Law Blocking Acorn Funding Raises Constitutional Question

[question everything]

DECEMBER 18, 2009

Law Blocking Acorn Funding Raises Constitutional Question

By NOMAAN MERCHANT
WSJ

WASHINGTON -- After the community-organizing group Acorn was caught up in a storm of controversy, Congress chopped off its federal funding. The move came after hidden-camera videos showed employees of the group, officially the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, giving tax advice to two people posing as a prostitute and a pimp. It was the latest flap involving the group, which has faced accusations of voter fraud made by conservative activists and some Republicans in Congress.

But in trying to thwart what it sees as unethical conduct, Congress might have violated the Constitution by singling out a group, some legal experts say. At issue is the Constitution's prohibition of bills of attainder, which punish a specific person or group without due process or other rights that courts provide. "The Acorn bill was poorly drafted and poorly conceived," says Jonathan Turley, a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University Law School. "Congress, in this case, showed very little circumspection in how they went about this."

Acorn sued Congress in federal court to overturn the funding ban. Last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Gershon sided with Acorn and ordered government officials to reinstate Acorn's federal contracts. "That Acorn was singled out is obvious and undisputed by the government," Judge Gershon wrote. The Justice Department has appealed the ruling.

In the past year, Congress has been more willing to take on specific groups in its legislation. One target was American International Group, the insurer that received a massive government bailout. Earlier this year, Congress passed specific limits on how much the company could spend on bonuses. Successful bill of attainder challenges are rare, in part because courts are loath to declare Congress in violation of the attainder clause without proof that legislators acted with what Mr. Turley calls a "desire to punish."

Supporters of the funding ban say there is nothing wrong with Congress deciding not to fund a particular group. "Congress makes decisions with every appropriations bill on whether or not to give money to specific organizations and institutions," says Hans A. von Spakovsky, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Bills of attainder were banned in the Constitution due to colonial outrage at the U.K. Parliament, which had used the laws to attack political enemies. In modern times, successful claims have relied on a landmark 1946 case that took place during the height of anti-Communist fervor. In U.S. v. Lovett, the Supreme Court voided a law Congress had passed concerning the salaries of three government employees alleged to be "subversives" by the House Un-American Activities Committee. The Supreme Court ruled Congress had misused its funding power in targeting the employees.

(snip)



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126110280150596545.html (subscription)

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A20

[BR_Parkway]

1. Hmm, could we impeach a few Blue Dogs & Lieberman with this

since the court is saying they violated the Constitution? Here in NC we've got a Dem Governor, so replacing Heath Schuler wouldn't be a bad thing - put in an actual Democrat at let them run as incumbents the next cycle