CNN avoiding publicizing ACORN's fall?

Remove all ads!

Coming to think of it, isn't the 'defund ACORN bill', as Glenn Greenwald points out, actually a 'bill of attainder'?

 

Y'know, I'm honestly not sure how bad of a thing that is. I mean, sure, it may hurt the economy, and it may be a little extreme (one misfiled piece of paper? or does it require evidence of knowing fraud?), but, really, I like the idea of not funding fraudulent organizations.

Not really.
1.) The bill requires that the organization have already been found guilty of some violation. That means there was cause.
2.) The bill doesn't actually single out ACORN alone, it just makes specifically sure to include ACORN.
3.) Since this is a removal of federal funds, does it really count as a punshment? I mean, if I decide not to give money to a charity, am I punishing them?

 

This is a bit off. The other organizations that were (albeit unintentionally) included in the legislation were actually found guilty of fraud. ACORN, on the other hand, has not even been tried, let alone convicted.

Short answer:
When the federal government is refusing to fund ACORN due to corruption whilst continuing to fund other organizations that have been proven in federal court to be even more corrupt than ACORN, yes.

Long answer:
The legislature is trying to pretend that de-funding ACORN is really about a general policy judgment -- that corrupt organizations shouldn't be funded by the federal government. In order to single out and punish ACORN without violating the constitution, they have to make the law quite broad. The problem is that the broader they make the law,, the more it encompasses other large and corrupt corporations Congress doesn't want to de-fund, but if they narrow the focus of the law in order to include only ACORN, the law becomes blatantly unconstitutional.

In embracing the basic principle that corrupt organizations should not receive federal funding (a principle I agree with), it becomes impossible to justify applying that only to ACORN while continuing to fund the corporations whose fraud and corruption is vastly greater -- and, more importantly, established by actual courts of law. I'm hoping the law passes as written and that Obama then enforces it as written. It'll be a real hoot.

 

NOG,
the 'defund ACORN bill' doesn't actually single out ACORN?

 

It cannot. Not only is it unconstitutional to write a law the specifically applies to a single person, company, corporation, or entity, it is also unconstitutional to write a law that is so specific in scope that it can only in practice apply to a single entity.

 

Aldeth,
a 'bill of attainder' is unconstitutional, yes. Thus the pertinent question was if it does single out ACORN, not so much whether it legally can single out ACORN

The intent by the lawmakers who have proposed that piece of legislation is amply suggested through their choice in naming the bill. It is that they then had to broaden it's scope in order to make that law constitutional, and prevent it from being a 'bill of attainder', all while serving the same purpose.

I mean, according to POGO Lockheed Martin has been found to have defrauded the US treasury for 3,4 billion dollars, but they named the bill 'defund ACORN bill' and not 'Fight Contractor Fraud Bill'. That's why I find NOG's assertion, written as with a straight face, that the bill has nothing, nothing at all, to do with defunding ACORN both hilarious and unpersuasive.

So the 'defund ACORN bill' does not actually single out ACORN? By that logic 'the NOG writes funny things bill' doesn't single out NOG.

They got themselves into something there. If Obama enforces it as written it would mean no more contracts to companies who have defrauded the government. Then the law will bar from government contracts KBR, Halliburton or Lockheed Martin and many others (who have been found to be fraudulent but who also do provide many (and at times essential) services and weapon systems for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). The loons who proposed that bill cannot possibly have wanted that.

And so I don't expect that to happen; the US won't disarm themselves, much less in a time of war, and certainly not out of principled concerns over contractor fraud. That means, companies, who defrauded the taxpayer for billions, will get exemptions because their services - fraud, schmaud - are essential for the national security of the United States of America. The ACORN pizza thieves won't get comparable exemptions.

Which means the law will probably not be applied as it is sold but as it is named, and end up being a 'bill of attainder' anyway. It will end up defunding ACORN, and some other NGO, and it will probably not be applied consistently, unless a small miracle happens. I predict that we will see that bill going to court big deal - either because it de facto singles out ACORN, or, less likely, because it puts the defence lobby to work to overturn that law barring defence companies (who live from government contracts) with a record of fraud from government business.

 

Nope. Take a look at it again. ACORN is specifically defined as included but is not singled out. That means that the bill applies to any group that meets the criteria. In fact, the only mention of ACORN that I can find in the bill is where it says that ACORN is, in fact, an organisation, such as is covered by this law.

Oh, I fully agree that that's the intention of the bill, but it's not the effect of the bill. That's the important distinction. In trying to defund ACORN, they're going to hit a lot of other companies.

If the bill is written:

then, no, it doesn't.

And if that happens, then it is not the writing of the bill that's at fault, but the application. Said application, by the way, would be entirely under Obama's control.

 

It is a distinction without a difference NOG.

I wrote something about defence contractors that were found to have acted fraudulent that must have slipped your attention. The 'defund ACORN bill' is likely not going to hit a lot of other companies, if they do I'd be very amazed. No matter how much Lockheed Martin's (LM) conduct disqualifies them from receiving government contracts under the 'defund ACORN act' - they're not going to defund LM because the Pentagon needs, for instance, those F35 fighters that LM builds. So that will not happen. LM will get an exemption from that law. That means the law will be applied selectively at best, and that is clear from the onset.

Yeah right, and when he has to implement a poorly written law to in the end only affect ACORN because defunding other fraudulent entities is simply not possible, practical or realistic is just his own damn fault. It is a political cheap shot, and brazenly hypocritical.

 

I think you are deflecting and focusing on the picayune details instead of the reality of the situation. Was it a poorly scripted law, yes I'll give that to you. However, instead of criticising the legalise we should be praising the intent. Congress appears to have finally realized that ACORN is a major problem. They are a charitable organization that has been getting major funding from the federal governement and has been involved in illegal activities in states across the country. The latest episode involving giving advice to a "pimp and prostitute" of how to run their illegal operation is only significant because it woke up everyone as to how criminal the organization is. The real crimes (which many seem to want to ignore) is voter fraud. ACORN is not responsible for Obama winning the last election. I find it highly unlikely that they were able to create enough fraud to sway a national election (although I know there are plenty of people who think they did). However, voter fraud is not something that should be taken lightly and the people involved should be prosecuted. In this particular case the fraud seems to have benefited the Democrats and Obama which make it particularly embarassing to the President and the party in power.

I am actually going to praise Congress for taking action on this. They may have screwed it up (no big surprise), but they made an attempt. I'm hopeful they will come up with a way to fix it. Now hopefully, Ragusa can get a good night sleep knowing that the U.S. military will remain as strong as ever and still be there to help protect Germany if the need ever arises.

 

Snook,
the opposite of well done is well meant. They could have reigned in criminal actions of ACORN employees with existing laws. Last time I looked fraud was a crime, but crimes are something individuals do, not organisations. ACORN is obviously something other than a criminal organisation, so those laws don't apply either. So when you're not after criminals but after an otherwise legal organisation criminal law doesn't suffice. Thus emerges something like the 'defund ACORN bill'. This law is simply the result of partisan hackery from people who wanted ACORN dead.

Now, I don't care about ACORN in particular, it's just that that law stinks. And I don't really fear that the strongest military power on earth will all of a sudden become toothless. Even if the US cut their military budget by half they'll only outspend the rest of the world tenfold or so. Scary signs of impending weakness and imminent doom, and nothing that Republicans will tolerate. So yes, they will certainly try to do something about that when writing the legislative history to the act. It will be entertaining to read why 'though shalt not defraud, or else you won't get government contracts' does apply for ACORN but not Lockheed Martin. Clearly it must if the bill is based on principle and not partisan hackery.

I'll be getting here but still:
NATO stopped being about defence about twenty years ago with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I am grateful for what the US did at the time. I doubt that NATO right now serves another purpose than offering the US a way to counter weigh the EU, towards which the US have an ambivalent attitude. NATO enlargement, among other things, aimed on countering rising EU influence through EU enlargement. That means, US engagement in NATO right now is not about defence but about influence. How that was exerted I remember all too well from Rumsfeld dividing Europe up into pro-US 'New Europe' and the 'Old Europe'. The talk of the day from the neo-cons in the administration around 2002, 2003 was of 'dominion over earth', no, let me think ... ah yes, 'global benevolent hegemony', and as of 1997 Madeleine Albright reminded us of the claim to leadership by the 'indispensable nation'.

 

And, under that same logic, I'm wondering whether it will actually cut funds from ACORN, too. After all, if Obama is free to enforce it however he wants, he'll only enforce it against ACORN if he wants to. That's my point. The bill puts ACORNand LM in the same boat, and both are subjec to the same rules and procedures, be that 'you've broken X, Y, and Z procedures' or 'I don't like you, so there!'

Honestly, I'm betting this won't even pass. Even if it does, all he has to do is veto it. And yes, he'll get trash about 'favoring ACORN' if he does, but he'll get trash from those same people anyway.

What I'm really confused about is, if the money they're taking away from ACORN is public funding, why do they need a specific law to do so? Why can't they just not give them the money?

Ok, now I'm more confused. What does this have to do with ACORN? I mean, typically means tangentially related but not really on point. This seems like it should be a completely different thread to me.

 

The point is 'equal treatment under the law'. We won't see that as far as LM is concerned.

Because the few instances of fraud by ACORN staff don't give them a legal basis to defund ACORN, which is what they want. The fraud is just the pretext, not the problem. For the initiators the problem is the existence of ACORN. I wrote:

They will have to show colours when pressured to defund LM as well. They won't do that. If the D's play that card well, it might indeed be that this bill doesn't pass. Or a miracle happens, and indeed LM would be barred as well. That would be an accidental revolution.

I directly replied to an remark in Snooks response. Don't let that bother you.

 

Again, this is the part I don't understand. Does ACORN have some legal right to the money? Is this a part of a larger program, or are they trying to remove a tax-exempt basis? I was under the impression this was just money being given to a non-profit group, and the Gov't could cut that money off for any reason at any time if they stopped seeing sufficient benefit in giving it.

Ah, ok, thanks. That really lost me there.

 

As I understand it ACORN does receive government money for services they do provide for the government. For instance [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/12/census-victory-conservatives-target-hud-funds-acorn/]ACORN Housing Corporation received $1.6 million[/URL] to provide housing services to low-income communities in this fiscal year, ending Sept. 30. That means they are under contract, and that suggests the government cannot terminate payments to ACORN at will. Means that ACORN indeed does have a legal right under contract to receive government money in return for services provided.

Compared to LM's 3,4 billion these sums are trivial, but to ACORN they are not. The general scheme behind the 'defund ACORN bill' is to deny ACORN government contracts as a source of income, and to so weaken if not destroy the organisation.

 

If ACORN is somehow violating a clause in the agreement they have with the government, then the government has the right -- and the responsibility -- to take appropriate actions against them as delineated in both the contract and common law.

However, if other groups with contracts are doing the same ****ing thing and NOT being penalized at all, then ACORN would have a pretty good case that the government is targetting them unfairly for something other than their clause violations.

Before anyone asks, I have no idea if ACORN has violated a clause somehow, I merely state that from what little I've heard they have done something unethical or illegal and is now facing the music.

 

I think the accusation is one of violating law, not clause. In that case, I don't know what the legal consequences could be. Could the gov't argue that, due to the very nature of Law, any contract with the government includes an assumed compliance with law clause?

Even then, though, you'd have to prove in court that law had been violated, and you'd have to somehow attribute this to the organization as a whole, as opposed to single individuals.

 

Yo. Which is unlikely to happen. Thus the necessity of a 'defund ACORN act' if you want to achieve that anyway, no matter whether law or clause have been violated.

 

ACORN ‘pimp’ charged with trying to wiretap Louisiana senator

Conservative activist and maverick muckraker James 'The ACORN pimp' O'Keefe must have been on the heels of yet another hot story when he was arrested by the US Marshals and charged with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purposes of committing a felony: Trying to wire tap the phone lines of Louisiana's Democratic senator, Mary Landrieu.

The affidavit of the arrest in PDF.

More on the story here.

 

That guy did a great job on the ACORN films, and perfectly legal as I understand it, but this was just plain stupid. Wire-tapping a Senator, and his lawyer says there was no intent to commit a crime? What was the intent, a practical joke?

 

If that was the case, the joke's on him.