Holder Lets ACORN Continue Receiving Funds

Remember when the big to-do about the videotapes of officials with ACORN advising people how to set up prostitution rings forced Congress's hand? Politicians of both stripes voted quickly to cut off ACORN from public funding.

ACORN immediately sued because it claimed Congress was passing an unconstitutional bill of attainder (laws can be written to single and punish out either individuals or individual groups).

That lawsuit is still in the legal mill, but it appears that it doesn't really matter. Attorney General Eric Holder has ruled that Congress's ACORN law is unclear (huh?), so the federal tap remains open.

Let James Simpson explain it all:

The actual ban reads as follows: "None of the funds made available from this joint resolution or any other prior Act may be provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations." (Emphasis added.)

The Justice Department has decided that the phrase "provided to" is unclear and "has no established meaning in appropriations law." They cite terms more frequently used, such as "obligate" and "expend," that have widely accepted meaning in spending legislation. They go on to arduously defend their point by exhaustively listing the many definitions of "provide" given in Websters, Oxford and American Heritage dictionaries and even Roget's Thesaurus. Like Bill Clinton, they probably could have found as many definitions for the word "is..."

In short, ACORN is still getting the funds--and probably still advising people on how to avoid taxes and set up prostitution rings.