ACORN Vote Masks Big Funding Ban

| | Comments (0)

There's a legislative oak tree poised to spring from the ACORN funding ban the House passed on Thursday.

The measure would deny all forms of federal funding to any organization that has made a fraudulent filing with either a federal or state regulatory agency. Rather than focusing solely on ACORN, an umbrella group for a variety of community organizations, the legislation instead could affect a wide range of corporations and nonprofits, from defense contractors and drug companies, to financial institutions and charities. The affected organization may not even have to have been convicted in a court.

While Republican aides were aware of the scope of the provision, it's not clear that many members of either party knew they were voting for such a broad policy in adding the "Defund ACORN Act" to a student loan bill.

"This amendment is more than just a mechanism to de-fund ACORN, it's a clear declaration that misuse of taxpayer dollars will no longer be tolerated," said Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Republicans on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"Every year, reports are released by Inspectors General, the GAO, government watchdog groups detailing a bureaucracy that is over-run with waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. Congress is supposed to be stewards of the taxpayers' dollars and instead has turned a blind eye to egregious waste and mismanagement," said Bardella, whose boss, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, has been spearheading anti-ACORN efforts for the GOP.

A lawyer for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said through the congressman's spokesman that the legal thresholds for an organization to be affected are both high and consistent with debarment guidelines for federal contractors. However, debarment is a complex and nuanced regulatory process, while an outright funding ban is clear, immediate and offers little recourse.

It's hard to argue with the concept that companies that defraud the government should be barred from getting more federal money, but the extent to which an all-out ban is practicable is questionable.

Here's the important language from the ACORN amendment, which was adopted 345-75:

(a) Prohibitions- With respect to any covered organization, the following prohibitions apply: (1) No Federal contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or any other form of agreement (including a memorandum of understanding) may be awarded to or entered into with the organization. (2) No Federal funds in any other form may be provided to the organization. (3) No Federal employee or contractor may promote in any way (including recommending to a person or referring to a person for any purpose) the organization.

(b) Covered Organization- In this section, the term `covered organization' means any of the following: (1) Any organization that has been indicted for a violation under any Federal or State law governing the financing of a campaign for election for public office or any law governing the administration of an election for public office, including a law relating to voter registration. (2) Any organization that had its State corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with Federal or State lobbying disclosure requirements. (3) Any organization that has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency. (4) Any organization that-- (A) employs any applicable individual, in a permanent or temporary capacity; (B) has under contract or retains any applicable individual; or (C) has any applicable individual acting on the organization's behalf or with the express or apparent authority of the organization.

It seems unlikely that the amendment will become law as written. But it provides a good example of how sturdy an oak can be hidden inside a little ACORN.

Post A Comment


(for verification only; will not be published with your comment)