Given that both Sanders and Leahy saw fit to vote against the measure to deny funding to ACORN, I was more than a little puzzled by Peter Welch’s decision to support it; so on Sept. 20, I emailed the following to his Congressional mailbox:
I just have to ask you what was your rationale in supporting the measure against funding for ACORN. I’d like to think you have a reason other than the obvious need for a Junior Congressman to follow the leader. So I am writing to give you an opportunity to explain to me why this measure serves the long-term interests of the country and your constituents. You must realize that your vote has just expressed your support for political interference in the normally non-partisan review of projects seeking federal funding.
A couple of days later, I received the following reply:
Thank you for contacting me about federal funding for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.
Recent actions by ACORN employees reveal a disturbing and intolerable pattern of abuse of taxpayer dollars. On September 17, 2009 the House of Representatives voted 345 to 75 with my support to ban federal funding for ACORN. In addition, the Census Bureau informed ACORN last week that it no longer wanted the group’s assistance for the 2010 census.
Thank you again for contacting me. Although we may disagree on this issue, please continue to be in touch and I hope to see you in Vermont soon.
Sincerely,
PETER WELCH
Member of Congress
I didn’t think that this was a very satisfactory reply; so, on September 22, I followed-up with a few specific questions.
Thank you for your response. We are discussing your vote on Green Mountain Daily and I wished to give you an opportunity to respond.I will try to re-phrase my question; why do you not feel that the conventional review processes, which are in place for any federal funding, are the appropriate filters for Acorn’s projects as well as those of any other entity? Do you now believe that the role of Congress is to second-guess the non-partisan review process? Wouldn’t this be substituting political judgment for qualified peer-review?
Regardless of the outcome of the ACORN investigation, doesn’t this set a dangerous precedent? How do you respond to those who believe that the enormous scale of ACORN’s workforce, and the wide scope of their community activities make it statistically more likely that SOME individuals within the ranks will behave improperly from time to time? Should we de-fund Congress for the same reason? Or deny tax-exempt status to the Catholic Church because of systemic pedophilia among priests?
Green Mountain daily represents many people who have supported you over the years. I think you can see that we are truly troubled by your vote.
That was five days ago and I am still waiting for a reply.
yes – this is a lose lose situation – –
What they did is entirely intolerable by any measure. Do we want to get on the side of people that would help foreign born, underage, prostitution?
We’d better do a better job than this if we want to get continued support of groups that do good works.
For most groups that I’m familiar with, the activities here would be entirely impossible. Don’t defend them.
Move on.
This incident presented the delegation with this no-win situation whatever they did.
PJ
Okay, let’s say that malfeasance by a government contractor is reason to discontinue all government funding. Can we expect a similar move by Congress to cut off Blackwater and KBR, to name just two high-profile contractors who have done far more horrendous things in our name and with our tax dollars?
ACORN has been in existence for decades. It has done an incredible amount of valuable work. Now, based on some (probably illegal) “gotcha” videos, showing a handful of ACORN staffers giving admittedly obnoxious advice, we’re completely cutting the whole organization off?
If only Blackwater had limited itself to “admittedly obnoxious advice.”
The question really is how Congress could legally pass a bill of attainder which is specifically prohibited in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, respectively of the Constitution. Per Wiki: A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. How did they get around that?