Should ACORN lose Government Funding?

In summary: I don't support what people did on behalf of working for ACORN.. but I've seen much worse.. much much worse..
  • #1
WhoWee
219
0
ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is in the news again.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5315657.shtml

Should any more tax payer funds be given to ACORN or should they first be investigated?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
They should be dissolved. Send tax monies directly to the prostitution industry and cut out the middle man (ACORN).
 
  • #3
The question is why should ACORN have government funding?
 
  • #4
The video tapes everyone is seeing is an edited version. According to Acorn, if you show the whole tape then you'd see that the employees turned them away before the conversation started but they were persistent, stayed, and became nagging.
 
  • #5
Wax said:
The video tapes everyone is seeing is an edited version. According to Acorn, if you show the whole tape then you'd see that the employees turned them away before the conversation started but they were persistent, stayed, and became nagging.

Yeah, that's why they fired those employees. because they allowed themselves to be nagged.
 
  • #6
Well seeing as how the FBI has been raiding ACORN offices since last year, and they're continuously breaking the law in the most disgusting ways possible... of course they should lose government funding.
 
  • #7
jambaugh said:
The question is why should ACORN have government funding?

They can't be all bad. President Obama obviously thought highly of them prior to the controvery.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574416833436798004.html

"Government officials continue responding to the Acorn revelations. The New York Post reports that Andrew Cuomo, New York's state attorney general, "yesterday launched an investigation into pork-barrel grants given to ACORN by state lawmakers, as City Council Speaker Christine Quinn froze all city funding earmarked for the scandal-scared [sic] community-activism organization"--this in response to the third released set of videos, from Acorn's Brooklyn office.

The Wall Street Journal urges the U.S. Justice Department to undertake a criminal investigation of Acorn. This column echoes that call, although we wonder if the Obama administration is compromised here. The president, who as a candidate touted his background as a "community organizer," has extensive ties to Acorn. In February 2008, the Acorn Political Action Committee endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton, and Obama's campaign Web site, Organizing for America, boasted of the candidate's support for the group:

When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, a nonprofit focused on voter rights and education. Senator Obama said, "I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."

And in August 2008, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that the Obama campaign paid more than $800,000 to an Acorn "offshoot" for "get out the vote" projects.

Obama worked for Acorn and Acorn worked for Obama. That doesn't mean the president is implicated in any wrongdoing, but it suggests at least that the worse things get for Acorn, the more embarrassing it is for him. If the Justice Department fails to prosecute, it invariably would raise suspicions of political favoritism. This column does not care for special prosecutors, but the case for appointing one would seem to be stronger here than usual."
 
  • #8
And where was the regular media?

http://mygloss.com/buzz/2009/09/17/jonstewart-rips-media-acornpot-tv-cannabisplanet/ [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
seycyrus said:
And where was the regular media?

http://mygloss.com/buzz/2009/09/17/jonstewart-rips-media-acornpot-tv-cannabisplanet/ [Broken]

There has been coverage. Barney Frank should be credited with giving the heads-up to Lou Dobbs and CNN that George Bush was to blame for funding ACORN. (Watch the entire video)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/19/barney-frank-michele-bach_n_205529.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
There was no coverage about the recent scandal until very recently(last couple of days). Nothing on CNN over the weekend (watched for at least two hours each day).
 
  • #11
jambaugh said:
The question is why should ACORN have government funding?

Why shouldn't it? :)
 
  • #13
Get ready for the onslaught of other entrapment videos...

I don't support what people did on behalf of working for ACORN.. but I've seen much worse.. much much worse..

You know.. like Abu Ghraib.. the falsifying of evidence to attack iraq.. voter disenfranchisement of Ohio.. so on .. so forth.
 
  • #14
I'm not clear on what funding ACORN has gotten and for what it was intended to accomplish. My problem with government funding for ACORN is that ACORN includes a legally separate political action arm. But legally separate or not, support for one part of ACORN will strengthen the other, thus essentially using government funds for political activism.
 
  • #15
byronm said:
Why shouldn't it? :)
Federal funding comes in part from coerced taxes. The burden of the argument is on the justification of spending said tax dollars on a particular group.

Once you answer the question "Why should they be funded?" then the answer to whether funding should be cut is clear. If no justification for funding exists then they should not be funded.

So here's the broader question. Should an individual be forced to participate in philanthropy and charity not of his own choosing? I say no, it is immoral.

The problem "We" have is that there are two forms of "We" when you casually say something like "We ought to...".

Yes "We ought to help the poor"... that's a private sector "We" so go out there open up your wallet and find some poor to help!

Yes "We ought to punish rapists"... that cannot be handled in the private sector. Necessary use of force and violence must be reserved for governments.

Does ACORN do good work? Yes. Do they do it selectively to promote a political agenda? Certainly in some of their endeavors such as voter registration drives and advocation of specific legislation.

There is nothing wrong with this per se but it certainly should not be funded with tax dollars.
 
  • #16
russ_watters said:
I'm not clear on what funding ACORN has gotten and for what it was intended to accomplish. My problem with government funding for ACORN is that ACORN includes a legally separate political action arm. But legally separate or not, support for one part of ACORN will strengthen the other, thus essentially using government funds for political activism.

John Boehner made this estimate last Fall.
http://republicanleader.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=104821 [Broken]
"Boehner Releases Analysis Showing ACORN Has Received at Least $31 Million in Federal Funding; Untold Millions More through State & Local Agencies
“Taxpayers Don’t Need ACORN Either,” Boehner Says in Response to Obama



Washington, Oct 16, 2008 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today released an analysis showing that the left-wing group ACORN, currently under investigation by the FBI for a “coordinated national scam” of voter registration fraud according to the Associated Press, has received at least $31 million in federal funding from various federal agencies since 1998. This total does not count the untold millions more that ACORN has received indirectly through state and local agencies that receive federal block grants. Boehner, who last week called for an end to federal funding of ACORN following widespread reports of voter fraud by the group, released the following statement:

“Senator Obama recently said that he doesn’t need ACORN. Well, American taxpayers don’t need ACORN either. They don’t need ACORN’s voter registration fraud, and they no longer need to support ACORN with federal funds.



“ACORN’s free ride on the backs of taxpayers must end immediately. An initial review of federal records shows ACORN affiliates have received at least $31 million in direct federal funding from American taxpayers over the past 10 years, and millions more indirectly through state and local agencies that receive federal block grants. House Republicans worked together to stop the Majority from using taxpayer dollars to fill a slush fund created just for ACORN, but now we must go further to turn off the spigot of federal grants on which ACORN depends.



“Recent revelations of voter registration fraud on a massive scale in critical states are unacceptable. ACORN’s dishonest approach to voter registration, including fraudulently registering the cartoon character Mickey Mouse, shows a brazen disrespect for the law and our system of free and fair elections. In conjunction with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and its political allies in the Democratic Party, ACORN also played a key role in creating the financial crisis that ultimately put our entire economy in peril. It’s time for us to stop forcing American taxpayers to fund the ACORN machine.”



A review of the Federal Register shows that ACORN affiliates in 11 states received more than $31 million in federal funds from 1998 to 2008.



One of the grants to an ACORN affiliate, a Jan. 17, 2007 award to ACORN Associates Inc. of Albuquerque, NM, is notable because it appears to facilitate and encourage the use of risky subprime loans, now viewed by many as a contributing factor in the recent freezing up of international credit markets. The title for the grant? “Education and Outreach Initiative/Subprime Lending Component.”"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
A break down of the $31 million.
http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/101608acornchart.pdf [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
seycyrus said:
There was no coverage about the recent scandal until very recently(last couple of days). Nothing on CNN over the weekend (watched for at least two hours each day).

Some news stations actually try to investigate and get both sides of the story before they actually publish it. Fox News for some reason doesn't believe in investigative journalism and refuses to show the other side of the story. Tape four shows a lady who says she murder her husband but did you know she was actually playing along because she thought it was all a joke? Her husbands are actually alive but she lost her job because she thought it was all a joke. I have yet to see Fox News apologize to this lady for making her lose her job by not investigating the video before airing it. Let's also not forget that the videos are edit, it doesn't show her side of the story in which she claims she tried to turn them away but they were persistent.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160023
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Wax said:
Some news stations actually try to investigate and get both sides of the story before they actually publish it. Fox News for some reason doesn't believe in investigative journalism and refuses to show the other side of the story. Tape four shows a lady who says she murder her husband but did you know she was actually playing along because she thought it was all a joke?


Her husbands are actually alive but she lost her job because she thought it was all a joke. I have yet to see Fox News apologize to this lady for making her lose her job by not investigating the video before airing it. Let's also not forget that the videos are edit, it doesn't show her side of the story in which she claims she tried to turn them away but they were persistent.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909160023

Well, maybe she should sue ACORN for firing her - since she was just kidding and they jumped to conclusions? Was she also joking about running an escort agency?
 
  • #20
Greg Bernhardt said:

In a Democrat-controlled congress, such a large majority voting against their funding is pretty perjorative. That makes me think they really aren't just being targeted by the GOP, but have committed real transgressions. This is probably one of the more unified votes across parties so far!

I also agree with the other assertions in the thread that any group shouldn't just get government funding "just because" but because they have provided strong justification that their activities are of wide benefit to the US population, not just to one group of people. I have no problem with private support of the activities of such political groups, but also don't think they really ever should have qualified for Federal funding for the things they do, since they are very partisan.
 
  • #21
I am not sure why they ever got federal funding to begin with?

Obviously it wasn't that big of a deal to the republicans and the Bush administration all those years while they were in power, becuase they were funded during that era as well.

But now, as with everything else, it must be Obamas fault. :rolleyes:
 
  • #22
WhoWee said:
A break down of the $31 million.
http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/101608acornchart.pdf [Broken]

Acorn also receives money from candidates / political campaigns, not counted in that government funding. The Obama campaign paid Acorn http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_584284.html" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
WhoWee said:
Well, maybe she should sue ACORN for firing her - since she was just kidding and they jumped to conclusions? Was she also joking about running an escort agency?

She probably has a much better chance to sue the film makers.Tape 5 just came out today and Fox News seems to be refusing to air it. I think they actually learned their lesson because there are two sides to a story. Juan Carlos from tape 5 actually filed a police report after the two clowns came into his officer. You wouldn't know this if you watched Fox News though. It was aired on CNN 15 mins ago, Lou Dobbs.
 
  • #24
BoomBoom said:
I am not sure why they ever got federal funding to begin with?

Obviously it wasn't that big of a deal to the republicans and the Bush administration all those years while they were in power, becuase they were funded during that era as well.

But now, as with everything else, it must be Obamas fault. :rolleyes:

Actually, it might be argued that it's Obama's fault to the extent the spot light has landed on them.
 
  • #25
Wax said:
She probably has a much better chance to sue the film makers.


Tape 5 just came out today and Fox News seems to be refusing to air it. I think they actually learned their lesson because there are two sides to a story. Juan Carlos from tape 5 actually filed a police report after the two clowns came into his officer. You wouldn't know this if you watched Fox News though. It was aired on CNN 15 mins ago, Lou Dobbs.

Disregarding the videos, can you provide any good reasons why ACORN should continue to be funded by our tax dollars?

They are a proactively politically biased organization funded by the federal government. Whether they are Democrat or Republican, makes no difference. This should not be funded by the American people.
 
  • #26
Greg Bernhardt said:

That was the federal government, also comes state cut offs (or calls for) from

http://www.startribune.com/politics/59566592.html" [Broken]
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/18140/skelos-letter-no-state-bucks-for-acorn/" [Broken]
"[URL [Broken]
Louisiana[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
drankin said:
Disregarding the videos, can you provide any good reasons why ACORN should continue to be funded by our tax dollars?

They are a proactively politically biased organization funded by the federal government. Whether they are Democrat or Republican, makes no difference. This should not be funded by the American people.
There are thousands of programs funded by the federal government. If you want to cut funding for acorn then why don't we just cut them all? There's always a group of people who's bound to not agree where your tax dollars are going.
 
  • #28
Wax said:
There are thousands of programs funded by the federal government. If you want to cut funding for acorn then why don't we just cut them all? There's always a group of people who's bound to not agree where your tax dollars are going.

Not a bad idea!
 
  • #29
Wax said:
There are thousands of programs funded by the federal government. If you want to cut funding for acorn then why don't we just cut them all? There's always a group of people who's bound to not agree where your tax dollars are going.

Washington is starting to round off to the nearest $Trillion - look at all of the nonsense stuffed into the stimulus Bill.

An underlying problem may be that ACORN is involved in too many things - too big to manage.

NPR took a look last Fall.
"ACORN's Money Tree Has Many Branches"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/2008/10/acorns_money_tree_has_many_bra.html
 
  • #30
Greg Bernhardt said:

Maybe in 2010 - it appears 2009 might not be effected.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn [Broken]

"The Senate and House initiatives to cut funding for ACORN won't take effect until the bills to which they are attached clear Congress and are signed by President Barack Obama. The Senate measure is attached to a fiscal 2010 spending bill.

"President Obama needs to indicate whether he'll sign this bill and join us in ending all taxpayer funds for this corrupt organization," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said after the vote."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
tchitt said:
Well seeing as how the FBI has been raiding ACORN offices since last year, and they're continuously breaking the law in the most disgusting ways possible... of course they should lose government funding.

Ok so they have a long history of targeting peaceful US groups while missing terrorists, they occasionally assassinate the wrong man and have been screwing up all their forensic tests for the last 40s but they do some good police work as well.
 
  • #32
Wax said:
There are thousands of programs funded by the federal government. If you want to cut funding for acorn then why don't we just cut them all?
Absolutely: What I'd like to see is a top-to-bottom review of the funding that starts with the assumption that no private social programs should be funded, then have them re-apply for funding so that they can justify it.

And you didn't answer the question, which directly asked you if you could think of a reason why ACORN should be funded...
 
  • #33
WhoWee said:
Maybe in 2010 - it appears 2009 might not be effected.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_congress_acorn [Broken]

"The Senate and House initiatives to cut funding for ACORN won't take effect until the bills to which they are attached clear Congress and are signed by President Barack Obama. The Senate measure is attached to a fiscal 2010 spending bill.
I don't think that implies what you are saying. I don't think Presidents tend to sit on passed bills.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
It's more than just the mainstream media that dropped the ball on this, I've been actively watching PF for at least three days (since the story first made its rounds on the net) to see if anyone would post a thread about it. This thread is showing up more than a week after the first video release.
 
  • #35
Not a lot of activist conservatives here, Supercritical.
 
<h2>1. What is ACORN and why is it receiving government funding?</h2><p>ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is a non-profit organization that advocates for low-income and minority communities. It receives government funding to support its various community programs and initiatives, such as housing assistance, voter registration, and job training.</p><h2>2. What is the controversy surrounding ACORN and its government funding?</h2><p>ACORN has faced allegations of voter fraud and mismanagement of funds, which have led to calls for its government funding to be cut. In 2009, a series of undercover videos were released that appeared to show ACORN employees providing advice on how to evade taxes and engage in illegal activities.</p><h2>3. What are the arguments for and against ACORN losing government funding?</h2><p>Those in favor of cutting ACORN's funding argue that the organization has a history of fraudulent activities and should not be supported by taxpayer money. They also argue that there are other organizations that can provide similar services without the controversy surrounding ACORN. On the other hand, supporters of ACORN argue that the organization provides valuable services to low-income communities and that cutting its funding would harm those who rely on its programs.</p><h2>4. Has ACORN already lost its government funding?</h2><p>In 2010, Congress passed a law that prohibited federal funding to ACORN and its affiliates. However, this law was later ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge and ACORN continued to receive government funding. In 2012, ACORN announced that it was shutting down due to financial difficulties, but some of its state chapters continued to operate under different names.</p><h2>5. What is the current status of ACORN's government funding?</h2><p>As of now, ACORN is not receiving any federal funding. However, some of its state chapters may still receive funding from local or state governments. In addition, ACORN's successor organizations, such as the New York Communities for Change, continue to receive government funding for their community programs.</p>

1. What is ACORN and why is it receiving government funding?

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is a non-profit organization that advocates for low-income and minority communities. It receives government funding to support its various community programs and initiatives, such as housing assistance, voter registration, and job training.

2. What is the controversy surrounding ACORN and its government funding?

ACORN has faced allegations of voter fraud and mismanagement of funds, which have led to calls for its government funding to be cut. In 2009, a series of undercover videos were released that appeared to show ACORN employees providing advice on how to evade taxes and engage in illegal activities.

3. What are the arguments for and against ACORN losing government funding?

Those in favor of cutting ACORN's funding argue that the organization has a history of fraudulent activities and should not be supported by taxpayer money. They also argue that there are other organizations that can provide similar services without the controversy surrounding ACORN. On the other hand, supporters of ACORN argue that the organization provides valuable services to low-income communities and that cutting its funding would harm those who rely on its programs.

4. Has ACORN already lost its government funding?

In 2010, Congress passed a law that prohibited federal funding to ACORN and its affiliates. However, this law was later ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge and ACORN continued to receive government funding. In 2012, ACORN announced that it was shutting down due to financial difficulties, but some of its state chapters continued to operate under different names.

5. What is the current status of ACORN's government funding?

As of now, ACORN is not receiving any federal funding. However, some of its state chapters may still receive funding from local or state governments. In addition, ACORN's successor organizations, such as the New York Communities for Change, continue to receive government funding for their community programs.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
729
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
69
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
Back
Top