Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
ACORN Brings Down the Military-Industrial Complex
Ryan Grim reports that the Defund ACORN Act could end up defunding much, much more:
The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to "any organization" that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things....
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) picked up on the legislative overreach and asked the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to sift through its database to find which contractors might be caught in the ACORN net.
Lockheed Martin and Northrop Gumman both popped up quickly, with 20 fraud cases between them, and the longer list is a Who's Who of weapons manufacturers and defense contractors.
Call me a cynic, but I'll bet this means the legislation will get a quiet bipartisan detoothing. But I'm enjoying the thought that it'll survive as written, expelling not just the pimp assistance industry but some of the country's sleaziest corporate welfare queens from the public trough.
Tomcat1066|9.23.09 @ 1:37PM|#
Well shit. The company I work for is on that list with a couple
of instances on misconduct.
I'm pretty sure I'm not both of them either.
$|9.23.09 @ 1:43PM|#
Call me a cynic, but
You're not cynical enough, and you're getting spun.
The defunding language was always meant to be stripped in
reconciliation. The House and Senate passed it in different bills.
2+2.
This gratuitous additional cover story is "out there" to let the
non-defunding to be sold exactly the way you're selling it.
PWNT
Xeones|9.23.09 @ 1:53PM|#
...expelling not just the pimp assistance industry but some
of the country's sleaziest corporate welfare queens from the public
trough.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh lordy
Uncle Sugar ain't NEVER turn away a ho from the public trough.
|9.23.09 @ 1:53PM|#
Call me a cynic, but I'll bet this means the legislation
will get a quiet bipartisan detoothing.
It will be completely detoothed. As in not even being able to chew
ACORN. On purpose.
|9.23.09 @ 1:54PM|#
expelling not just the pimp assistance industry but some of
the country's sleaziest corporate welfare queens from the public
trough.
Does this mean I should sell my GE?
|9.23.09 @ 1:56PM|#
P Brooks,
Let's not get hasty now. My GE stock has to make up for my lost WM
stock.
Jesse Walker|9.23.09 @ 2:03PM|#
Hazel: I think you missed the word "bipartisan." While I don't know if $'s conspiracy theory is correct, my assumption was that the detoothing would affect ACORN as well as Lockheed. If the measure was carefully rewritten to only affect ACORN, Nadler would be right and the law would be a bill of attainder.
Hottie16|9.23.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Good! War is bad, maybe now they can spend money on important things like animal rescue, the environment, helping homeless people, and healthcare.
Abdul|9.23.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Nadler would be right and the law would be a bill of
attainder.
I don't think there's much precedent interpreting the
Constitution's prohibition on bills of attainder, but I think the
courts could interpret the language to allow a bill narrowly
tailored at ACORN.
Bills of attainder were laws passed to criminally punish certain
people. Stripping an organization of federal funding is (1) not
aimed at a specific individual, but at an organization; (2) not
penal. Those two loopholes should be enough.
Invisible Finger|9.23.09 @ 2:12PM|#
It'll be detoothed and ACORN will quietly get all their funding back. And some homeland security funds, too.
WWJGD|9.23.09 @ 2:14PM|#
Jessie or anyone,
Specifically, how would a bill to remove funding be a bill of
attainder?
Sergeant Sphincter|9.23.09 @ 2:14PM|#
It will be completely detoothed. As in not even being able
to chew ACORN. On purpose.
Nothing's on purpose, Ma'am.
|9.23.09 @ 2:17PM|#
Right now, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are organizing mass
demonstrations against this racist and completely unwarranted
attack on the good works done by ACORN.
It'll be called the Million Mooches March.
24AheadDotCom|9.23.09 @ 2:19PM|#
I didn't check the list, but I'm going to guess that Koch
Military Weapon Systems isn't on it.
But, seriously.
Jesse Walker|9.23.09 @ 2:20PM|#
WWJGD: Nadler's argument is here. But Abdul may well be right about how such an argument would fare in court.
|9.23.09 @ 2:22PM|#
If the measure was carefully rewritten to only affect ACORN,
Nadler would be right and the law would be a bill of
attainder.
I really don't see how NOT funding a specific organization is a
bill of attainder.
Not receiving money from public funds isn't a punishment. Having
your earnings retroactively taxed is.
Unlike the attempt last spring to retroactively tax back 100% of
the bonuses earned by AIG execs.
I suspect Nadler is just repeating some stuff he remembers hearing
from that scandel. He probably has no idea what the constitutional
definition of a bill of attainder is.
WWJGD|9.23.09 @ 2:23PM|#
I see. I remember reading Nadler's comments but I dismissed them because it wasn't really a "criminal punishment, just a revoking of funding. I just regarded his complaints as convenient constitutional literacy and gross legal stupidity.
roystgnr|9.23.09 @ 2:24PM|#
Penalizing being "charged with" a crime isn't a thought to enjoy. Due process is our friend.
|9.23.09 @ 2:26PM|#
If the measure was carefully rewritten to only affect ACORN,
Nadler would be right and the law would be a bill of
attainder.
Err, no. Am I the only person in the whole country who has a copy
of the Constitution written in English?
A bill of attainder is when the legislature declares somebody
guilty of a crime. That's not what this bill does; it simply makes
you ineligible for funding if you have been charged with a
crime.
Nice try, though.
|9.23.09 @ 2:27PM|#
Penalizing being "charged with" a crime isn't a thought to
enjoy.
It happens all the time, though.
WWJGD|9.23.09 @ 2:28PM|#
Given the way things have been going lately, with addicts unable to quit government-subsidy crack, I could see a court ruling that denying funding is the same as criminal punishment and would warrant due process.
|9.23.09 @ 2:30PM|#
OK, meven a broader definition of bill of attainder ("a
legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed
punishment on them, without benefit of trial") doesn't really apply
here.
ACORN isn't being "punished" if it is deprived of money that it has
no legal right to but is provided to it under a revocable
grant.
|9.23.09 @ 2:30PM|#
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) picked up on the legislative
overreach and asked the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to
sift through its database to find which contractors might be caught
in the ACORN net.
We have met the enemy and
he is us.
|9.23.09 @ 2:34PM|#
Penalizing being "charged with" a crime isn't a thought to
enjoy. Due process is our friend.
A good reason why targeting a specific organization for defunding
should be less offensive than a broad bill targeting anyone
"charged with a crime".
Since when was access to earmarked funding a broad
entitlement?
Pork is now a right, apparantly.
|9.23.09 @ 2:35PM|#
R C Dean,
It's racist to suggest that defunding ACORN is not criminal.
This is not a bill of attainder, because the organization isn't
being deprived of life, liberty, or property. Not funding it in the
future isn't punitive. If that were to be the case, then any person
or organization that didn't get funding from one year to the next
could come up with some bill of attainder/ex post facto
argument.
If Congress were to call out ACORN for its abuses and pass a law
that would result in its property being seized. . .different
story.
Jesse Walker|9.23.09 @ 2:37PM|#
ACORN isn't being "punished" if it is deprived of money that
it has no legal right to but is provided to it under a revocable
grant.
The law obviously isn't a bill of attainder as is. The question is
whether it would be one if it were rewritten so narrowly that it
only affects ACORN. After reading Abdul's argument above, I've
changed my mind and agree that it wouldn't.
|9.23.09 @ 2:38PM|#
Aren't the ACORN funds earmarked to them anyway? I mean, shit,
if you can write a bill saying "X shall be allocated $1 million
dollars." surely all it takes is to strike that line from the
bill.
Alternatively, if the funding is coming from federal agencies under
executive authority, then the president should simply issue an
executive order to defund them. Why has Obama not done so?
THIS!|9.23.09 @ 2:39PM|#
This is what will be taking them out completely. Not this pimp
scandle or the cutting off of federal funding.
This:
Another New Orleans organization, the free-market Pelican Institute
for Public Policy, uncovered official records that confirm ACORN's
deadbeat tax status. (Full disclosure: The Pelican Institute hosted
my visit to the Crescent City last May.) Pelican researcher Steve
Beatty visited the Orleans Parish Clerk of Courts office. There he
found a September 3 IRS filing showing that "Elysian Fields
Corporation, Inc., Alter Ego of" ACORN skipped five Social Security
and Medicare tax payments between third quarter 2005 and first
quarter 2008. ACORN made no federal unemployment-tax payments for
the fourth quarters of 2007 and 2008.
"We have made a demand for payment of this liability, but it
remains unpaid," reads IRS form 668(Y). The IRS consequently has
placed liens on ACORN's New Orleans offices at 2609 Canal Street
and 2610 Iberville Street. This latest federal action follows the
$1 million invoice that the IRS already handed ACORN, as Pelican
reported last August.
As if its federal woes were insufficient, ACORN is in big trouble
with Baton Rouge, too.
"We have a full-scale investigation into ACORN and all of its
subsidiaries," Tammi Arender, spokesman for Louisiana Attorney
General Bobby Caldwell recently stated. "No stone will be left
unturned. We're still looking into their recent activities."
Caldwell subpoenaed ACORN, former ACORN head Wade Rathke, and the
group's financial institution, Whitney Bank. Caldwell seeks
information stretching back to 1998 on ACORN and some 361
tax-exempt and non-tax-exempt outfits in its universe.
The Pelican State's chief prosecutor should peruse the Louisiana
Workforce Commission's July 2 notice indicating that ACORN dodged
state unemployment insurance payments for all four quarters of 2008
totaling $1,382.69.
The Louisiana Department of Revenue last November 24 alerted ACORN
that it owed $26,036.01 for nine state-withholding-tax payments
that it failed to pay between June 30, 2007, and May 31,
2008.
Citizens Consulting, Inc. - ACORN's bookkeeping arm, no less -
scored a "Notice of State Tax Assessment and Lien" on Oct. 29,
2008. It details 66 withholding-tax payments that Citizens
Consulting skipped between Dec. 31, 2002 and June 30, 2008. Total:
$306,702.73.
|9.23.09 @ 2:47PM|#
If you define the terrible things ACORN has done, and other corporations fall into that definition, why do they get a pass?
|9.23.09 @ 2:47PM|#
"ACORN's deadbeat tax status"
This is probably the wrong website to expect a reaction to
this.
WWJGD|9.23.09 @ 2:49PM|#
"This is probably the wrong website to expect a reaction to
this."
Oh I don't know. I think we enjoy stories that highlight
tax-evasion by leftists.
|9.23.09 @ 2:50PM|#
Oh I don't know. I think we enjoy stories that highlight
tax-evasion by leftists.
If only to admire the irony.
|9.23.09 @ 2:52PM|#
Gosh, I don't want anyone to get a pass on corruption, voter
fraud, or misuse of taxpayer funds. Be they charity, religion,
advocacy group, think tank, corporation, government actor, or
individual.
In fact, why doesn't the media attack corruption more than it does?
Too lazy? Too intertwined with the entities it's supposed to
police?
Our $2 Trillion Bridge to Nowh|9.23.09 @ 2:56PM|#
Barney Frank on Acorn -- He calls for an investigation -- of the
investigators:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574429383616613404.html
Our $2 Trillion Bridge to Nowh|9.23.09 @ 3:02PM|#
""ACORN's deadbeat tax status"
This is probably the wrong website to expect a reaction to
this."
And you are full of shit. I doubt that any of the taxpaying
Reasonites like the idea of an organization that takes millions of
their dollars but won't pay it's own taxes, SS, workers comp.
Really Lamar, you are beating a dead lion.
|9.23.09 @ 3:08PM|#
"And you are full of shit. Really Lamar, you are beating a
dead lion."
Yep, ACORN are secret tax rebels.
Abdul|9.23.09 @ 3:11PM|#
Jesse,
I hate to jerk you around, but after all the comments on Bills of
Attainder, I RTFA'ed the Nadler piece. He made a reference to U.S.
v. Lovett 328 U.S. 303, 316, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 1079 (U.S. 1946). In
that case, Congress cut off federal funds used to pay three federal
employees that were "subversive."
The Court held that this was unconstituional as a bill of
attainder. Where I thought the non-penal nature of stripping funds
might be an exception, the court said: "Section 304, thus, clearly
accomplishes the punishment of named individuals without a judicial
trial. The fact that the punishment is inflicted through the
instrumentality of an Act specifically cutting off the pay of
certain named individuals found guilty of disloyalty, makes it no
less galling or effective than if it had been done by an Act which
designated the conduct as criminal."
So non-penal actions such as stopping payments to which an
individual is entitled is enough sanction to be a bill of
attainder.
The only loophole I could see now is that whereas employees have a
property interest in their pay for work performed, ACORN has no
property right to recieve future entitlements. Government agents
always have the discretion to deny future grant applications even
if the entity has recieved grants in the past. But that's a smaller
loophole.
You (and Nadler) were righter than I was.
Tim Cavanaugh|9.23.09 @ 3:13PM|#
Should laws subject an organization to attainder just for being
"charged" with a crime?
For convictions (or in this case, judgments against) I could see
some sort of curtailment of rights. (I'm counting the right to do
willing business with your government as a right.)
But if the organization doesn't get a day in court, we're out there
with the animals.
|9.23.09 @ 3:16PM|#
But what about the federal funding? There's some disagreement
about how many tens or hundreds of millions the organization may
have received, but wasn't it specifically earmarked money in the
billions recently? Isn't that what's supposedly going to be
defunded? I just don't see how that isn't massively in the public
interest. Again, without regard to the fact that the GOP and its
cheerleaders are and will continue to make hay out of the
scandal.
Abdul,
I thought about that aspect of it, but I don't think this sort of
funding is the same as a salary. Does Congress owe a contractor a
duty to build, say, a supercollider? How much can we dig into the
motives of Congress in such cases? The scandal impairs ACORN's
ability to function, so defunding could be based on that alone, not
on the guilt of the organization. What this all really comes down
to is whether there's a due process right involved. Congress could
certainly arbitrarily cut funding, so I think for this to be a
problem, it would have to be openly punitive.
DADIODADDY|9.23.09 @ 3:20PM|#
This is what happens when you send the dim and mentally deficient to congress in order to get them off the streets.
Our $2 Trillion Bridge to Nowh|9.23.09 @ 3:22PM|#
"Yep, ACORN are secret tax rebels."
Quoted from up-thread: This latest federal action follows the $1
million invoice that the IRS already handed ACORN, as Pelican
reported last August.
Illiterate much?
Abdul|9.23.09 @ 3:30PM|#
Tim,
I think the issue here is the government's associational rights.
Being associated with organizations accused of crimes hurts the
image of the government.
If it turned out that a government contractor was a subsidiary of a
white nationalist group, and the government cancelled the contract
to avoid associating with an embarassing message, I think that
would be okay.
Pro Lib,
I think the best way to make the argument against the 2009 Screw
ACORN Act being a bill of attainder is to make the analogy to the
government as consumer. Just because Congress bought services from
ACORN in the past does not imply ACORN's right to recieve future
payments.
However, all entities have a general right to apply for grants and
funds. For ACORN to lose that right, just for being ACORN, might be
unconstitutional, just as it would be unconsitutional to pass a law
that Abdul cannot recieve welfare benefits. I'm not on welfare, and
don't foresee any need for welfare, but I'd still be denied a right
to apply should I ever reach the point where I meet the entrance
criteria based simply on my identity.
|9.23.09 @ 3:31PM|#
"""I wonder if ACORN builds planes?"""
No but they could probably help get you high.
"""Really Lamar, you are beating a dead lion.""
I think Lamar's point is that this board is usually anti-tax.
I've here a couple of years and I've never seen such support for
people to pay their taxes. Not judging, just sayin.
|9.23.09 @ 3:33PM|#
If cutting off ACORN is bill of attainder, then banning contractors from getting government contracts for misconduct would also be a bill of attainder. They are clearly not, for the reasons Abdul sets out.
|9.23.09 @ 3:35PM|#
"Illiterate much?"
No, just a long-time Reason
fan. The reference is before your time.
Tony|9.23.09 @ 3:36PM|#
How many times has Reason bitched about defense contractors vs.
how many times have they bitched about ACORN.
As someone put it, federal funding of ACORN for the past 20 years
amounts to a single day's spending on Halliburton.
|9.23.09 @ 3:39PM|#
I'm leaving my comfort zone, but aren't actual bill of attainder
suits very rare? I know that a few have been decided without an
explicitly punitive provision or the specific naming of a target,
but I can't imagine defunding alone could arise to that level.
Certainly, ACORN could assert that the bills were drafted with it
in mind, but I'm not sure it's enough.
What would happen if it turned out the Boeing was spending its
government billions on a giant statue of Paul Bunyan? Could
Congress defund it before a court had ruled on the truth of the
charge? I've got to think the answer is no. Funding is not
something to which there appears to be a due process right. Again,
a government employee looking for a salary has a different
argument.
Tony,
Ah, two wrongs make a right? Excellent reasoning. That's why we pox
your house with such vigor while denouncing your opposition.
|9.23.09 @ 3:39PM|#
"As someone put it, federal funding of ACORN for the past 20
years amounts to a single day's spending on Halliburton."
Yes Tony, because one person steals, everyone is right to steal.
And because we can't stop all theft, we are wrong to stop any
theft. How many times does it half to be explained to you that
"they did it to" is not a defense?
|9.23.09 @ 3:42PM|#
"What would happen if it turned out the Boeing was spending its
government billions on a giant statue of Paul Bunyan? Could
Congress defund it before a court had ruled on the truth of the
charge? I've got to think the answer is no."
You would be wrong. The government bans contractors from recieving
government contracts all the time. There is due process in the FAR,
but it does not require the government going to federal court to do
it. And certainly Congress, if they got a bug up their ass about
something, could do it if they wanted to.
Warty|9.23.09 @ 3:42PM|#
How many times has Reason bitched about defense
contractors
Many times, you selective amnesiac fucktard.
Our $2 Trillion Bridge to Nowh|9.23.09 @ 3:44PM|#
"The reference is before your time."
No, it's not.
|9.23.09 @ 3:47PM|#
How many times has Reason bitched about defense
contractors?
Another hit by the Ton-ster! Well done!
|9.23.09 @ 3:47PM|#
"As someone put it, federal funding of ACORN for the past 20
years amounts to a single day's spending on
Halliburton."
This is more evidence of ACORN's complete and utter idiocy.
Halliburton made big money when their guy got elected. ACORN gets
defunded when their guy gets elected.
Tony|9.23.09 @ 3:51PM|#
I'll take your word for it that Reason has been a staunch critic of war spending. That still doesn't explain its oversize attention to a group whose main purpose in current political discourse is to serve as another racist bogeyman for the far right/cynically political target for the GOP.
|9.23.09 @ 4:08PM|#
John,
Oops, way to ruin my own point. I meant that I had to think the
answer was "yes." Jesus, why do I even post here if I can't be
consistent from sentence to sentence?
T|9.23.09 @ 4:14PM|#
Jesus, why do I even post here if I can't be consistent from
sentence to sentence?
C'mon, Pro L. You're being too hard on yourself. A foolish
consistency and all that.
|9.23.09 @ 4:17PM|#
No, T, my dishonor is too great. Seppuku is the only honorable way out. Or would be if I were a samurai. As an American, blaming someone else is the only honorable way out. Therefore, I blame society.
Tomcat1066|9.23.09 @ 5:39PM|#
"I'll take your word for it that Reason has been a staunch
critic of war spending. That still doesn't explain its oversize
attention to a group whose main purpose in current political
discourse is to serve as another racist bogeyman for the far
right/cynically political target for the GOP."
And yet, if this was a pro-GOP group, you'd be completely down with
whatever attention was being directed towards it's evil ways.
They're scum. All scum, Red Team and Blue Team, needs to
be exposed and eliminated from receiving public money. Ever.
|9.23.09 @ 6:12PM|#
If a company has enough contracts with the federal government, they will run into problems eventually. Federal contractual regulations are like IRS regulations, vague and contradictory.
|9.23.09 @ 7:09PM|#
Well the gauntlet is being thrown down. ACORN sues film
makers.
http://wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/APNewsBreak.ACORN.files.2.1203697.html
If they intend to have a career in their type of journalism, this
is a cherry buster. They should expect a career's worth of being
sued. The big boys have big lawyers.
Fortunately for them, they will find some legal help. I think it
would be funny if the ACLU picks it up.
|9.23.09 @ 8:11PM|#
Tony, you don't find it in the slightest way problematic that an explicitly partisan ideological group was receiving federal funding *in the first place*?
hmm|9.23.09 @ 8:16PM|#
Suing them will play to their advantage. No matter how a suit is brought it will be government condoning child prostitution and the filmmakers exposing people who support and take tax money. The court of public opinion is going to have a field day with this.
|9.23.09 @ 8:40PM|#
Help me out here. How does this bill hurt ACORN? This bill
defunds organizations that have been charged with certain
violations of the law. When did ACORN get charged? Lots of outrage,
but no charges. Given the example of Holder dropping charges
against the Philly thugs, I an certain Federal charges won't be
filed.
I don't see how any charges that might result from the child
prostitution videos would be related to "federal or state election
laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing
fraudulent paperwork". Aiding and abetting tax evasion and child
prostitution doesn't seem to fall under any of those
categories.
B|9.23.09 @ 9:35PM|#
Seriously, why and the fuck is this site linking to the Huffington Post? Every other piece on that shit hole site concerns the racism of those opposed to Obama and the other half is devoted to how horrible capitalism is.
hmm|9.23.09 @ 9:50PM|#
Huffpo has its moments. They are few and far between, but they are there. Generally I would agree though. The site isn't the asshole of the internet, but you can smell it from there.
cb on bonanzle|9.24.09 @ 6:13AM|#
I'll pray for a swift and quick DEMISE of acorn. The TRUTH ALWAYS comes out in the end.
|9.24.09 @ 9:20AM|#
Does this mean Barack will be reprising his role as ACORN
defense lawyer?
ACORN: Association of Criminals Obama Represented in the
Nineties.
"I've been fighting alongside of Acorn on issues you care about my
entire career [including child "services", financial "services",
and "voter" registration?] Even before I was an elected official,
when I ran Project Vote in Illinois, Acorn was smack dab in the
middle of it, and we appreciate your work." --Obama, 2007
ACORN: Assisting Call-girls, Obama, Reid and Nancy
Tony|9.24.09 @ 3:25PM|#
Hazel,
ACORN is not an explicitly partisan group. Just so happens that
most people who need assistance getting registered to vote are not
people who vote Republican. They've been a GOP target for many
years, principally because the GOP knows it's doomed unless it can
continue in its long tradition of suppressing poor and minority
votes.
g4m3th30ry|9.24.09 @ 7:30PM|#
Well done Tony!
Just one question - is there anything an committed leftist
organization could do that you wouldn't defend?
After all, the videos show this idiots helping child prostitution
and you can discuss is haliburton. So apparently pedophilia is
outside your realm of caring when it's one of yours getting hurt,
huh?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245