Overly-broad language used by lawmakers intending to pull government funding for community organizing group ACORN may have the unintended effect of forcing the government to also pull funds from much of the military-industrial complex, a Tuesday report revealed.
"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," wrote Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grimm.
"In other words, the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops."
Mother Jones was quick to note that could mean any firm in the Project on Government Oversight's contractor misconduct database could be facing a removal of government funds -- including the private security firm formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide.
Last week the House of Representatives passed a GOP-written bill to defund ACORN by a vote of 345-75. A similar bill cleared the Senate by 83-7.
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) praised the result, calling it a victory for a “united Republican effort.” The Associated Press referred to it as a “GOP-led strike.”
However, while the GOP managed to get 173 of its members to vote in favor of the measure, Democrats who crossed over almost made up the majority of the support, with a full 172 voting "aye" alongside the GOP.
A House roll call on the vote is available here.
Sensing a window of opportunity with the GOP's overly-broad language, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) is looking to build a list of firms that may also be lumped in with ACORN under the legislation.
"You see, regardless of what you think of ACORN, it is laudable to stop taxpayer money from going to organizations that commit fraud against the government," he said in a statement. "So as per the bill's text, I'm going to put into the Congressional record a list of organizations who have committed fraud against the government or employs anyone who has."
Grayson's list is now online and growing, and he's soliciting the Internet's help to add firms which have committed fraud against the government.
The congressman continued: "Please nominate organizations and show me that they need to be in the record. To help, send me the name of the organization and proof in the form of a link to evidence that this organization should be in the Congressional record. I will also need your email address so I can follow-up with you if necessary. The proof you send needs to be easily verifiable, as in credible media reports, legal documents, government data, or otherwise."
The as-of-yet unverified list reads like a who's who list of the most influential American corporations, including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Electric, Raytheon, L-3 Communications, Blackwater Worldwide (now known as Xe Services, LLC), Kellogg Brown & Root, Bank of America, IBM, Halliburton, AT&T, Hewlett-Packard Company, DynCorp International Inc., CACI International, Inc., Dell, Inc., Exxon Mobil and many, many more.
"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," noted Grimm.
-- Stephen C. Webster
It's called "padding" when a firm that contracts for the government deliberately increases its billing by x percent ( the x variable ranging from 5 to 1000 plus). It is done deliberately and maticulously and it has been bleeding the government dry. It's great to see the robber barons of business finally confronted by a government that is far in debt.
The premise is very unlikely simply because reconciliation with the senate is still necessary. And even if it wasn't, a legal argument could be made in the courts as to the intent of the bill. Further, does anyone realistically think that a senator will vote for a bill that will kill well paying jobs in his state?
All the senate has to do is to add a provision that states "this provision does not strictly apply to organizations that are vital to national security" or "unless it compromises national security"
Frankly, if a firm does not provide a vital service to security, why SHOULD we tolerate an inkling of corruption or misuse of public funds ?
It was fine until these two obviously got a phone call from a constituent that really mattered.
John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Barney Frank (D-Taxachusetts)
-Love from Boston
best. law. ever.
Mr Rep. Alan Grayson:
There is no place for logic on capital hill. Please stop this foolishness. Without the military industrial complex we would have no wars. Without wars, our economy would collapse. Do you want our economy to collapse? Patriot or traitor?
Oh nooooooooo, the Military Industrial Complex might be in trouble....what shallllll we doooooo???
I got an idea , why don't we save ACORN, send them all our kids and taxes, and help save the MIC so we can bomb more innocent kids , so they can crawl out into the open, and we can fire on them.
Those that are left alive can be trafficked by ACORN pimps and hos.
Fun for everyone.
Oops. Suddenly China is paid off, trillions are available for health care, the US looses its fisty grip on world politics, and dictators/gang leaders worldwide are scratching their bodiless heads wondering who their next benefactor should be. Oops.
[...] that commit fraud against the government.” Apparently, this has the potential to cast a wider net than just ACORN. Can you think of any organization anywhere that has ever committed fraud against [...]
Let me make a prediction here:
John Conyers and Barney Frank, in seeking to see if the Bill is constitutional, are NOT doing this to held in defunding any of the contractors that have screwed the American taxpayer. In fact, even though they will claim otherwise, they are doing this to derail any such efforts to punish mega-contractors who are on the government payroll.
I've been watching Conyers for years, and while he talks the talk, he always backs off at the last minute and has been a complete dud when it comes to accomplishing anything meaningful. Conyers is the original two-headed snake, talking out of both sides of his mouth and he only sounds good until it actually comes time to do anything that would require some real ethics or intestinal fortitude. Wait and see, Conyors and Franks actions will kill any chance of using this Bill to punish the main actors that have defrauded the public, especially Halliburton or KBR.
I'll bet anyone anything that I'm correct on this one.
[...] See the original post: The Raw Story » Could ACORN defunding bill strike military … [...]
Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
I wouldn't get too excited about this.
Your reporting isn't fully accurate. The measure that passed 345-75 wasn't a vote to defund indicted companies. It was only the vote to attach that amendment to the student aid bill.
All of those 75 Democrats ultimately voted FOR the student aid bill, therefore voting FOR defunding indicted companies. All the votes against the student aid bill were Republicans, who now are taking credit for defunding ACORN despite their ultimate vote against it.
This legislative technique isn't lost on me, however, I also happen
to know your wording it inaccurate in context, too. At least one New Jersey Democrat DID foresee the unintended consequence and voted no as a matter of wisdom, not in support of ACORN.
I would like to see your news organization correct this.
Thanks.
I sent a link to this article detailing GE's Bernie Madoff pattern and 25% of Pentagon money unaccounted for.
Great to see the robber barons confronted..Not yet it is a big big job but if they intend to stop acorn which was registering poor people to vote because of two bad apples, then that includes all bad apples in our govt indicted ..Two can play at this game..
WHY ISN'T RAW STORY REPORTING ON SIBEL EDMODS EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW WITH AMCOM MAGAZINE ?????????????????????????????
You can throw in the Republican party for good measure.
"You see, regardless of what you think of ACORN, it is laudable to stop taxpayer money from going to organizations that commit fraud against the government," he said in a statement. "So as per the bill's text, I'm going to put into the Congressional record a list of organizations who have committed fraud against the government or employs anyone who has."
That's what I said in the other thread, to lots of boooos. I'm just glad they are going to use this to beat the Repukes over the head with. Tax dollars go to lots of places the public doesn't like, and we're told to "deal with it".. so, if we're supposed to just "deal with it", then the right-wing should have to deal with ACORN, too. If we're pulling ACORN because a few employees did something wrong, then we pull everything where employees have done something wrong.
Oh, don't like that? Fine.. then pull anything where the "company" did it, not just based on the actions of a few people, but only look at what ended up in contracts.. Oh, you mean ACORN gets funding again? but we still have some "big players" that get dropped? .. well, isn't that what we _really_ want?
sspeedracer: you're not being serious, are you? Because, lots of countries around the world aren't spending on the military like we do, and their countries are thriving. I hope your post was snark.
treeman: if they wanted the bill to apply to ACORN specifically, they could have named it. The "intent", it seems, is to not spend tax payer dollars on companies that defraud the government. The only 2 flaws I see is that it includes "employees" who are not acting for the company (with regard to interaction with the government, directly) and "others associated". The other issue is "charged" since no one should be punished just because they are accused, you only get punished if you're FOUND GUILTY.. and, again, when an employee is guilty of a crime, if the company dumps them, you don't hold the company accountable if the person breaking the law wasn't acting on behalf of the company but was acting alone. -------------------- And the national security aspect of it is a joke, since that's pretty subjective. One could argue that making sure the voting public is empowered is the most important thing to keeping our country free; without an empowered voting public, you don't have a Democracy at all and losing our Democracy would surely be a national threat, right?
Yes, without more wars we wont be able to pay for the two we have solely thru Oil and Opium. We need more AIGs, Pfizers and Bechtels on that list so we can start Armageddon!
Hooray. The GOP has finally given the people some clout in exorcising the demon of corruption from government. Let's hope the DOJ actually enforces this and defunds the military-industrial complex that is bleeding the US dry and inflicting untold devastation on the world. Why is the US spending as much as the rest of the world combined on "defense"?
"Frankly, if a firm does not provide a vital service to security, why SHOULD we tolerate an inkling of corruption or misuse of public funds ?"
What does "a vital service to security" have to do with anything? Why should one of those contractors be exempt from corruption charges? Seems to me that if something is vital, they should be held MORE strongly to standards of honesty and integrity. But then you can always ask, are any of these boys actually doing anything that is vital and can't be dispensed with or done better by someone else?
lol
step 2... congress votes to defund ACORN
step 3... ACORN changes its name to Blackwater
Now, if they want to rescind the bill, it forces reps & sens to vote FOR public corruption and de-frauding of the government.
Ok this is simple. ACORN helps minorities and impoverished people. Many of the minorities have brown skin. Republicans are willing to do anything not to help them by any means possible. This pimp and prostitute charade was done over a period of months and involved up to 2 dozen ACORN offices. Many of which either turned these people away or thought it was a joke. The ones on the video giving advice were terminated from employment and no tax return was ever filed or even came close to being filed for these people by ACORN. One thought to this is why they waited until now since they had the video since May. Maybe it has to do with the timing of the e-mail knowledge that Karl Rove personally targeted groups like ACORN. Another thing is why these people aren't targeting groups such as Blackwater (Ze) that are funded by our government to the tune of billions of dollars and are involved in mercenary killings in Iraq. Oh wait, those victims are brown people too. Stupid me......
The full ACORN tape was never shown. The subject of the tape was not fooled. The undercover Repugs looked like they were from a Saturday Night Live skit.
The ACORN worker claimed on the tape to have killed an ex-husband who has been proven alive. She played along and reported them to the police for their claim of a link to illegal activities.
savanster
"treeman: if they wanted the bill to apply to ACORN specifically, they could have named it. "
no, congress could not. it would make the bill immediately unconstitutional. it would be a violation of due process, and the bill as it stands probably is unconstitutional.
I am impressed with Rep. Alan Grayson's morality and his sense of "Right" and wrong. He is moving forward with many things that have the "People's" interests in mind. Not his self serving interests. KUDOS to him and all that are with him!
As "sspeedracer" asks:
Which reminds Your Correspondent of an unwitting instance of conservative false logic suggesting that if anyone who supports peace is a "Communist," then such implies that the only "True Americans" are such who support war.
Total and continuous war, not unlike the sort as George Orwell depiced in Nineteen Eighty Four as an agency of the State to keep the people in line and protect traditional class distinctions, with little or no real combat observed in spite of the occasional newsflash about "major victory***as will bring the war to within measurable distance of its end."
Which, it turns out, would happen once Oceania becomes Lord and Master of the World, the Universe and the 28 Known Galaxies--which could only occur by conquest and subjugation of its sworn enemies Eurasia and Eastasia.
Too funny!! Unintended consequences are the best!
It will never stick though, it would end up applying to nearly every company, and not exclusively within the MIC.
[...] event in human history, but the Pandora’s Box that it opened might get very interesting, Could ACORN defunding bill strike military-industrial complex? “The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan [...]
hmm @ 24, how is Congress naming a company as "no longer able to be funded" in any way unconstitutional? Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can't make laws specifically directed at singular sources?
And what is supposed to be unconstitutional about it as it sits now, with broad language?
treeman says: "Frankly, if a firm does not provide a vital service to security, why SHOULD we tolerate an inkling of corruption or misuse of public funds"
That is EVEN much more true of firms that DO provide a vital service to security for the simple reason that the fraud and corruption they commit COMPROMISES security!!!!!!!!!!! DUH!!!!!!!!!
Uh huh...... So what's happening with the public option?
Savantster
"hmm @ 24, how is Congress naming a company as "no longer able to be funded" in any way unconstitutional? Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can't make laws specifically directed at singular sources?
And what is supposed to be unconstitutional about it as it sits now, with broad language?"
hey savanster, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3 states "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." basically it means that congress cannot come in try to punish for past acts by passing laws, due process has to be given, ie, some form of a court hearing. so if they were to specifically name a person or group as having broken the law then pass a law to punish for it, it violates that section. its pretty much why scum like blackwater, halliburton, dyncorp, kbr, etc etc can do what they want without worrying congress will try to defund this way. they know they are entitled to a court/administrative hearing.
the reason i say that it is probably unconstitutional as it sits, all of the gop congressmen were spouting off that this bill was to get ACORN, even though it is not named specifically. the courts can look those things to determine the intent of the law, defund ACORN, and determine that congress violated the constitution, even though ACORN was not named specifically in the legislation.
cheers.
"basically it means that congress cannot come in try to punish for past acts by passing laws, due process has to be given, ie, some form of a court hearing."
It means you can't be charged with a crime for a law that wasn't on the books at the TIME. Saying "we will no longer fund XYZ is not a "post de Facto" law because they aren't going after past funds or charging past crimes based on a law that comes after. Nor are they imprisoning someone or removing their rights because of the violation of a law. They can simply say "we will no longer fund ACORN", no explanation needed. The government gets to pick and chose who they fund, and for any reason whatever. Stemming future "alleged abuses" is what laws are all about. If no charges are filed, there's no complaint. You're suggesting no laws could ever be made in the wake of something having happened because it would be a post de facto law, and clearly that doesn't make sense.
And the Constitution doesn't protect "groups", it protects individuals. Groups are constructs, not people. The same reason that Corporations don't have Constitutional protections is the same reason this amendment to the bill isn't challengeable in court. The rights of individuals are not being infringed.
While I think it's dumb to defund ACORN over this, I also don't like the idea of giving my money to criminals. Flouting the law seems to be the norm in America, and this is probably part of the reason.... everyone still gets their palms greased instead of being shunned like they should be. Only the dirty masses actually suffer the law, it seems.
Actually, if you check, ACORN was specifically named in the bill--but in a distinct section, in which it was specifically identified as being included in the general description. (Likely, the motion's sponsors didn't want ACORN claiming they weren't covered by the bill.) I've linked to the text of the House bill; it's short and sweet, and thus easy to see the flaws in.
Hell, if I read it right, any Congresscritter who filed a fraudulent campaign-finance disclosure form could be denied his salary....
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3571/text
Here is the text of the bill.
"This Act may be cited as the ‘Defund ACORN Act’." is the first thing it says.
It's a win win situation as far as I can tell. Either ACORN gets it's funding or Blackwater, and others, go down. And how can they say now that Blackwater and the likes can defraud us for billions but the 3.5 million for ACORN was robbing us blind?
Oh I just love the irony of this. I've always said that Beck and Friends victory would be Pyrrhic at best.
savanster, i'm a lawyer. corporations are protected under the constitution like individual citizens for the most part. they get equal protection, due process, etc. courts do look at why laws were passed.
government does not have free reign to fund or unfund in all cases. the bill of attainder expost facto section of the constitution is not applied solely to criminal issues. nor am i suggesting that laws cannot be passed because an event occurred.
if you wish to believe otherwise because you feel that is how things are, fine, i'm not going to argue with you.
"corporations are protected under the constitution like individual citizens for the most part."
For the most part, and you know why, right? You know it was a flawed transcript that gave the appearance such a thing, and there is nothing in logic or reason that should give them Constitutional protection? Protected under the law, sure, but not the Constitution.
"if you wish to believe otherwise because you feel that is how things are, fine, i'm not going to argue with you."
Seems an easy way out, instead of using some logic and reason to justify your assertions. I've presented a logical postulation. Congress deciding not to do something going forward is not expost facto, that implies something going back in time. This is about going forward. If you have some kind of logical reasoning behind why making a rule going forward from today is covered by expost facto, please make it. Saying "I'm a lawyer, I won't argue with you" is not position, it's a cop out.
savanster, the law isn't science, it isn't logical, and it isn't always right or fair. it's what a bunch of guys decide it is, whether in a legislature or a courthouse, with all of their biases, prejudices, and flat out stupidity. i'm not giving you postulations, i'm telling you how article 1, section 9, clause 3 has interpreted by the courts.
[...] More from The Raw Story. [...]
[...] September, RAW STORY noted that overly-broad language used by lawmakers intending to pull government funding for community [...]
[...] September, RAW STORY noted that overly-broad language used by lawmakers intending to pull government funding for community [...]