Shocker: Florida Democrat loses fight to defend the Constitution

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Oct 23, 2009.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    "The Congress", says Glenn Greenwald's headline, "today had five minutes of worthwhile dialogue". And regardless of how one feels about Greenwald himself, it is an interesting proposition. I might wonder at who will suddenly presume Congress to be brilliant more often than not in order to disagree with a liberal blogger.

    Or we could look past various strains of potential cynicism and consider the proposition. Today House freshman Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) squared off against fellow first-term Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA). The controversial Georgia Republican, who once compared newly-elected President Obama to Adolf Hitler (before claiming he wasn't making that comparison even as he reiterated it), introduced an amendment to the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009, during consideration before the House Science & Technology Committee, intended to bar the community-service group ACORN from receiving any funds through the program. Rep. Grayson, the last scheduled speaker, used his time to play inquisitor, attempting to school his colleague regarding a small matter otherwise known as the Constitution of the United States of America.

    The exchange is making the rounds via YouTube, and a partial transcript is available from ThinkProgress:

    GRAYSON: I’d like to ask the gentleman from Georgia a few questions, and I’ll yield to him for the purpose of having answers to these questions. Does the gentleman from Georgia know what a bill of Attainder is?

    BROUN: A bill of, the answer’s yes, in fact it’s been very explicitly described by the court’s.

    GRAYSON: What is it?

    BROUN: [long pause. Scrambling through papers.] The courts have applied a two pronged test. Number one, whether specific individuals or entities are affected by the staute, Number two, when the legislation affects a “punishment,” on those individuals, it serves no legitamate regulatory purpose.

    GRAYSON: What, um, does the Constitution says about Bills of Attainder?

    BROUN: Oh, I suggest that this is not a Bill of Attainder. It’s, um, certainly does focus on a specific entity, but it does not inflict punishment by any means. In fact…

    GRAYSON: Will the gentleman from Georgia explain what the Constitution says about Bills of Attainder?

    ANOTHER CONGRESSMAN: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a second? The gentleman from Florida?

    GRAYSON: No. I’d like an answer to my question. [...]

    GRAYSON: The question is, will the gentleman from Georgia agree with me that the Bill of Attainder clause was intended not as a narrow or technical provision, but as an implementation of the seperation of powers, and a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply, trial by legislature. Will the gentleman agree to that?

    BROUN: No, sir, I will not, and I ask counsel to help us with this. I think all this is determination of the court and I’d like to appeal to Mr. Sensenberner.

    GRAYSON: Well, I’m sorry, but it’s my time, not yours or Mr. Sensenberner’s, so I will reclaim my time, and I will point out that what you just you would not agree to is from a Supreme Court case called the United States v. Brown, something I would expect you might know about, given your name.

    It was a curious moment of a sort we don't see often out of Congress, though I would disagree with Greenwald that the episode constitutes five minutes of useful dialogue. Broun, who allegedly carries a copy of the Constitution in his pocket, tried to dance around the issue and, despite embarrassing himself, won the day, as the amendment was comfortably adopted.

    Still, though, it's nice to see a member of Congress following his oath and defending the Constitution.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Greenwald, Glenn. "The Congress today had five minutes of worthwhile dialogue". Salon. October 22, 2009. Salon.com. October 22, 2009. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/22/grayson/index.html

    Jilani, Zaid. "Rep. Alan Grayson Grills Republican Congressman On Constitutionality Of Anti-ACORN Crusade". ThinkProgress. October 22, 2009. ThinkProgress.org. October 22, 2009. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/22/grayson-grills-broun-constitution/

    Galloway, Jim. "Florida congressman confronts Paul Broun over ACORN". Political Insider. October 22, 2009. Blogs.AJC.com. October 22, 2009. http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insi...-congressman-confronts-paul-broun-over-acorn/

    See Also:

    Greenwald, Glenn. "Salon Radio: Rep. Alan Grayson on de-funding corrupt defense contractors". Unclaimed Territory. September 23, 2009. Salon.com. October 22, 2009. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/09/23/grayson/
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Refresh my memory. What was your opinion on the 90% tax on AIG bonuses?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    This is all gibberish to me. What are they talking about?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    In England and the colonies, it was common to pass laws meant to specifically punish a particular person. These laws would seize someone's property or even sentence them to death without the benefit of a trial. They amount to the legistlature acting as Judge and Jury. The US constitution bans these sort of laws, as well as Ex post facto laws (retroactive laws).
    A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment.

    So when congress wants to punish a group such as AIG executives or ACORN; it's pretty tough for them to do so without violating the constitution.
     
  8. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    I don't totally agree.

    First, the Congress can specifically deny its funding to any individual it wants to, ACORN in particular. That is not a bill of attainder. Nor is it a bill of attainder if it imposes a tax upon AIG for taking government funds on the grounds that, that is a requirement for receiving those funds.

    That said, the Congress cannot, after handing out funds with no-strings-attached (or at least, not tax specific strings) reverse itself after the law was signed by the President and try to impose corporate, or individual specific, taxes to punish specific corporations. That would be a bill of attainder.

    As for denying funds to specific corporations, individuals, that is the Congress's discretion.

    ~String
     
  9. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    But can they cut funding as punishment? I think that's the issue. I'm no expert, though.
    I agree 100% here.
     
  10. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Neither am I. But we need not be an "expert" to understand the nuance of a particular issue as thoroughly as an expert.

    Bills of Attainder are very specific. They must be "overt" in action. That is: they must order the government to "obtain" a person or property by direct action. As you know, this is to avoid tyrannical actions of a Congress in grabbing executive and judicial power.

    NOT providing funds to specific individuals, especially those who have been caught red-handed committing illegal acts, is well within the purview of the Congress.

    ~String
     
  11. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    It would be a bill of attainder if the funding that was being disengaged was from a source other than the individuals removing funding. I'm in agreement with Superstring01.
     
  12. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    What about retroactively rescinding such funds? I am not supporting nor denigrating any particular person or group. I just wonder if this is within Congress's purview.
     
  13. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    It would depend if the law that alotted those funds contained a provision that permitted such action. If the funds were given without such a provision, then it may well be a Bill of Attainder to try to recoup them. Sort of bait and switch, don't you think?

    I am wholly unfamiliar with the TARP program or its minutia, but my guess is that it was so rushed that it contained no such provision so recouping them, outside the already existing framework as provided, may not exist. It's in the hands of executive branch now.

    ~String
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Precedent and what is being done to ACORN

    U.S. v. Brown (1965):

    Respondent was convicted under § 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, which makes it a crime for one who belongs to the Communist Party or who has been a member thereof during the preceding five years willfully to serve as a member of the executive board of a labor organization. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding § 504 violative of the First and Fifth Amendments.

    Held: Section 504 constitutes a bill of attainder and is therefore unconstitutional. Pp. 441-462.

    Cummings v. Missouri (1867):

    1. Under the form of creating a qualification or attaching a condition, the States cannot, in effect, inflict a punishment for a past act which was not punishable at the time it was committed.

    2. Deprivation or suspension of any civil rights for past conduct is punishment for such conduct.

    3. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties.

    4. These bills, though generally directed against individuals by name, may be directed against a whole class, and they may inflict punishment absolutely or may inflict it conditionally
    ....

    .... 7. There is no practical difference between assuming the guilt and declaring it. The deprivation is effected with equal certainty in the one case as in the other. The legal result is the same, on the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.

    8. The prohibition of the Constitution was intended to secure the rights of the citizen against deprivation for past conduct by legislative enactment under any form, however disguised.

    Article I, Sec. 9, U.S. Constitution:

    No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    What is being done to ACORN?

    ACORN is, under the terms of bills considered in Congress, to be forbidden from participating in federal endeavors in which the organization will receive public money. The essential reason for this is that people generally do not appreciate the conduct of some low-level functionaries within the organization, and while there are ways to prevent ACORN from receiving such money, such laws would also affect other organizations, especially certain defense contractors. Thus, Congress is seeking to punish ACORN specifically for actions which have yet to be convicted in any court of law, may not specifically violate the laws of relevant jurisdictions, and cannot be connected to the organization itself instead of, to borrow a cliché, a few bad apples. As I have noted before, poor employee training is common in the United States. But poor training as a cause to forbid participation in a federal scheme would bar any number of companies from contributing to public endeavors, possibly including insurance companies, universities, and even the political parties themselves.

    So what we have is a sort of moralist populism seeking to forbid a specific organization the right to participate in public endeavors for "crimes" never reasonably demonstrated in a court. Bring me heads of Halliburton directors, KBR executives, and even the heirarchy of the Catholic Church; drag ACORN's directors into court and convict them of conspiring to facilitate child prostitution. It's not a matter of dodging justice, but rather one of being just.

    • • •​

    What, to your knowledge or opinion, is the standing precedent for denying a specific organization participation in public endeavors as a means of punishment without judicial trial?

    Brown is a relevant precedent, since membership in an organization—e.g., the Communist Party—was a criterion for the bill of attainder in question. Cummings, to the other, provides a fairly concise overview of bills of attainder, the deprivation under such laws, and standards of guilt. (The omitted portions pertain specifically to clergy, ex post facto laws, and the Constitution of Missouri.)

    This isn't about "denying" funding. One can deny funding by simply not approving an application. This is about prohibiting a specific organization from taking part in the public process.

    • • •​

    Last month, Rep. Grayson gave an interview to Glenn Greenwald for Salon Radio. As Greenwald explained:

    Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) -- my guest on Salon Radio today -- yesterday pointed out that the bill passed by both the Senate and House to de-fund ACORN is written so broadly that it literally compels the de-funding not only of that group, but also the de-funding of, and denial of all government contracts to, any corporation that "has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency." By definition, that includes virtually every large defense contractor, which -- unlike ACORN -- has actually been found guilty of fraud. As The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim put it: "the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops."

    I spoke with Rep. Grayson this morning regarding the consequences of all of this. He is currently compiling a list of all defense contractors encompassed by this language in order to send to administration officials (and has asked for help from the public in compiling that list, here). The President is required by the Constitution to "faithfully execute" the law, which should mean that no more contracts can be awarded to any companies on that list, which happens to include the ten largest defense contractors in America. Before being elected to Congress, Grayson worked extensively on uncovering and combating defense contractor fraud in Iraq ....

    Or, to consider Mr. Grim more specifically:

    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.

    In other words, the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops.

    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.

    That "longer list" is available from the Project On Government Oversight, includes over $257 billion in contracts, and asserts over $26 billion in misconduct spread over 675 occasions since 1995. The thirteen largest contract awards (nearly $139b) on the list are all to companies with records of misconduct (over $5.5b related to 206 occasions).

    Faced with the possibility of banishing so many large corporations—possibly including names like Boeing, Merck, Federal Express, Humana, Daimler, and the Corrections Corporation of America—from participating in federal contracts, Congress is instead seeking a way to pass a bill of attainder.

    Repulsive aesthetics? Bad. Defrauding the public trust? Eh, we can live with it, apparently.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Davis, John F. "Syllabus". U.S. v. Brown. June 7, 1965. Legal Information Institute. October 23, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0437_ZS.html

    Middleton, D. W. "Syllabus". Cummings v. Missouri. 1867. Supreme.Justia.com. October 23, 2009. http://supreme.justia.com/us/71/277/

    Constitution of the United States of America. 1787. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. October 23, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

    Greenwald, Glenn. "Salon Radio: Rep. Alan Grayson on de-funding corrupt defense contractors". Unclaimed Territory. September 23, 2009. Salon.com. October 23, 2009. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/09/23/grayson/index.html

    Grim, Ryan. "Whoops: Anti-ACORN Bill Ropes In Defense Contractors, Others Charged With Fraud". Huffington Post. September 22, 2009. HuffingtonPost.com. October 23, 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/whoops-anti-acorn-bill-ro_n_294949.html

    Project on Government Oversight. "Federal Contractor Misconduct Database". (n.d.) POG

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    rg. October 23, 2009. http://www.contractormisconduct.org/
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The latest

    Update: Injunction against ACORN bill of attainder; Massachusetts report vindicates ACORN

    All that noise and bluster for naught: Congress sought to bar ACORN from receiving future federal funding, but could not stand the thought of a proper law that would also affect organizations that have actually been found guilty of misconduct and fraud, e.g., defense contractors. So they passed a bill targeting ACORN, which Rep. Alan Grayson denounced as a bill of attainder; others, obviously, disagreed—enough in Congress to send the bill to President Obama, who signed it into law.

    Last week ...

    ... in a lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Federal District Judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York found Congress' de-funding of ACORN unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. This is a major victory not only for ACORN, but also for the Constitution.

    Judge Gershon's opinion is a model of careful and dispassionate judicial reasoning. Rejecting the DOJ's claim that Congress had merely exercised its funding discretion rather than "punished" ACORN, the court wrote: "Wholly apart from the vociferous comments by various members of Congress as to ACORN's criminality and fraud . . . no reasonable observer could suppose that such severe action would have been taken in the absence of a conclusion that misconduct occurred." The court pointed to numerous statements made by Senators, including the bill's primary sponsor (Sen. Johanns), in which they anointed themselves judge and jury to declare ACORN guilty of crimes with which they had not even been charged, let alone convicted. Relying on Lovett -- which held unconstitutional a Congressional act banning specified individuals from government employment based on the unadjudicated finding that they had "subversive beliefs" and "subversive associations" -- Judge Gershon explained that under clear Supreme Court law: "the discretionary nature of government funding does not foreclose a finding that Congress has impermissibly singled out plaintiffs for punishment."


    (Greenwald)

    Or, from Judge Gershon's opinion:

    The plaintiffs in this case, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inc. ("ACORN") and two of its affiliates, challenge as an unconstitutional bill of attainder a continuing appropriations resolution enacted by Congress that bars ACORN and its affiliates, subsidiaries, and allied organizations from receiving federal funding from the government, even under its ongoing contracts with federal agencies. In doing so, the plaintiffs ask this court to consider the constitutionality of a provision that was approved by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. Such a task can be approached only with the utmost gravity; legislative decisions enjoy a high presumption of legitimacy. This is particularly true where the challenge is brought under a rarely-litigated provision of the Constitution, the Bill of Attainder Clause, which has been successfully invoked only five times in the Supreme Court since the signing of the Constitution.

    • • •​

    The plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their bill of attainder claim. They have also established the likelihood of irreparable harm absent an injunction and that issuance of a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. Therefore the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED ....

    Those sections, from the beginning and end of Judge Gershon's decision, protect ACORN against a law the court views as unconstitutional, and enjoins the federal government from enforcing the appropriations resolution while shifting the burden of proof to the government for any further litigation. Which is a vital point to consider in light of last week's other big development in the ACORN saga, in which a former Attorney General of Massachuetts, Scott Harshbarger, found that ACORN employees, while behaving unprofessionally and inappropriately, did not break the law. Zachary Roth reports for TPM Muckraker:

    The report, by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, recommends nine steps for ACORN to take in order to regain public trust in the wake of the scandal, including that it return to its "core competency - community organizing and citizen engagement empowerment, with related services."

    On the key question of potential illegal conduct, it finds:

    While some of the advice and counsel given by ACORN employees and volunteers was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional, we did not find a pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staff; in fact, there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers.​

    Harshbarger also notes that the videos were sometimes less than perfect representations of the events they depict. He writes:

    The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.​

    Welcome to American politics. Conservatives got what they wanted, and what they wanted was illegal. Is there really any surprise about that? After rallying behind apparently fraudulent sting videotapes, conservative bluster pushed through a bill of attainder on populist grounds and, well, didn't give a damn about the Constitution. Congressional Democrats should have known better than to buckle under the pressure of scandal, but there really is no excuse for the conservative liars who pushed this bogus sting or stirred the political kettle to boiling over.

    It's easy enough to punish a community-advocacy organization that benefits minorities for crimes they didn't commit on the basis of a fraudulent accusation. It's much harder, though, to punish corporate federal contractors in the same way for the crimes they've actually been convicted of.

    The ACORN bill of attainder was an example of American politics at its worst, and one wonders at the silence of paranoiacs who despise "big" and "intrusive" government over this sinister and illegal persecution of a community advocacy organization.
    _____________________

    Notes:

    Greenwald, Glenn. "Major victory for ACORN and the Constitution". Unclaimed Territory. December 11, 2009. Salon.com. December 13, 2009. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/12/12/acorn/index.html

    Gershon, Nina. ACORN v. USA. United States District Court Eastern District of New York. December 11, 2009. CCRJustice.org. December 13, 2009. http://ccrjustice.org/files/Judge Gershon 12 11 2009 PI Order.pdf

    Roth, Zachary. "ACORN Report Finds No Illegal Conduct". TPM Muckraker. December 7, 2009. TPMMuckraker.com. December 13, 2009. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/acorn_report_finds_no_illegal_conduct.php

    Correction: Scott Harshbarger is a former Attorney General of Massachusetts. I had previously attributed him as the current occupant of that office.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2009
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Behind the Sting: Sex, Lies, and Videotape

    The Harshbarger report is available online.

    The serious management challenges detailed in our report are the fault of ACORN’s founder and a cadre of leaders who, in their drive for growth, failed to commit the organization to the basic, appropriate standards of governance and accountability. As a result, ACORN not only fell short of living its principles but also left itself vulnerable to public embarrassment. This hidden camera controversy is an apt example. While some of the advice and counsel given by ACORN employees and volunteers was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional, we did not find a pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staff; in fact, there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers. Instead, the videos represent the byproduct of ACORN’s longstanding management weaknesses, including a lack of training, a lack of procedures, and a lack of on-site supervision.

    (Boldface accent added)

    Something about that portion of the executive summary seems familiar:

    Haul the whole thing out into the light. ACORN's funding structure is fair game inasmuch as we examine how its agents are paid. They're creating fantasy voter registrations in order to meet a pay quota. As the cliché goes, Mickey Mouse ain't showing up to vote on Election Day.

    There is a problem there, but the actual scandal we saw went right by that and into the paranoia.

    With the present scandal, it is indicative of poor personnel training, and yes, ACORN should probably answer for that. While poor training is common in America, this time it's particularly ugly a result. ACORN should certainly be embarrassed, but the scandal is taking place light years away from the real issues. It's about a bizarre, prudish idyll we maintain almost as if specifically for such occasions.

    (#2366939/27)

    And that's not all that rings a bell:

    I think what I would fire the employees for is failing to call the police immediately after the session. Confidentiality rules don't apply when crimes against children are alleged ....

    .... So, yeah, I stand corrected: There is a second thing I would criticize ACORN for—its employees should have called the police after the counseling session, and they should have damn well known from the head office that they were supposed to.

    (#2365732/16)

    In re: San Diego, from Harshbarger (accent added):

    In San Diego, the ACORN employee who met with the videographers does not speak English as his first language. His colleagues usually converse with him in Spanish. In the released video, his participation amounts mostly to nodding or saying “OK.” It is difficult to determine what this employee is responding to because the videographers statements are obscured by a voiceover inserted later. At one point during the meeting, the ACORN employee attempted to call the police. At other points, he attempted to take pictures of the videographers with his cell phone. Following the interview, he called a relative in the National City police department to report the incident. According to a statement released by the National City Police Department:

    On August 20, 2009, an ACORN employee contacted his cousin, a National City Police Detective, to ask him general advice regarding information he had received about possible human smuggling. In response, the Detective contacted a law enforcement officer serving on a federal task force that specifically deals with human smuggling. The task force officer said he needed more specific details to move forward. This message was related to the ACORN employee. The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained to the Detective that police assistance was not needed because the information he initially received was not true and what had happened to him was a ruse.

    The Philadelphia ACORN office also called the police after Giles and O'Keefe were caught in their lies.

    We see racism in San Diego, as well as exploitative fraud on multiple occasions. Reading through Appendix D ("Video Narratives", pp. 42-ff) is enlightening. Not only is the situation not nearly as grim as original media depictions and the subsequent debate about ACORN, we find questionable desperation on the part of Giles and O'Keefe, including a bogus run for Congress, claims by the hooker O'Keefe that Giles would beat her, misrepresentation of circumstances by Giles and O'Keefe, and even voice-overs to hide the videographers' role in the discussions.

    As the facts emerge, what we see is an organizationally-troubled social services group attacked by racist provocateurs and backed by a willing and enthusiastic mass of conservatives who are themselves either racist, corrupt, or stupid. Everyone—not just ACORN—fell for this, to borrow a phrase, hooker, line, and sinker.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Harshbarger, Scott and Amy Crafts. "An Independent Governance Assessment of ACORN: The Path To Meaningful Reform". Proskauer. December 7, 2009. Proskauer.com. December 14, 2009. http://www.proskauer.com/files/uploads/report2.pdf
     

Share This Page