ACORN and the AGs

Mark Fitzgibbons has put together a great article regarding ACORN, state attorneys general and their investigation or lack thereof.  This article is a must read for anyone interested in getting to the truth about ACORN.

ACORN and the AGs

By Mark J. Fitzgibbons
<http://www.americanthinker.com/mark_j_fitzgibbons/>

ACORN being called a criminal enterprise
<http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/09/21/the-case-for-acorn-as
-a-criminal-enterprise.html> . Despite years of warning signs that
ACORN was violating the law, many state attorneys general
<http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/6260811571.html> have not
investigated the organization or brought enforcement actions. State
attorneys general, besides being the chief enforcement officers for
violations of state laws, claim unique law enforcement authority over
nonprofits
<http://www.naag.org/enforcement_of_charitable_organizations.php> .

The reasons for inaction by state attorneys general may explain why
ACORN is such a problem. ACORN has developed close ties, to put it
mildly, with many state attorneys general as well as others deep in the
Democrat establishment. The relationship between ACORN and Democrats may
be described as symbiotic.

Democrats have not only provided taxpayer money
<http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/acorn_and_the_ags.html#> to
ACORN, but have benefited from ACORN's endorsements, its other
election-related activities such as get-out-the-vote, and even its
litigation on behalf of leftwing policies. ACORN actually considers
itself a "partner" with liberal big government on many matters ranging
from the United States Census
<http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/acorn_census_partner/2009/03/18/1932
18.html> to programs run by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development <http://www.hud.gov/local/wi/news/2009-05-06.cfm> (HUD).

State and local politics, of course, act as feeders for national
politicians. Steve Malanga's excellent book, The New New Left
<http://www.amazon.com/New-Left-American-Politics-Works/dp/1566636442>
explains how ACORN, various unions and other leftwing causes have come
to dominate politics in some cities and states, and have relied largely
on taxpayer money and ties to Democrat politicians to do so.

The position of state attorney general has become a particularly big
feeder, and we see many national politicians who are former state AGs.
This begs the question: where ACORN has been violating laws, was it
doing so with the imprimatur if not outright assistance of Democrat
attorneys general, who seek to curry favor with the Democratic
establishment?

That brings us to the importance of ACORN's first scorecard of attorneys
general, issued in 2008, "Attorneys General Take Action: Real Leadership
in Fighting Foreclosures
<http://acorn.org/fileadmin/ACORN_Reports/2008/agreport.pdf> ." The
18-page report and scorecard describes attorneys' general active
involvement with ACORN's policy goals on housing.

ACORN graded attorneys general on their efforts to help ACORN's agenda.
The issues ranged from supporting federal legislation introduced by such
luminaries in the nation's mortgage
<http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/acorn_and_the_ags.html#>
debacle as Connecticut's Senator Chris Dodd, to using taxpayer money in
support of ACORN's litigation and other efforts. The report has pictures
and special mention of six attorneys general who received A+ from ACORN.

ACORN's legal efforts have been described as "essentially extort[ing]
money from banks
<http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=184> ." Some of
those efforts
<http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjRjYzE0YmQxNzU4MDJjYWE5MjIzMTMxMm
NhZWQ1MTA=> appear to have more than just a casual link to the subprime
mortgage
<http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/acorn_and_the_ags.html#>
crisis. That of course raises the question of whether Democrat attorneys
general have been complicit in ACORN's questionable, unlawful and
harmful activities

Did ACORN's Democrat Ties Retard Law Enforcement?

ACORN has received tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding
<http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/acorn_and_the_ags.html#> from
the federal and state governments. That, itself, raises a host of issues
<http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/cornerstone_to_the_obama_agend.h
tml> , including opportunities for political corruption on the
taxpayers' dime. The ACORN scorecard of attorneys general is an example
of taxpayer money being used for what are essentially endorsements of
Democrat attorneys general.

An important question that must be asked is, did the ties between ACORN
and Democrat attorneys general retard law enforcement? Since attorneys
general should have been the frontline of law enforcement against ACORN,
but most have already demonstrated an unwillingness to do that job, why
should anyone believe at this juncture those AGs will conduct themselves
more effectively going forward?

A thorough, professional investigation of ACORN could expose more
serious problems linking ACORN and the Democrat establishment
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aZ8U4iOoY83w> .

Weaker investigations, obviously, would benefit and even protect
Democrats. Most Democrat attorneys general have ambitions for higher
standing within their Party, and will likely not pursue thorough
investigations that could hurt their own careers.

Before Democrat attorneys general take up, or are asked to take up, any
involvement with investigating ACORN, the attorneys general themselves
must answer some tough questions. It is conceivable some AGs could
eventually be witnesses in, or subject to, investigations themselves.

Already, though, Republicans at the state level, without demanding
answers from attorneys general first, have asked some of ACORN's
highest-graded attorneys general to investigate the organization.

ACORN's favorite Democratic attorneys general who have been asked by
Republicans to investigate ACORN include: California's Gerry Brown (A)
<http://www.sacbee.com/arnold/story/2188602.html> , Connecticut's
Richard Blumenthal (A+) <http://www.connpost.com/ci_13370070> ,
Georgia's Thurbert Baker (A)
<http://www.daltondailycitizen.com/statenews/local_story_261115820.html?
keyword=topstory> , Illinois' Lisa Madigan (A+)
<http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=100811> and Maryland's
Doug Gansler (A)
<http://wbal.com/apps/news/templates/story.aspx?articleid=35906&zoneid=2
> . Why are Republicans willing to put foxes in the hen house
<http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/acorn_and_the_ags.html#> ?


Did 'Spitzerism' Make ACORN Bigger?

Liberal writer Noam Scheiber coined the term "Spitzerism
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/magazine/02spitzer.html> " to
describe how now-disgraced Eliot Spitzer used attorney general
investigative and litigation powers to bully banks and other corporate
institutions. Mr. Spitzer also wielded his power to aid and promote
favored liberal causes and entities.

Spitzer's methods encouraged copycat attorneys general, who saw how
using (or abusing) the office of attorney general gave them power and
special influence within the Democratic Party. Instead of fighting
Spitzerism, businesses too often lobbied or cowered, often increasing
political contributions in state races. Mr. Scheiber wrote,
"[Spitzerism] tapped into a 'political goldmine' and could 'help lead
the Democrats out of the political wilderness.'"

Mr. Spitzer and ACORN shared a favorite target: banks. (As the old quip
about bank robbers goes, "That's where the money is.") Spitzerism was
employed to force commercial entities to partner with the Democrat
support system. ACORN eventually was "partnered" with CitiMortgage, Bank
of America, First American Title Insurance Company, and Fannie Mae
<http://www.acornhousing.org/TEXT/mortgage1.php> .

The list of contributors
<http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtedetail_donors.php?cycle=2008&ein
=134220019> to the Democratic Attorneys General Association ("DAGA")
indicates how seriously the mortgage industry takes the threat of
Spitzerism even in the absence of Eliot Spitzer himself.

Mr. Spitzer's successor, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, is one
of ACORN's A+ attorneys general.

(Parenthetically: As former secretary of HUD, Mr. Cuomo was successor to
another disgraced Democrat, Henry Cisneros. Mr. Cisneros has shown that
one ACORN specialty, low-income housing, can be lucrative and
influential. Named in 2006 as one of the 50 most influential people in
home building, <http://www.builderonline.com/business/power-on-50.aspx>
Mr. Cisneros had ties to ACORN when he ran HUD. ACORN's materials
describe how <http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12443> :


Democratic control of the federal government meant that ACORN
had increased access to top officials with more sympathetic ears. ACORN
members began regular meetings with Henry Cisneros, HUD Secretary under
President Clinton, on a variety of issues. ACORN organizing began to
include more tenant groups under the ACORN Tenant Union (ATU), and
Cisneros was increasingly helpful.


Mr. Cisneros maintained ties to ACORN after leaving HUD under a cloud.
As the mainstream media put it, he most recently "accepted a request"
<http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6626289.html> to serve on a
six-member advisor board for ACORN. That board has already been subject
to ridicule
<http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/09/16/acorn-audit-already-a-j
oke/> for conflicts of interest and such.)

Mr. Cuomo has a conflict with any ACORN investigation. And Mr. Cuomo's
predecessor as AG, Eliot Spitzer, is a prime example of how Democratic
attorney generals have used their powers selectively to advance the
Democratic agenda, which includes aiding ACORN.

Whether the situation with ACORN will and can expose a vast network of
corruption, use of taxpayer money to promote the Democratic Party, and
retarded law enforcement, depends on who's looking into it. The ACORN
scorecard of state attorneys general should be used, at a minimum, to
show which AGs have a conflict in any ACORN investigation.

ACORN's scorecard may even disqualify some AGs. As a starting point of
which AGs themselves should be held accountable, attorneys general
should be required to disclose, under penalties of perjury, their ties
to ACORN, why they did not act sooner, and who may have urged them to
lay off ACORN.

Whether partners or puppets, enablers or abettors, some if not many
Democratic state attorneys general appear to be involved even
tangentially with, or know of, ACORN's questionable activities, if not
systemic corruption. Whatever role other Democratic politicians played
in ACORN, the attorney general issue presents unique challenges that
must be resolved before investigations of ACORN may be considered
credible and complete.