ACORN back in the saddle

[Corodon]

Justice Department Says Acorn Can Be Paid for Pre-Ban Contracts (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/us/politics/28acorn.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1259355860-u1P2DRmPrdFQwFuMP5+Gww)
New York TimesThe Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group.
The Clintonesque logic is explained:Mr. Barron said he had based his conclusion on the statute’s phrase “provided to.” This phrase, he said, has no clearly defined meaning in the realm of government spending — unlike words like “obligate” and “expend.”

Citing dictionary and thesaurus entries, he said “provided to” could be interpreted as meaning only instances in which an official was making “discretionary choices” about whether to give the group money, rather than instances in which the transfer of money to Acorn was required to satisfy contractual obligations.

Since there are two possible ways to construe the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense to pick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breaching contracts.

Moreover, he argued, requiring the government to cancel contracts with a specifically named entity — “including even in cases where performance has already been completed but payment has not been rendered” — would raise constitutional concerns best avoided by interpreting the law differently.Alrighty then. :madlaugh:

[Corodon]

Justice Department Questions Retroactive Ban on Federal Funds to ACORN (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/justice-department-questions-retroactive-ban-on-federal-funds-to-acorn.html)
Jake Tapper, ABC NewsThe Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel this week posted a legal opinion saying that the Obama administration may continue paying the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for contracts signed before Congress in September passed -- and President Obama in October signed -- legislation banning federal funds from going to ACORN.

The opinion was written on Oct. 23 by Acting Assistant Attorney General David Barron in response to a request for clarification from the deputy general counsel for the Department of Housing and Urban Development as to the full meaning of the legislative language, which states, "None of the funds made available by this joint resolution or any prior Act may be provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations."

You can read the opinion HERE (http://www.justice.gov/olc/2009/obligations-public-law11168.pdf). . . .
The opinion was ready a month ago, so they really didn't waste any time looking for "clarification."

Tapper includes some Republican reaction:“The bipartisan intent of Congress was clear – no more federal dollars should flow to ACORN," [Rep. Darrell] Issa said. "It is telling that this administration continues to look for every excuse possible to circumvent the intent of Congress. Taxpayers should not have to continue subsidizing a criminal enterprise that helped Barack Obama get elected president. The politicization of the Justice Department to pay back one of the president’s political allies is shameful and amounts to nothing more than old-fashioned cronyism.”

This would qualify as a Friday night dump, I think. :thumbsup:

[ECW]

Seems mighty republican of them to not want to pay for services already rendered. I hope they get their way. The lawsuit that ACORN would file and probably win would gag a horse.

[Possumpoint]

Seems mighty republican of them to not want to pay for services already rendered. I hope they get their way. The lawsuit that ACORN would file and probably win would gag a horse.
Would you want to pay for contractor services that you felt were tainted by corruption and partisan politics if the shoe was on the other foot?

[Corodon]

Seems mighty republican of them to not want to pay for services already rendered. I hope they get their way. The lawsuit that ACORN would file and probably win would gag a horse.The votes to cut off ACORN were very lopsided as I recall. I wonder if any legislators will want to re-submit legislation, given that Holder's opinion hinges merely on the choice of words, "provided" as opposed to "distributed." Any number of congressmen don't much like having a nose thumbed in their faces.

I have no problem paying for work done in good faith. But when you reinstate contracts (or letters of intent?) "signed before" the legislation in question, you cross a very clear line.

It would not surprise me to discover that commitments were signed in that interval between passage and signing of the legislation. Nor would it surprise me to discover that among those commitments reinstated is the involvement of ACORN with the 2010 census.

Not for nothing, but my first reaction was, Is Eric Holder representing the government or ACORN?

[ECW]

Would you want to pay for contractor services that you felt were tainted by corruption and partisan politics if the shoe was on the other foot?

Get back to me when KBR contracts are held to the same standards, OK?

[ECW]

The votes to cut off ACORN were very lopsided as I recall. I wonder if any legislators will want to re-submit legislation, given that Holder's opinion hinges merely on the choice of words, "provided" as opposed to "distributed." Any number of congressmen don't much like having a nose thumbed in their faces.

I have no problem paying for work done in good faith. But when you reinstate contracts (or letters of intent?) "signed before" the legislation in question, you cross a very clear line.

It would not surprise me to discover that commitments were signed in that interval between passage and signing of the legislation. Nor would it surprise me to discover that among those commitments reinstated is the involvement of ACORN with the 2010 census.

Not for nothing, but my first reaction was, Is Eric Holder representing the government or ACORN?

Good faith is all I'm talking about,,, services rendered. Not anything done during the time between the time congress voted on the legislation and the time it became effective but stuff done before all the crap erupted. Stop payment on work done in good faith and watch the precedent you will set. It won't be pretty.

[Golfboy]

Good faith is all I'm talking about,,, services rendered. Not anything done during the time between the time congress voted on the legislation and the time it became effective but stuff done before all the crap erupted. Stop payment on work done in good faith and watch the precedent you will set. It won't be pretty.

You think the "work" ACORN has done was performed "in good faith"?
Really?

[lily]

Would you want to pay for contractor services that you felt were tainted by corruption and partisan politics if the shoe was on the other foot?

No, but then I was also against the bonus recieved by AIG and Wall Street, and the same reason was given.........contracts.

Those figting for less government interference, should be happy about this, since the argument was used then also.

To me a contract is a contract.......the Government has nothing to do with it.


Since there are two possible ways to construe the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense to pick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breaching contracts.

Moreover, he argued, requiring the government to cancel contracts with a specifically named entity — “including even in cases where performance has already been completed but payment has not been rendered” — would raise constitutional concerns best avoided by interpreting the law differently.

[Golfboy]

No, but then I was also against the bonus recieved by AIG and Wall Street, and the same reason was given.........contracts.

Those figting for less government interference, should be happy about this, since the argument was used then also.

To me a contract is a contract.......the Government has nothing to do with it.
FYI, contracts almost ALWAYS contain language that voids the contract or at least gives the offended party reason to "terminate for cause" if one party to the contract behaves illegally, as has ACORN.

[lily]

FYI, contracts almost ALWAYS contain language that voids the contract or at least gives the offended party reason to "terminate for cause" if one party to the contract behaves illegally, as has ACORN.

I don't understand?

I admit, I don't pay much attention to ACORN.....not my cup of tea....but was the entire orginzation conviced of a crime, or just 2 employees? How would this apply?

[Corodon]

Good faith is all I'm talking about,,, services rendered. Not anything done during the time between the time congress voted on the legislation and the time it became effective but stuff done before all the crap erupted. Stop payment on work done in good faith and watch the precedent you will set. It won't be pretty.I agree with this post, and ordinarily I wouldn't pay it any mind.

But Holder is untrustworthy. He of the Marc Rich and FALN pardons; stonewalling inquiries into his exoneration of the New Black Panthers in PA; launching investigations into our CIA agents for so-called "harsh interrogations"; bringing KSM to NY unnecessarily.

Getting this workaround so promptly but delaying its announcement until a Friday night dump on a holiday week-end says a lot, too. I don't trust him for a heartbeat not to quietly follow up with the resumption of "ongoing" work, since, after all, the original agreements were signed before the prohibition was in place. FYI, contracts almost ALWAYS contain language that voids the contract or at least gives the offended party reason to "terminate for cause" if one party to the contract behaves illegally, as has ACORN. :thumbsup:

[ECW]

I agree with this post, and ordinarily I wouldn't pay it any mind.

But Holder is untrustworthy. He of the Marc Rich and FALN pardons; stonewalling inquiries into his exoneration of the New Black Panthers in PA; launching investigations into our CIA agents for so-called "harsh interrogations"; bringing KSM to NY unnecessarily.

Getting this workaround so promptly but delaying its announcement until a Friday night dump on a holiday week-end says a lot, too. I don't trust him for a heartbeat not to quietly follow up with the resumption of "ongoing" work, since, after all, the original agreements were signed before the prohibition was in place.

Well, we both distrust Holder but for different reasons. When he failed to pursue the obvious War Crimes committed during the last administration, I lost a lot of faith in this DoJ. Relying on the partisan hacks that the last guy put in office during the US Attorney scandals also leaves me just shaking my head at the pursuit of justice. ACORN is just a fart in the hurricane compared to the rest of this.

[ECW]

You think the "work" ACORN has done was performed "in good faith"?
Really?

Unlike you, I didn't buy into the frenzy and mindless hysteria concerning ACORN. If two or three bad apples makes you never want to eat apples ever again, that's your choice. I prefer a more reasoned approach, thank you very much.

FYI, contracts almost ALWAYS contain language that voids the contract or at least gives the offended party reason to "terminate for cause" if one party to the contract behaves illegally, as has ACORN.

That works if the illegal behavior is pertinent to the contract itself. No proof has been shown that attending to a fake pimp and imitation whore had anything to do with the contracts they were paying ACORN to do for the government.

I'll remember your admonition when the subject of KBR and Halliburton comes up and I'll be expecting you to chime in with the same reasoning in those cases as well. (I won't be holding my breath, mind you.)

[Corodon]

Unlike you, I didn't buy into the frenzy and mindless hysteria concerning ACORN. If two or three bad apples makes you never want to eat apples ever again, that's your choice. I prefer a more reasoned approach, thank you very much.



That works if the illegal behavior is pertinent to the contract itself. No proof has been shown that attending to a fake pimp and imitation whore had anything to do with the contracts they were paying ACORN to do for the government.

I'll remember your admonition when the subject of KBR and Halliburton comes up and I'll be expecting you to chime in with the same reasoning in those cases as well. (I won't be holding my breath, mind you.)ACORN has long been active in the town where I work, and it was there some years ago I made my impressions of that organization. I guess it was their "Direct Action" wing with which I became familiar.

They were a loud, racist group of bullies who would commandeer meetings, push people and furniture around, shout down dissent, and, of course, get the ear of the sensationalist press to hurl accusations of racism (mostly) against their opponents. They would consistently make unreasonable demands (the latest I remember, a couple of years ago, they assailed a proposed housing development, demanding that it be 50% subsidized housing), and flurries of demands.

A lot of people defend the group for the work it has done helping people with housing problems and whatever. But what I saw was hateful. When I read that Obama's "community organizing" experience was with ACORN, I had a visceral reaction. I haven't read that he was substantially involved in their Direct Action wing, though.

Nevertheless, the extent and nature of the incidents being investigated by numerous states, and the exposure they've received courtesy of the undercover muckrakers, not to mention the acknowledged malfeasance and peculation at the top -- these things describe a criminal enterprise, which needs to be thoroughly hosed, and completely put out of the Democratic Party.

[ThatGuy]

Well. Acorn, the corrupt "protector" of the poor just got a reprieve from the White House. Thanks for "Mickey Mouse" of sorts. BHO and his band of merry Union-ites rides again! God bless socialism!:clapper: Er...Uh, I mean God Damn America!:ecstatic:

[ECW]

ACORN has long been active in the town where I work, and it was there some years ago I made my impressions of that organization. I guess it was their "Direct Action" wing with which I became familiar.

They were a loud, racist group of bullies who would commandeer meetings, push people and furniture around, shout down dissent, and, of course, get the ear of the sensationalist press to hurl accusations of racism (mostly) against their opponents. They would consistently make unreasonable demands (the latest I remember, a couple of years ago, they assailed a proposed housing development, demanding that it be 50% subsidized housing), and flurries of demands.

I had some dealings with them in another part of the country and I found them quite the opposite of what you described. I guess location makes a difference.

A lot of people defend the group for the work it has done helping people with housing problems and whatever. But what I saw was hateful.

Sorry that was your experience. I also had a run in with an activist group here closer to home. Their reactions at the meeting I attended as an interested observer was marred by much of the same rudeness, disruptions, hate filled language and name-calling you saw at your meeting. The activist group? The county republican party. Hmmmmm.

When I read that Obama's "community organizing" experience was with ACORN, I had a visceral reaction. I haven't read that he was substantially involved in their Direct Action wing, though.

Obama taught a class for ACORN employees. He was not affiliated with them nor did he work for them. His community organizing took a different route than what you may have read. (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070826/3obama.htm)

Nevertheless, the extent and nature of the incidents being investigated by numerous states, and the exposure they've received courtesy of the undercover muckrakers, not to mention the acknowledged malfeasance and peculation at the top -- these things describe a criminal enterprise, which needs to be thoroughly hosed, and completely put out of the Democratic Party.

Since they are not a part of the Democratic Party, that doesn't seem to be a concern. Paying ACORN for services rendered and performed according to their contracts only seems fair regardless of what other charges and accusations that have been made but not yet proven in a court of law. I'm sure that if there is criminal activity, the DoJ will hop right on it. They are, after all, the ones who just said they could get paid.