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.

Comments

[Joe M]

RANK HYPOCRISY!!

Lord, when will this nightmare end?

[Tomcat1066]

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.

[$]

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

[$]

That extra "to" is racist.

[Xeones]

...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.

[Hazel Meade]

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.

[P Brooks]

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?

[Pro Libertate]

P Brooks,

Let's not get hasty now. My GE stock has to make up for my lost WM stock.

[Lex Luthor, ACORN rep from the]

Nice try, Super fools!

[Jesse Walker]

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]

Good! War is bad, maybe now they can spend money on important things like animal rescue, the environment, helping homeless people, and healthcare.

[Pro Libertate]

I wonder if ACORN builds planes? It got enough money to do so.

[Abdul]

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]

It'll be detoothed and ACORN will quietly get all their funding back. And some homeland security funds, too.

[WWJGD]

Jessie or anyone,
Specifically, how would a bill to remove funding be a bill of attainder?

[Sergeant Sphincter]

It will be completely detoothed. As in not even being able to chew ACORN. On purpose.

Nothing's on purpose, Ma'am.

[WWJGD]

Jesse*
Mein bad.

[P Brooks]

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]

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]

WWJGD: Nadler's argument is here. But Abdul may well be right about how such an argument would fare in court.

[Hazel Meade]

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]

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]

Penalizing being "charged with" a crime isn't a thought to enjoy. Due process is our friend.

[R C Dean]

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.

[R C Dean]

Penalizing being "charged with" a crime isn't a thought to enjoy.

It happens all the time, though.

[Hottie16]

@Invisible Finger

I hope your name means what I think it does, a/s/l?

[WWJGD]

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.

[R C Dean]

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.

[swillfredo pareto]

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.

[Hazel Meade]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

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]

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.

[Hazel Meade]

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!]

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.

[Lamar]

If you define the terrible things ACORN has done, and other corporations fall into that definition, why do they get a pass?

[Lamar]

"ACORN's deadbeat tax status"

This is probably the wrong website to expect a reaction to this.

[WWJGD]

"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.

[Hazel Meade]

Oh I don't know. I think we enjoy stories that highlight tax-evasion by leftists.

If only to admire the irony.

[Willy Wonka]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDW0ZnZxjn4

[Pro Libertate]

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]

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]

""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.

[Lamar]

"And you are full of shit. Really Lamar, you are beating a dead lion."

Yep, ACORN are secret tax rebels.

[Abdul]

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]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

[TrickyVic]

"""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.

[John]

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.

[Lamar]

"Illiterate much?"

No, just a long-time Reason fan. The reference is before your time.

[TrickyVic]

Congress giveth, Congress taketh away.

[Tony]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[John]

"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?

[Officer Barbrady]

Nothing to see here, move along!

[John]

"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]

How many times has Reason bitched about defense contractors

Many times, you selective amnesiac fucktard.

[Our $2 Trillion Bridge to Nowh]

"The reference is before your time."

No, it's not.

[Episiarch]

How many times has Reason bitched about defense contractors?

Another hit by the Ton-ster! Well done!

[Lamar]

"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]

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.

[Warty]

Jesus. Shut the fuck up, Tony.

[Pro Libertate]

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]

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.

[Pro Libertate]

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.

[hmm]

ACORN is Mertvaya Ruka.

[Tomcat1066]

"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.

[Pro Libertate]

Bonjour, scum.

[RHSwan]

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.

[TrickyVic]

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.

[Hazel Meade]

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]

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.

[Bob Smith]

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]

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]

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]

I'll pray for a swift and quick DEMISE of acorn. The TRUTH ALWAYS comes out in the end.

[JupiterSuite]

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]

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]

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?