# ACORN workers caught on tape apparently advising on child prostitution **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2009, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681 "2009-09-11T13:19:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/621 "2009-09-23T01:44:54Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Yes, because you know in my job, if someone were to call me and suggest that I take a kickback or look the other way over a known engineering defect, I might just ‘play along’ for yucks. How about if the person in question is disguised as Snidely Whiplash and the engineering defect is a railroad switch that won’t work? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/622 "2009-09-23T02:19:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > That argument is not supported by any existing Bill of Attainder decisions. The prohibition forbids non-judicial punishments or determinations of guilt. The mere decision to fund or not fund a particular agency cannot be a bill of attainder (it would be if the bill sought to refuse to pay a specific named agency for work already done, of course). > > But … no. In fact, the defense contractors’ plight suggests an even farther distance from a bill of attainder. A bill that prohibits payment to ANY entity that’s filed a fraudulent submission is clearly not a bill of attainder. The bill specifically names ACORN, according to Nadler. I haven’t seen the exact language. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/623 "2009-09-23T02:57:42Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > Would you expect ABC/NBC/CBS to do the same? Absent a court order, would they ever? I’ve said this before, but in my view, any reputable news organization caring to do a story on this that goes any deeper than “O’Keefe and FOX News claim…” would pretty much have to insist on being given a chance to view the unedited tapes; unedited copies at the very least. Otherwise, aside from getting statements from the former ACORN employees themselves (also not forthcoming, apparently), there seems no objective way of ascertaining how accurate the edited versions are as to the events they purport to show. O’Keefe of course is not obliged to do this if he don’t want to, but at this point anyone who believes that the excerpts shown were not cut to at least accentuate the point O’Keefe was trying to make, and possibly misrepresent the facts, is being rather foolish, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/624 "2009-09-23T12:01:17Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The bill specifically names ACORN, according to Nadler. I haven’t seen the exact language. Then how are the defense contractors harmed? In any event, even if the bill specifically refuses further funding for ACORN, by name, it’s not a bill of attainder. If the bill seeks to scoop back money already paid, or prohibits the government from paying ACORN for work already performed, then it is. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/625 "2009-09-23T13:55:07Z")
We’ll see. Nadler is a lawyer too. I’m sure he knows what he’s doing. Either way, it’s a loss for the Republicans. It’s actually worse for them if the bill holds up Constitutionally. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/626 "2009-09-23T14:16:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then how are the defense contractors harmed? > > In any event, even if the bill specifically refuses further funding for ACORN, by name, it’s not a bill of attainder. If the bill seeks to scoop back money already paid, or prohibits the government from paying ACORN for work already performed, then it is. My understanding is that it does name ACORN, but it doesn’t limit the effect of the bill to ACORN. There’s a line about “and any other government contractor that has had fraud charges against the government filed against it” or something like that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/627 "2009-09-23T15:02:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > We’ll see. Nadler is a lawyer too. I’m sure he knows what he’s doing. I suspect he does too. I suspect he knows this theory of his has no legal merit, but it will draw public attention to the issue, framed in a way he likes. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/628 "2009-09-23T15:23:57Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > How about if the person in question is disguised as Snidely Whiplash and the engineering defect is a railroad switch that won’t work? Depends on if the fair maiden is tied to the tracks until she signs over the deed to the ranch. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/629 "2009-09-23T15:46:19Z")
I, for one, most heartily cheer our Republican critters for their bold and unselfish nobility! This is an act for the ages, where a political party casts aside any notion of party benefit, and boldly leads the way to good government, unhindered and unsullied by the corrupting influence of campaign contributions! Like a grizzled old skank come to Jesus, they have stumbled into the light, and thrown aside the crass and cynical for the purity of civic virtue! No doubt, some of my less accetping lefty brethren will look askance, they will suggest that the Pubbies simply fucked up, and will now scrample like cockroaches on speed scurrying to repair their most reliable monetary life-line but I say “Hold!” Let us give them the opportunity to show what they are truly made of, let us take this wonderful thing at face value! Indeed, I think the Demcritters should loudly and publicly applaud, and rush with enthusiasm to make this marvelous moment a turning point in our history! Bravo, I say! And again, bravo! Let us rip them out, these corruptors, tear them root and branch, and if they fall by thei wayside, so much the better! This is a proud day for our SDMB Republicans, and I sncerely hope they rush to the Boards to crow and cheer themselves for their civic virtue. Both of them, if they are so available! ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/630 "2009-09-23T17:06:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then how are the defense contractors harmed? > > In any event, even if the bill specifically refuses further funding for ACORN, by name, it’s not a bill of attainder. If the bill seeks to scoop back money already paid, or prohibits the government from paying ACORN for work already performed, then it is. If the bill is broadly construed, it would apply to a number of defense contractors. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla) is attempting to compile a list of the “eligible” contractors (those who have committed fraud against the federal government or employ someone who has) to put into the Congressional record (see [here](http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dC1WUm40dWk4YnJNQl9sNWR6aHRybnc6MA)). The unverified list contains names like Boeing, Raytheon, and General Electric (basically the backbone of our [military-industrial complex!](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/whoops-anti-acorn-bill-ro_n_294949.html)). Congress will never allow this result, but it doesn’t make it any less funny. If it only applies to ACORN, then it sure looks like a bill of attainder to me. It essentially declares ACORN guilty of defrauding the government and forever bars them from receiving any federal funds. Also, some perspective, from Rep. Grayson: > [@](#): > > “The amount of money that ACORN has received in the past 20 years altogether is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Haillburton each day during the war in Iraq.” [http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/09/23/grayson/index.html](http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/09/23/grayson/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/631 "2009-09-23T18:36:27Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > If it only applies to ACORN, then it sure looks like a bill of attainder to me. It essentially declares ACORN guilty of defrauding the government and forever bars them from receiving any federal funds. The problem with this analysis is that “not being able to get future federal funding” has never, in the history of bill of attainder jurisprudence, been considered a punishment. Here’s the actual language: > [@H.R. 3571](#): > > SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL FUNDS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN INDICTED ORGANIZATIONS. > > ``` > (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. > > ``` The only section that is problematic is 2(a)(2): “No Federal funds in any other form may be provided to the organization.” To the extent that this prohibits ACORN from being paid funds they are already owed, it’s absolutely illegal as a bill of attainder. But apart from that, there’s no particular bar to forbidding them, even by name, from receiving future funds. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/632 "2009-09-23T18:49:13Z")
2(a)(3) is going to kick the MIC right in the balls. Blackwater too. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/633 "2009-09-23T19:01:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem with this analysis is that “not being able to get future federal funding” has never, in the history of bill of attainder jurisprudence, been considered a punishment. Assume for the sake of argument that this bill will only apply to ACORN and is only meant to apply to ACORN. Look at the defintion of a Covered Organization under section (b): > [@](#): > > (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. So, ACORN (and ACORN alone, for the sake of argument) is covered if they’ve been so much as indicted (not convicted) of violating a state or federal law, if they’ve had a corporate charter terminated, if they’ve filed a fraudulent form (which is a legal determination; Congress can’t simply declare it so), or employ any individual so covered. ACORN is thus barred from receiving federal funds on this basis. Meanwhile, unless Congress were to completely cut off this type of funding for voter registration groups, other such groups could continue to receive federal funds, even if they would be covered under this bill if not for the fact that they aren’t ACORN. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/634 "2009-09-23T19:06:47Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > What are you, 12? > > Nars Glinley > Proud older brother of a “retard”. Is this a whoosh? Because I find it far offensive to refer to refer to someone with an actual mental deficiency as a retard. Now that it is no longer an official term, its sole use is that of a pejorative. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/635 "2009-09-23T19:18:51Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Assume for the sake of argument that this bill will only apply to ACORN and is only meant to apply to ACORN. Look at the defintion of a Covered Organization under section (b): > > So, ACORN (and ACORN alone, for the sake of argument) is covered if they’ve been so much as indicted (not convicted) of violating a state or federal law, if they’ve had a corporate charter terminated, if they’ve filed a fraudulent form (which is a legal determination; Congress can’t simply declare it so), or employ any individual so covered. ACORN is thus barred from receiving federal funds on this basis. Meanwhile, unless Congress were to completely cut off this type of funding for voter registration groups, other such groups could continue to receive federal funds, even if they would be covered under this bill if not for the fact that they aren’t ACORN. Congress can’t declare, “ACORN is guilty of filing a fraudulent form.” But they can say, “If ACORN has been found to have filed a fraudulent form, they are prohibited from receiving future funds.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/636 "2009-09-23T19:21:37Z")
Well, have they? (The preceding left my keyboard in a snark-free condition, if your irony detector registers anything above 100 millihicks, you need to recalibrate.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/637 "2009-09-23T19:33:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, have they? > > (The preceding left my keyboard in a snark-free condition, if your irony detector registers anything above 100 millihicks, you need to recalibrate.) I have no clue. They have filed fraudulent voting registrations, but (a) they did that on behalf of the registrants, and so far as I can discern had no discretion to NOT file them; and (b) Boards of Elections are not “regulatory agencies” within the ordinary meaning of the words. So I’d guess not, but who knows? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/638 "2009-09-23T21:09:34Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Is this a whoosh? Because I find it far offensive to refer to refer to someone with an actual mental deficiency as a retard. Now that it is no longer an official term, its sole use is that of a pejorative. Since when is mental retardation not an "official’ term? It’s still the term of use in the DSM-IV, and the Axis II term I would apply diagnostically. Now, I also have two brothers who are Republican. I aasumed that’s what Nars was saying as well. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/639 "2009-09-23T21:13:21Z")
It happens even in the best of families. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681/640 "2009-09-23T21:15:20Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Since when is mental retardation not an "official’ term? It’s still the term of use in the DSM-IV, and the Axis II term I would apply diagnostically. > > Now, I also have two brothers who are Republican. I aasumed that’s what Nars was saying as well. No. My brother is mentally retarded. The term “retard” is offensive. I originally put it in quotes because I was quoting Dio who used it pejoratively to compare Republicans to the mentally disabled. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/acorn-workers-caught-on-tape-apparently-advising-on-child-prostitution/509681.md?page=33)