their most loyal liberal allies are attempting in multiple different ways to effectively repeal the First Amendment.  By taking away donor privacy and controlling how money is spent.  The effort was their top priority as shown by the very symbolically numbered HR 1.  As Real Clear Politics describes it:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is no friend of Republicans or conservatives, but it has traditionally been a defender of free speech and First Amendment rights, especially for marginalized and unpopular speakers.  While there are signs that its traditional support for civil liberties is waning and being replaced by support for liberal policy goals (the current pop-up on their website reads: "We need you with us: Donate monthly to fight Trump's attacks on people's rights."), the ACLU still will support some First Amendment rights.  For example, earlier this month, the ACLU sent a letter to the House Rules Committee opposing H.R. 1 despite supporting many of its election administration "reforms":

This is the first midterm election cycle since 2002 where any incumbents of the non-presidential party lost re-election.  The Democrats lost four such races.  In part this was because of their terrible treatment of Brett Kavanaugh.  Marc Theissen wrote last week in "Kavanaugh treatment gave Senate to GOP":

It cost Democrats their chance to regain control of the Senate. And it gave Republicans an expanded Senate majority that will allow them to confirm an even more conservative justice next time around.

. . .

None of that might have been possible had it not been for the Democrats’ horrific treatment of Kavanaugh. As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put it, the failed effort to stop Kavanaugh was “like an adrenaline shot” for the GOP base. Republican voters were outraged to see a good man accused, without a shred of corroboration, of sexually assaulting a teenage girl, exposing himself to a college classmate and participating in gang rapes in high school. They were disgusted by Senate Democrats’ insistence the burden was on Kavanaugh to prove he didn’t do it and by Democrats’ blatant disregard for the presumption of innocence. They were energized by Kavanaugh’s willingness to fight back and declare his treatment by Democrats a “national disgrace.” And they punished the perpetrators of that disgrace at the polls on Nov. 6. . . .

The lesson for Democrats should be clear: Character assassination does not pay. Quite the opposite, it backfired – big-time.