Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (37324)	9/24/2009 2:34:38 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Ex-Friends of Acorn Acorn twisting in the wind. SEPTEMBER 24, 2009, 12:35 P.M. ET. By JOHN FUND It was a bad news day yesterday for the community organizers at Acorn, now caught up in Day 15 of a burgeoning scandal that has seen the group condemned by Congress and its financial records subpoenaed by Louisiana's Democratic attorney general. Last night, the Internal Revenue Service severed its ties with Acorn, which had been an IRS partner in providing low-income workers with tax preparation assistance. But the real body blow came when Rep. Barney Frank abruptly threw Acorn under the bus, telling Fox News: "I think they have forfeited their right to get [federal] funds." Mr. Frank said he had been incorrectly quoted previously as saying he would have voted against a motion last week cutting off the group's access to the federal gravy train. He couldn't resist a partisan jab, however, noting that Acorn had received $14.2 million in federal housing funds during the Bush administration -- a fair point. Mr. Frank also appeared unsympathetic to Acorn's latest attempt to change the subject, a lawsuit filed yesterday against two filmmakers who had videotaped Acorn employees in several cities offering tax evasion advice to a supposed prostitution ring. The suit alleges the filmmakers and news site Breitbart.com violated a local law banning unauthorized taping of individuals. Legal analysts largely panned the case, noting that Acorn had filed the lawsuit jointly with two former Maryland Acorn employees who had previously been fired for the behavior caught on the videotape Mr. Frank had no comment on the merits of the suit, but did offer this pithy summary: "People have said, 'Well, the sting [against Acorn] is terrible.' I will tell people there is a great defense against being stung. Don't do the kind of things that put you on television." online.wsj.com

To: RMF who wrote (37324)	11/18/2009 1:23:21 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

ACORN Documents from the Federal Election Commission ACORN Documents from the Federal Election Commission The following documents were obtained from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website and are in the public domain. The cases outlined below are examples of FEC's apparent inability to thoroughly examine complaints. In each of these three complaints filed against ACORN, a number of charges were brought. In every case, the FEC relied on statements from the accused party(ies) as enough grounds to dismiss the allegations. Matter Under Review 5820, Florida In September 2006, a complaint was filed accusing ACORN of engaging in "A Coordinated Campaign With The Express Purpose of Defeating Republican Candidates for Federal Office and Supporting Democrat Candidates For Federal Office." Specifically, ACORN's Florida branch was accused of preparing campaign plans that stated objectives including "defeat George W. Bush and other Republicans by increasing Democrat turnout" and "increase voter turnout of working class, mainly Democrat voters without increasing opposition turnout." Since ACORN and Project Vote are not registered as political action committees (which is required for political organizations that make more than $1000 per year), they are not legally allowed to participate in campaign activities. In addition, ACORN and Project Vote failed to file expenditure reports and Statements of Organization with the FEC. The case was never fully investigated by the FEC, as ACORN stated that the campaign plan designed to defeat Republicans was a "draft" and that the questionable material had been removed. The FEC did not examine the matter of failing to file expenditure reports or Statements of Organization, and the case was dropped in November 2006. Related Documents •Complaint •Designation of Counsel •Request for Extension •Extension Granted •Response from ACORN •Second Response •Notification to Iglesias •Notification to ACORN •Certifications Matter Under Review 5843, Missouri The Missouri Republican Senate Committee filed a complaint with the FEC in October 2006. Like the case in Florida, ACORN and one of its affiliates, Give Missourians a Raise, Inc., were accused of failing to file their expenditure reports with the FEC. Again, ACORN was also accused of failing to register as a political committee. Give Missourians a Raise, Inc. was accused because its workers were directed to "solicit votes for Democorat candidate for the U.S. Senate, Claire McCaskill." This was well documented by a group of workers from Give Missourans a Raise who protested the involvement with elections. One employee, Josephine Perkins, suggested that "this was a willful and knowing violation of the Act by Acorn." Perkins stated in the video that, "If you go out and you are working for Give Missourians a Raise you cannot have Claire McCaskill's campaign in the same spot...The funds allocated for the minimum wage is for the minimum wage, not to campaign for Claire McCaskill." The FEC dropped the case almost immediately without investigating it after ACORN denied the accusations. Since the youtube video quoted in the complaint was primarily addressing employees not getting paid, the FEC chose to ignore the statements concerning unfair campaign practices. When Give Missourians a Raise was asked about the complaint they "go so far as to assert that the complaint is 'as thin as homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death.'" Their quote, originally from Abraham Lincoln, apparently was enough for the FEC to dismiss the matter. Related Documents •Complaint •Request for Extension •Request for Extension •Extension Granted •Extension Granted •Response 1 •Response 2 •Notification 1 •Notification on Give Missouri a Raise •Notification to ACORN •Certifications •First Statement of Reasons •Second Statement of Reasons Matter Under Reivew 5859, Pennsylvania In Pennsylvania, Congressman Jim Gerlach submitted a complaint in October 2006. He accused ACORN of "illegally coordinating activities" with Lois Murphy, a candidate for congress. Under 11 CFR 114.4(c)(6), corporations such as ACORN are not allowed to endorse candidates. Gerlach states, "The regulations were clearly intended to prevent these organizations from illegally coordinating with a federal campaign as a way of evading the very strict limits of both the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act." As proof, Gerlach cited a press release from ACORN: "The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) endorsed Lois Murphy for Congress. Lois will join members of ACORN to canvass in Pottstown following the endorsement today. Lois and ACORN will be reaching out to members of the community to talk about minimum wage, education, and health care." The FEC dismissed the accusation, again by using statements submitted by ACORN saying they had done nothing wrong. Apparently, "the Murphy Campaign incorrectly identified ACORN in its press release as the entity that endorsed Candidate Murphy, when it was actually a related state political committee...Pennsylvania ACORN…that made the endorsement." The FEC does not address the ACORN press release stating they had endorsed Murphy, or specify whether they examined the press release to see whether ACORN or Pennsylvania ACORN issued the release. Related Documents •Complaint •Request for Extension •Extension Granted •Designation of Counsel •Extension Granted to Murphy •Designation of Counsel for ACORN •Response by ACORN •Response by Murphy •Notification to Gerlach •Notification to ACORN •Notification to Murphy •Certifications judicialwatch.org See the originating site for the linked documents.