Personally, I believe standards already exist to govern the effectiveness of their grants, and ACORN is operating within those standards. Nothing I've seen indicates otherwise. However, let's say no such standards exist. Rather than focus on ACORN whose performance is better than local Republican organizations, why not just set standards, and cut whatever organizations don't measure up?

The crux of this thread is the Constitutionality of whether specific entities that are not individuals can be bared from applying or receiving Federal Funds.

Glenn's argument is that this is clearly a Bill of Attainder and hence unconstitutional.

My argument is that it is not a Bill of Attainder, and is constitutional, as long as the prohibition is based on performance.

It's exceedingly hard to judge indictments against companies and NGOs as a basis for baring bidding or receiving of grants. The House controls spending, and has a duty to ensure that taxpayer money is spent wisely.

If the standard is indictment, then ACORN couldn't receive funds because it is under indictment, and frankly the charges are bogus and silly. At the very worst all ACORN is "criminally" guilty of are simple administrative errors, and that should not bare them from receiving Federal funds.

But ACORN isn't entitled to Federal money, just because it has received it in the past. There are specific incidents that nobody denies, they simply try to minimize them, that fall far outside the realm of acceptable practice. The House needs to have the ability to prevent companies and NGOs from receiving tax payer money when this occurs.

It's is beyond silly that companies that have ripped the government off for hundreds of millions of dollars, and I'm not talking about ACORN here, can continue to bid and win on contracts, despite a history of fraudulent actions.

Here's why: the republicans writing these bills want to take down ACORN strictly because it helps democrats, not for any other reason. That's why no such standards can be applied, because it would defeat this purpose.

Of course they are, because very few Republicans and Democrats actually care about the Constitution. They are only great defenders of Constitutional law when it fits their ideological bend.

How much does Glenn Greenwald actually care about the Second Amendment? Not much based on his writings. And he's one of the more consistent Constitutional defenders on either the left or the right.

That said, the motivation of Republicans doesn't matter. Both sides are primarily motivated by partisan gain. What does matter is the discussion on the actual constitutionality.

Congress needs the ability to ban companies or NGOs from receiving Federal funds. This should always be based on performance, and there should always be remedies for reinstatement.

But if company A bids on a contract, overcharges 800 million dollars, get's caught, does this again, get's caught. Company A should be forbidden from bidding on any future contracts until certain criteria are met.

What happens now, is company A bids, and continues to win bids despite a history of criminal behavior, because of political connections inside the executive branch procurement system. Congress needs to have the ability to watch over this, and that ability is based on funding.

. . to say that the GOP voter registration error rate is 80%, based on one local sample, would be CHERRY PICKING.

-- sysprog

But it's not a stretch to say that Mark Jacob's firms error rate was 80% and that this particular firm should never receive Federal funds for registration purposes.

Nobody has ever mad the claim the DEMOCRAT registration error rates where that high, only that ACORN's rate has shown problems, something they admit to.

Once again, the registration problems with ACORN are not criminal (at least in my mind, I understand that some ticky tack charges have been brought), but they are serious enough that these efforts should not be funded by Taxpayers.

Sysprog, you are perfectly free to go and make a donation to ACORN.