Rep. Betty McCollum proposes ACORN Act

[BrainGlutton]

From The Nation:

. . . Last week, in response to the Defund ACORN Act, which seeks to prohibit federal funds to the community group, Minnesota Democrat Betty McCollum, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, introduced an ACORN act of her own. It is titled the “Against Corporations Organizing to Rip-off the Nation Act of 2009,” also referred to simply as the ACORN Act. HR 3679 seeks to “prohibit the Federal Government from awarding contracts, grants, or other agreements to, providing any other Federal funds to, or engaging in activities that promote certain corporations or companies guilty of certain felony convictions.”

While some lawmakers are focused on exposing the hypocrisy of targeting ACORN and allowing the fraud- and abuse-plagued war industry to go untouched, McCollum’s legislation takes aim at massive healthcare corporations. “It’s time Congress get serious about taxpayer funding of corporate cheats, crooks and criminals,” says McCollum. “Last month Congress took action to defund a nonprofit serving poor Americans but failed to act against the corporate crooks that are actually guilty of felonies–including defrauding taxpayers. Why are companies that break the law as a business strategy allowed to receive taxpayer funds? A government contract is a privilege, not a right. If a company commits a felony against the people of the United States, then that privilege must end.” Significantly, McCollum’s co-sponsors on the legislation include Wisconsin Democrat David Obey, chair of the House Appropriations Committee. Obey was one of those 172 House Democrats who joined Republicans in voting to defund ACORN on September 17. McCollum, who voted against the Defund ACORN legislation, says that her own legislation is “modeled after” that one but “respects the Constitution by requiring a corporation to be guilty of a felony before federal funds are cut off.”

McCollum’s bill cites the 2008 Corporate Fraud Task Force Report to the President, which found that in fiscal year 2007, “United States Attorneys’ offices opened 878 new criminal health care fraud investigations involving 1,548 potential defendants. Federal prosecutors had 1,612 health care fraud criminal investigations pending, involving 2,603 potential defendants, and filed criminal charges in 434 cases involving 786 defendants. A total of 560 defendants were convicted for health care fraud-related crimes during the year.”

So – how, oh how, is any Pub going to spin this bill in a way that makes it sound like a bad idea?

[elucidator]

At long last, a piece of legislation to heal the partisan divide! Loony lefty, knuckle-walking Trog, haggard moderates and wimpy centrists can all join hands in utter unanimity! Clearly, no one can stand in favor of corruption and fraud, even if said corruption and fraud does not directly entail child prostitution or the empowerment of unsavory persons.

This could be the dawning of a new age of comity and cooperation! * Kombama, my lord, Kombama!..*

[Magiver]

If someone commits fraud and it hurts a corporation then the person is liable for prosecution. Lending money to repair the corporation is not the same as funding the person responsible.

This is a childish rant by a politician who should know better.

[Der_Trihs]

@Magiver

If someone commits fraud and it hurts a corporation then the person is liable for prosecution. Lending money to repair the corporation is not the same as funding the person responsible.

In other words, corporations should never be held responsible. It’s the people who compose it that make the decisions; so using your standard there will always be a person to use as a scapegoat and let the corporation as a whole skate.

[BrainGlutton]

@Magiver

If someone commits fraud and it hurts a corporation . . .

:dubious: McCollum’s bill is not directed against execs who hurt their corporations. Read the linked article.

[Magiver]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: McCollum’s bill is not directed against execs who hurt their corporations. Read the linked article.

I read it. She talks about getting 2.3 Billion from Pfizer and is moaning over the 73 million in government contracts. I don’t call the multi-billion dollar penalties “going untouched”.

It’s a rant.

[tumbleddown]

And thus we see how it will be spun, it will just be completely misstated and suggested to be something wholly other than what it is.

[Tom_Tildrum]

It’s already the law that a contractor convicted of a crime that involves fraud against the Government or that shows a lack of business integrity can be barred from receiving federal contracts. What is new about this proposed bill?

[Steve_MB]

@Magiver

It’s a rant.

Why do you support government funding of criminals?

[Steve_MB]

@Tom_Tildrum

It’s already the law that a contractor convicted of a crime that involves fraud against the Government or that shows a lack of business integrity can be barred from receiving federal contracts. What is new about this proposed bill?

(emphasis added)

You do know that “can” and “shall” are not synonyms, right?

[lissener]

@Magiver

If someone commits fraud and it hurts a corporation then the person is liable for prosecution. Lending money to repair the corporation is not the same as funding the person responsible.

This is a childish rant by a politician who should know better.

So I take it that you’re against the defunding of ACORN because the misbehavior that led to this whole hullabaloo was perpetrated by individuals who were employed by ACORN, not by the organization itself?

[Jack_Batty]

Not to mention that those “bad apple employees” certainly hurt ACORN. Why, I think **Magiver **is onto something here. We shouldn’t defund ACORN; we should lend it money so it can repair itself.

Good call, Magiver.

[BrainGlutton]

@Steve_MB

(emphasis added)

You do know that “can” and “shall” are not synonyms, right?

See the case of Pfizer:

McCollum’s bill singles out Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc., a subsidiary of Pfizer. Last month Pfizer agreed to pay a $2.3 billion settlement, which the Justice Department calls “the largest healthcare fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice.” The settlement stemmed from Pfizer’s “illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products,” where the company marketed dosages that had not been approved by the FDA. The company will also plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding the anti-inflammatory drug Bextra “with the intent to defraud or mislead.” Prosecutors allege that the company marketed “off label” uses of the drug, despite FDA bans. As the New York Times reported, “Pfizer instructed its sales representatives to tell doctors that the drug could be used to treat acute and surgical pain and at doses well above those approved, even though the drug’s dangers–which included kidney, skin and heart risks–increased with the dose, the government charged. The drug was withdrawn in 2005 because of its risks to the heart and skin.” Pharmacia & Upjohn will also pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, “the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter,” according to the DoJ.

<snip>

Yet, despite all of these tough statements–and many more by top officials–Pfizer and its vast network of subsidiaries continue to win massive government contracts. Last year Pfizer made more than $40 billion in profits, and in 2007 it had more than $73 million in federal contracts.

Loucks points out that “at the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws.” In other words, the criminal conduct continues even as the company settles cases. “The CEO and Board of Directors should have been indicted,” wrote former New York City Mayor Ed Koch. “That is truly the only way to stop the practices which produce so much wealth for the company, its stockholders, officers and directors.”

The glaring question here is, Why is the “corporate felon” Pfizer still on the federal dole? ACORN, which received a total of $53 million in federal funds over fifteen years, much of it going toward low-income housing initiatives, was singled out for a ban on funding over the actions of a handful of employees that were promptly fired. The fact is, Congress went after ACORN with a legislative nuke but, for years, has greeted Pfizer with welcoming arms and open wallets.

[BrainGlutton]

@lissener

So I take it that you’re against the defunding of ACORN because the misbehavior that led to this whole hullabaloo was perpetrated by individuals who were employed by ACORN, not by the organization itself?

Wait! You don’t have the real story!

[silenus]

@Steve_MB

Why do you support government funding of criminals?

Because if it weren’t for Federal Matching Funds, the Republican Party would cease to exist?

[Magiver]

@lissener

So I take it that you’re against the defunding of ACORN because the misbehavior that led to this whole hullabaloo was perpetrated by individuals who were employed by ACORN, not by the organization itself?

I’m against ACORN because they are a tax funded political organization.

[Magiver]

@Steve_MB

Why do you support government funding of criminals?

I support the prosecution of anyone breaking the law.

[Gangster_Octopus]

@Magiver

I’m against ACORN because they are a tax funded political organization.

No they aren’t.

[lissener]

@Magiver

I support the prosecution of anyone breaking the law.

Dude, you realize by sidestepping the question so unsubtly you’ve indicated very clearly that you support the government funding of criminals?

Answer the question. In light of your contributions to this thread, it’s a fair one. That or admit you hadn’t given it much thought when you posted and you got it kinda wrong.

[lissener]

@Magiver

I’m against ACORN because they are a tax funded political organization.

Uh, no they’re not. I await your cite.

(Suggestion: stop unquestioningly swallowing what the rightwing media feeds you. Do some of your own research. Just because Rush says it doesn’t make it so. True fact.)