The American Spectator

S.L. Toddard| 9.23.09 @ 3:03PM

As the great American patriot, indefatigable champion of the American Constitution and tireless defender of our Civil Liberties Glenn Greenwald writes, the tireless efforts of Mr. Vadum and his fellow anti-ACORN crusaders may have unintended positive consequences (meaning beyond crippling a Democratic vote-getting machine): namely, de-funding Halliburton and a host of other defense contractors:

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 the administration officials (and has asked for help from the public in compiling that list, here). The President is required by 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, and I asked him to put into context ACORN's impact on the American taxpayer versus these corrupt contractors. His reply: "The amount of money that ACORN has received in the past 20 years altogether is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Haillburton each day during the war in Iraq."

The irony of all of this is that the Congress is attempting to accomplish an unconstitutional act: singling out and punishing ACORN, which is clearly a "bill of attainder" that the Constitution explicitly prohibits -- i.e., an act aimed at punishing a single party without a trial. The only way to overcome that problem is by pretending that the de-funding of ACORN is really about a general policy judgment (that no corrupt organizations should receive federal funding). But the broader they make the law in order to avoid the Constitutional problems, the more it encompasses the large corrupt corporations that own the Congress. The narrower they make it in order to include only ACORN, the more blatantly unconstitutional it is. Now that they have embraced this general principle that no corrupt organizations should receive federal funding, how is anyone going to justify applying that only to ACORN while continuing to fund the corpoations whose fraud and corruption is vastly greater (not to mention established by actual courts of law)?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g.....index.html

I’m sure that Mr. Vadum and all those tireless defenders of Law and Order - who attack ACORN not as a disingenuous proxy attack on the Democrats but rather because of its corruption - will join me in cheering the de-funding of these corrupt defense contractors, who have defrauded the American people out of exponentially more money, and to far more disastrous consequences, than ACORN could ever dream of doing.

Hip! Hip!

…hello?

Matthew Vadum| 9.23.09 @ 3:23PM

At Capital Research Center we study nonprofit advocacy groups, particularly those on the left. We do not study defense contractors so I'm afraid your rhetorical misdirection is tantamount to barking up the wrong tree.

Tim| 9.23.09 @ 3:41PM

You killed Kenny! YOU BASTARD!

S.L. Toddard| 9.23.09 @ 5:59PM

On the contrary, without the relentless journalism of you and your fellow ACORN watchdogs this bill would not now exist. Don't sell yourself short, Mr. Vadum.

Also, Mr. Vadum - I know how much you abhor fraud and corruption. Do you support this bill, that would deny funding to any organization that "has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency"?

Matthew Vadum| 9.23.09 @ 6:36PM

I suspect my writings on ACORN have had an impact or Michelle Malkin wouldn't have thanked me in her book.

This legislative provision you refer to sounds good in principle but I haven't seen that language so I will not comment on it.

S.L. Toddard| 9.23.09 @ 7:09PM

Here it is:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3571/text

It's pretty concise. What do you think?

Also, I'm not being sarcastic when I say that I believe your writings have had an impact, or when I say that I believe they've contributed to the creation of this bill.

Matthew Vadum| 9.23.09 @ 8:06PM

You are too kind, but you left out the fact that the $8.5 billion figure that ACORN is eligible for (not getting, just eligible for--which in itself is scandalous) was the product of my research.

S.L. Toddard| 9.24.09 @ 7:48AM

I'm sure I left out a lot of facts, but I thought they were encompassed in my recognition of the impact your work has had. And yes ACORN was eligible for 8.5 billion, but, as Greenwald pointed out, "they (like every other group in the U.S.) are theoretically "eligible" for any stimulus funds in the areas in which they work, but they haven't received a penny of it, and the chances they'd receive all or most of it are, and always have been, zero."

Here's the bill your work helped inspire, that should de-fund any company which has defrauded the gov't, which by definition will include the top ten largest war-profiteers/defense contractors:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3571/text

I posted it above - you must have missed it. What do you think? You loathe fraud, I know, so you must support this bill wholeheartedly, correct? After all, we cannot have corrupt, fraud-prone companies receiving federal money.

Oldefarte| 9.23.09 @ 3:06PM

Let see if I have this correct-------our government, funded by American taxpayers, is using its funds to support an entity whose sole purpose is the partisaned activities and agenda of the Democratic Party [ to the exclusion of others] ; and that somehow this MORON surmises that the WaPo is dedicating too much space to same-----------SHAZAM!!!!!!!!

Brian B| 9.23.09 @ 4:07PM

--"Whether you think well or ill of ACORN, they’re a very marginal group in the grand scheme of things—and about as tied to the White House as the PTA."--

So the Obama campaign paid the PTA $800,000 to get out the vote in 08?
News to me.

ncatty| 9.23.09 @ 4:14PM

Do you have to have a license to be a journalist, you know, like a plumber does?

ncatty| 9.23.09 @ 4:18PM

Electricians, plumbers, lawyers, doctors, accountants all have to pass tests to practice their profession/vocation. For lawyers and doctors at least there are also enforceable rulles of ethics. How about journalists? No. It is because they don't do anything serious enough to justify testing. This includes professors of journalism at Columbia.

jr| 9.23.09 @ 4:48PM

A little away from the subject but couldn't pass it up.
A Pingback - Buffy The Walmart Slayer is a topic that doesn't get a whole lot of press in the left media as it once did -- since it now works with Obama. Sticking it to companies who work the wars is not very new. It has been going on since 1950 and despite the ruling party, nothing changes. It is time to roll ACORNs. Ditto, the professors of journalism at Columbia have been it the left tank for 50 years or so. What's new? WaPo printing anti-ACORN, that is new -- so there is more behind this than WaPo coming clean. Perhaps it wants to start making a profit. But that would certainly be bad for its image - a corporation making a profit ----- excise tax needed.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.23.09 @ 4:52PM

Toddard
You diss everybody and every thing. OH Swami what would YOU have us do, oh arse?

Please ......give us direction to the promised land of your acceptance............

C'mon, lay out your agenda positively instead of carping at every one you see....cowardly turdinapunchbowl splash.

S.L. Toddard| 9.23.09 @ 5:54PM

Actually, if this ended up de-funding the war profiteers mentioned above - for defrauding the gov't, and we know ACORN opponents just *hate* fraud - then I think our interests have finally converged. Honestly, I'm fine with ACORN going out of business - the less poor people that vote, the better as far as I'm concerned. No vote is better than an uninformed vote. I just think in the grand scheme of things they're a distraction, and that it's fairly obvious that the only reason anyone cares about ACORN is because it is a sort of a by-extension attack on Barack Obama, and because they get the Democrat (oops - I mean "poor") vote out. Far more the former than the latter, though.

Look at the comments sections of these ACORN pieces. Look how the average Amspec reader thinks of ACORN: as a profoundly sinister, deeply criminal organization which has as its primary functions committing election fraud (despite not one conviction against ACORN for such) and (now) child sex-slavery (ditto). This is so far from the truth of the matter that it is literally funny - people laugh about this obsession. In reality, ACORN is a liberal organization that advocates for the poor (who are liberals), and for (liberal) policies that help them, and try to get out their (liberal) vote. Because its employees, like those it tries to help, are in large part urban and poor, there are, I'm sure, a significant number of individuals that work for/with ACORN that are not entirely bright, not entirely honest, not entirely respectful of things like "laws", or all three. It's even quite possible - even likely - that an organization that large, that has been around that long, has done crooked things. But to imply (or believe) that it somehow has the power to imperil our liberty, or that it is a dangerous and sinister *organization*, and one that commits the sort of massive fraud and felonious crimes that would justify the attention it gets is literally ridiculous.

The war profiteers mentioned in the Greenwald article have been found, in courts of law, to have defrauded the American taxpayer. ACORN has never been convicted of any such thing. Does everyone here believe that funding should be shut off to Halliburton et al due to their fraudulence and corruption? I believe this bill should pass - no companies that have been found guilty of fraud, of defrauding the American people, should get our money, whether its ACORN, Halliburton or whomever. Will anyone else here commit to that, or is it only organizations that have a loose connection to a Democratic president that should be held to that standard?

Nobama| 9.23.09 @ 6:32PM

I hope we can destroy ACORN before they steal the 2010 and 2012 elections for the fascist liberals. Stay on point, people!

ConservativeWanderer| 9.23.09 @ 6:47PM

Ladies and gentlemen:

Please, don't feed the Toddard-troll. If we starve him of what he so desperately wants--attention--he'll eventually go away.