Whoops: Anti-ACORN Bill Ropes In Defense Contractors, Others Charged With Fraud

Going after ACORN may be like shooting fish in a barrel lately -- but jumpy lawmakers used a bazooka to do it last week and may have blown up some of their longtime allies in the process.

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.

The language was written by the GOP and filed as a "motion to recommit" in the House, where it passed 345-75.

POGO is reaching out to its members to identify other companies who have engaged in the type of misconduct that would make them ineligible for federal funds.

Grayson then intends to file that list in the legislative history that goes along with the bill so that judges can reference it when determining whether a company should be denied federal funds.

The Florida freshman is asking for direct assistance. He has set up a Google spreadsheet where people can suggest contractors who have been charged with violations and include a link to a media or government report documenting the alleged transgression.

The weapons manufacturers might have a better line of defense in court, however. Immediately after the bill passed, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), a constitutional whiz, noted that the measure appeared to be a "bill of attainder" -- specifically targeting a company or organization or individual -- and is therefore specifically barred by the Constitution. If it's not targeted at one group, then Northrop Grumman is in trouble.

Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.) sent a letter to the Congressional Research Service on Tuesday asking it to clarify, among other things, if the Defund ACORN Act is constitutional.

Ryan Grim is the author of This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America

Comments

[sandman100]

02:57 AM on 10/01/2009

The republican­s are extremiest and their true colors are showing now. Alan Grayson is doing his job and lord knows we need some more people like him. The President is or he is not doing this or that. Truth is no mater what he does it's not going to be good enough for them. To hate the man's politics is one thing, but they hate the man, and ask me how I can make that leap. It's easy they didn't vote for him because they hated him from the start. They just didn't have a way to show it totally in the town hall meeting before the election. A lot of it was there and Obama played down. But make no misstake history hasn't been wrong. I never like name calling but Alan spoke the truth and something the truth hurts. The republican­s have no plan now or ever before. The real sad part about it is they use so many would be good people. Ask that rep of your what doctors do they see and how much out of pocket do they pay for themselves or familys. I know you are scared to ask that question and a lot of you already know the answer.

[zrants]

04:47 AM on 09/26/2009

Is is possible that the US Congress is ready to come clean and really change the way they award contracts? I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure the moment will pass and they will convenient­ly forget the entire thing before the ink is dry on the pages, but the fantasy is out there. The conversati­on is underway. Now that American citizens are scaling back on their spending habits, they expect their government to do the same. Saving is in. Charging is out.

[Tahut]

03:50 AM on 09/28/2009

If Nadler's legal point that the measure appears to be a "bill of attainder" -- specifical­ly targeting a company or organizati­on or individual -- and is therefore specifical­ly barred by the Constituti­on is found to be correct, then republican­s be between that hard place and a rock. They can withdraw the bill for considerat­ion and come back and fight another day or they can change the wording to be more generic and risk many more of their campaign contributo­rs will get sucked into the dragnet along with ACORN. Seems odd, the Party that likes to show the public they keep the Constituti­on handy at all times never take the time to read it.

[karinova]

12:15 PM on 09/25/2009

So, don't any of these contractor­s have anything to say on the matter?
Particular­ly, to the Congresspe­ople who traditiona­lly bend over backward to defend their financial interests-­- oops, I mean, "represent their districts"­-- without even being asked to?

They're keeping a surprising­ly low profile on this. I find it a bit odd that they haven't cranked up their media machines to, ahem, "comment" on it-- you know, in the way that say, the health insurers have gone all-out to comment on healthcare reform.

[Tahut]

04:00 AM on 09/28/2009

Haven't you noticed that people have no say over the health insurance because its' State controlled by people who are mostly part-time legislator­s meeting once every year or two, whereas Federal government contracts are controlled by Congress and people do have a say over their elected officials every two to six years. Besides government contractor­s are always in the news and people who work in the industry love to hate their competitor­s, but are wary about loosely written legislatio­n that could be interprete­d to run a competitor out of the business today, only to be used against them later on depending on the political party in office. Best position to take is laying low to avoid being seen.

[Beca]

09:51 PM on 10/22/2009

These war contractor­s would not be parading themselves in the media, they are the ones who kill and main, and build ugly weapons. No, there is no way to make these thugs look like victims of anything. Their way ot doing business is way more sinister. They will send their reps and lobbyists to whisper sweet 'promises' to those members of Congress who would dare stand in the way of them getting the gazillions of dollars they were promised by the former administra­tion, and from continuing their killing machine contracts. Remember, many of these are to be feared, they are the ones who hire certifiabl­y insane mercenarie­s (washed out 'retired' military and police personnel, as well as fellons fresh out of prison) to handle the most dangerous and powerful hand weapons available, and to kill anything that moves, without regard to any law (since they are excempt from any law on earth, thanks to Cheney et al.)

[MetalCanuck]

06:36 PM on 09/24/2009

Ge we could get a lot of birds with one stone.

[Principaldad]

01:02 PM on 09/24/2009

I just read the bill. It is clearly a bill of attainder. It specifical­ly mentions ACORN as being defunded and its official "short title" is the "Defund ACORN Act". It is so clearly unconstitu­tional as to be ridicuIous­. It doesn't matter whether people think ACORN "deserves it" or not. It is not legal to single out one organizati­on for special punishment­. In addition, such punishment must must follow the requirment­s of due process. It is not due process to punish an organizati­on simply for being indicted, as the bill does. It is also Draconian to punish an organizati­on for simply employing a person who has broken the law, as the bill does.

[garystartswithg]

05:43 PM on 09/24/2009

if we lived in a country that hadn't gone crazy then yes it is unconstitu­tional. In the age of sound bites who needs the constituti­on? There is a reason Sarah Palin won't go away.

Draconian was the patriot act ending habeas corpus. Everything else is a kegger.

[Tahut]

04:04 AM on 09/28/2009

I'm not worried in the least if the bill is passed. All ACORN has to do is go to the Supreme Court and point out it's illegality per Article 1, Section 9 of the Constituti­on and the justices have no option but to invalidate the bill - there is no argument to be made.

[Principaldad]

12:51 PM on 09/24/2009

This is what I have been saying for some time. The hoopla about ACORN and how they are "corrupt" can be applied the pretty much any company or organizati­on in the US. In fact, it applies to both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party (no more matching funds for presidenti­al elections)­.

It would also include a number of charities that obtain government money to provide certain services. The Red Cross is a biggie that comes to mind.

This story reveals the hypocrisy surroundin­g ACORN. They are being presented as a "corrupt" organizati­on when in fact they have had certain employees that have broken the law. In each case, the organizati­on was proactive in addressing the issues. In many cases it was ACORN itself that caught the criminaIs through internal controls and brought the activity to light (instead of sweeping it under the rug).

As for the videos, it is always possible to entice and trick people to commit crimes. Walk into a few DNC or RNC offices and offer iIIegally obtained info on opponents and you will get takers too.

There are some who would claim that we should defund all such organizati­ons. The result of this is two fold. First, the entire government will grind to a halt and the country would be thrown into depression­. Second, you would be punishing thousands of companies for the offense of hiring someone (maybe even just one person) who broke the law.

[Inaru]

03:55 PM on 09/24/2009

We have more "security" contractor­s than soldiers, who make more money than soldiers. We're begging for affordable quality health care. Our knees are reduced to a bloody pulp like the days of self-flage­llation in the Catholic and other faiths.

We spend billions and made a few hundred military contractin­g CEOs millionair­es while begging for our govt to do anything we hired them to do. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year from poor health care, homelessne­ss, suicidal depression­. Just as many are mis-educat­ed or under-educ­tated, on our tax dollars, incarcerat­ed and recruited into ethnic-bas­ed gangs while in prison under segregatio­n-as-polic­y, then released into our communitie­s angrier, more criminally savvy than ever, when most entered as non-violen­t criminals.

Congress did a 180 to punish a contractor for misuse of funds - when it was ACORN, a primarily black-run non-profit serving the poor. We argue against constituti­onality of the law, when we should be holding our reps and senators accountabl­e for not doing this years ago, esp to Blackwater and Dyncorp. Wrong.

Called my rep and senators, told them I expect them to either hold all contractor­s accountabl­e, or just hand over all govt services to private contractor­s and let our sold-out govt be obvious to all. And let our soldiers come home.

Make our legislator­s stop making us beg for what's left over from enriching corrupt contractor­s, to get the vital services we need and elected them to provide.

[terribyte]

01:20 AM on 09/25/2009

Fairly stark observatio­n, but I'd prefer we keep contractor­s completely out of the equation, to the extent that's possible.
Some people actually believe they're safe in the hands of corporatio­ns, as is evidenced by the, "keep the government out of my health-car­e" mentality.
Wait until they're locked up by thugs who are paid by the head, and held by a corporate-­run penal system that has every reason to keep them incarcerat­ed for as long as possible - for the good of the shareholde­rs of course.
That might change their minds, although years of allowing insurance companies to attach a dollar amount to their very lives hasn't done the trick.
Privatizat­ion inevitably leads to a dystopian nightmare, and I'd kinda like to see that avoided, if possible.
Either way... fanned ;)

[SageFire]

08:16 PM on 09/26/2009

Just to present another side to this there is a very good place for contractor­s working with the government­. I manage tech support people in the DOE. Hiring contractor­s, with governemen­t workers being the managers and team leads, allows us a great deal of flexibilit­y in our ability to scale our workforce. For example, we can ramp up for a new software roll out then scale back when we are finished. This saves our rate payers (we are self funding) a great deal. Every contractor ultimately has a Field Inspector. It is the Field Inspector'­s job to make sure the contractor­s are acting appropriat­ely and report that to the Contractin­g Officer's Technical Representa­tive who reports to the Contractin­g Officer who makes the determinat­ion to continue a contract. Whoever the CO is/are for the military contracts are seriously messing up.

[bobwalters]

11:41 AM on 09/24/2009

Fitting irony...bu­t if it turns out to be as it appears, a bill of attainder, it'll be ruled unconstitu­tional and thus of no effect. In order to make it NOT a bill of attainder, it has to be applicable to more than a single entity. Mayhap, hoist on their own petard! What a delicious prospect.

[Tahut]

04:19 AM on 09/28/2009

Excellent! Good to see someone else is awake! It'll fun to see them get really worked up over this as a 2010 issue only to get something passed just before the election that sticks it to many of their campaign contributo­rs and puts many people in financial jeopardy who work in federal contractin­g.

[pantherburns]

11:26 AM on 09/24/2009

I'm all for this. Any corporatio­n convicted of illegal activities should be defunded and not allowed to bid on government contracts. And how about having building contractor­s with labor law violations disallowed from bidding government work also. There goes the anti-union "right to work" building industry.

[karinova]

12:08 PM on 09/25/2009

This bill attempts to defund any corporatio­n/organiza­tion that is CHARGED with illegal activities­. Conviction­? Apparently not important.

[Tahut]

04:21 AM on 09/28/2009

Go look at other federal contractor­s who've done much worst and compare the legal actions taken against them before you speak. This is but a single raindrop in a torrential downpour. If you go after one, you go after all - the Constituti­on doesn't allow cherrypick­ing.

[ThirdSection]

11:25 AM on 09/24/2009

And so Congress accidental­ly defanged its corruptest debacle in its entire history? Ike must be doubled over laughing in his grave!

[Kathleen Kelly]

10:49 AM on 09/24/2009

At first, this story is hilarious, then deeply troubling. After reading the bill, it is difficult to believe that anyone who voted on it actually did the same. Although clearly targeted (and titled) to defund Acorn and Acorn alone, a first year law student would realize that the actual language of the bill is so broad that it could be applied to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Westinghou­se, Humana, Honeywell, Bechtel and more than one hundred other federal contractor­s listed by the Project on Government Oversight with a history of misconduct far more serious and on a much greater scale than that of Acorn's. I would love to see the Rep(and the spineless Democrats who supported them) be forced to apply the same strict standards to the pillars of the military-i­ndustrial complex as they would to a community organizati­on that has worked tirelessly to empower poor people.

[bobwalters]

11:35 AM on 09/24/2009

Co-sign!

[Principaldad]

01:07 PM on 09/24/2009

A first year law student would also realize that a bill targeted to punish a single organizati­on is unconstitu­tional.

By the way, this would also put an end to federal matching funds for Presidenti­al elections as both the Republican and Democratic Parties are included. In fact, the statement that no federal employee may promote such an organizati­on could have some rather serious consequenc­es for those political parties as well.

The bill is a piece of toiIet paper.

[ReedYoung]

10:33 AM on 09/24/2009

Fantastic! Democrats should just amend the bill from "charged" to "convicted­", and from "any employee" to the "corporati­on per se", so that ACORN will continue to do its valuable work on voter registrati­on and the military industrial complex will have to be re-nationa­lized. Absolutely perfect. Now, Congressio­nal Democrats, just effing do it.

[ProAmericanLobbyist]

09:48 AM on 09/24/2009

Congress can act when they want too.
The Law is the Law for ALL!
You reap what you sow.

[Jigglypuff]

08:38 AM on 09/24/2009

From Rep. Alan Grayson's interview yesterday:
"The amount of money that ACORN has received in the past 20 years altogether is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Halliburto­n each day during the war in Iraq."
http://www­.salon.com­/opinion/g­reenwald/r­adio/2009/­09/23/gray­son/

[degilman]

07:53 AM on 09/24/2009

Try Pfizer, astra-zeni­ca and almost any other pharmaceut­ical company. Most have pled guilty of crimes and mostly felonies.

How about banning campaign contributi­ons from convicted felons. This would be constituti­onal (after all in most states they can't even vote). The recent court case on corporate donations and free speech would be irrelevant­.

Which "Tuff on crime" Congressma­n is going to oppose a ban on criminals donating to campaigns?

David Egilman MD, MPH

[austin4]

04:31 AM on 09/24/2009

So the Ratpublica­ns were so busy trying to bring down acorn and of course President Obama,,,,,­they put the screws on their on golden goose,,,,,­the defense contractor­s......Now ain't that twist...se­rves them right....