U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a Criminal Enterprise?
A report was prepared for the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, dated July 23, 2009, on ACORN fraud, widespread deceit and corruption. Because the emphasis in recent months has been on the moral degradation and monetary corruption, this article will present exerpts that relate to voter fraud.
“The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has repeatedly
and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud. Both structurally and operationally, ACORN
hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal
conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a
partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate.
Emerging accounts of widespread deceit and corruption raise the need for a criminal
investigation of ACORN. By intentionally blurring the legal distinctions between 361
tax-exempt and non-exempt entities, ACORN diverts taxpayer and tax-exempt monies
into partisan political activities. Since 1994, more than $53 million in federal funds have
been pumped into ACORN, and under the Obama administration, ACORN stands to
receive a whopping $8.5 billion in available stimulus funds.”
“ACORN’s purposeful lack of quality control translates into the employment of convicted
felons and other suspect persons. Through a strategy of providing financial incentives to
employees who meet voter registration quotas, ACORN conducts voter drives that
routinely produce fraudulent registrations. In fact, ACORN’s employment practices have
the intentional effect of encouraging voter registration fraud while linking criminal
culpability to the lowest-level employees rather than the directors who contrive the illegal
schemes.
To date, nearly 70 ACORN employees have been convicted in 12 states for voter
registration fraud, though no federal charges have been filed against ACORN’s directors.
In fact, Pennsylvania judge Richard Zoller – after holding a low-level ACORN employee
liable for election law violations – noted that “somebody has to go after ACORN.””
“Committee investigators have unearthed documentation that ACORN and its affiliates
conducted meticulous research that fed aggressive campaign initiatives designed to elect
Democratic candidates in targeted races. ACORN forged both formal and informal
connections with former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, Ohio Senator Sherrod
Brown and President Barack Obama, among others. Each of these campaigns received
financial and personnel resource contributions from ACORN and its affiliates as part of a
scheme to use taxpayer monies to support a partisan political agenda. These actions are a
clear violation of numerous tax and election laws.
Documents contained in this report reveal ACORN’s political agenda. ACORN’s 2005-
2007 Strategic Plan states that “just as important as . . . mobilizing existing progressive
voters, ACORN and similar groups actually create new progressive voters.” In the same
document, ACORN acknowledges that its “issue campaigns play the dual role . . . of
attracting new members, and educating or politicizing existing members.” One particular
issue where ACORN claims success is “fighting key elements of the national Republican
program.”
In other documents, ACORN affiliates take credit for the election of former-Illinois
Governor Rod Blagojevich. In the 2006 year-end report of ACORN affiliate Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 880, efforts to elect Blagojevich and
advance partisan political agendas are called “flawless.”
Labor organizations, unions, and other tax-exempt entities stretched Chicago-style
political manipulation and back room schemes beyond Illinois to other state-wide and
national campaign efforts. In the State of Ohio, where ACORN directors drafted a
political plan contained in this report, overt partisan goals are enumerated. The ACORN
Ohio Political Plan states:
ACORN will target three competitive Ohio congressional districts
as well as a half dozen state rep seats nested within the districts.
Our electoral work will mobilize and educate voters [and] our
paid professional canvass will execute tightly managed Voter ID
and GOTV canvasses moving our core constituency of base and
swing voters to the polls to vote for the candidates who most
closely align with a progressive Working Families Agenda.
Moreover, documents provided by former ACORN employees and contained in this
report demonstrate the degree to which ACORN and ACORN affiliates organized to elect
President Barack Obama in 2008.”
Voter Registration Fraud
One-third of the 1.3 million voter registration cards turned in by ACORN in 2008
were invalid.3 ACORN has been investigated for voter registration fraud in Nevada,
Connecticut, Missouri, Ohio and North Carolina.4 ACORN has faced a series of alleged
inadequacies and indictable offenses: In 1998, an Arkansas ACORN employee was
arrested for falsifying voter registration forms.5 In 1999, Philadelphia authorities found
hundreds of fraudulent registration forms by ACORN.6 In October 2008, ACORN’s
Nevada offices were raided by federal agents.7 In May 2009, Nevada officials charged
ACORN, its regional director, and its Las Vegas field director with voter registration
fraud.8 Several days later, seven ACORN employees were charged in Pittsburgh for
voter registration fraud.9
The Wall Street Journal, quoting Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez
Masto, reported “Acorn’s [sic] training manuals ‘clearly detail, condone and . . . require
illegal acts,’ such as requiring its workers to meet strict voter-registration targets to keep
their jobs.”10 Fred Voigt, Philadelphia’s deputy election commissioner, claimed ACORN
“submitted at least 1,500 fraudulent registrations last fall.”11 According to Lake County
Elections Board administrator Ruthann Hoagland, ACORN submitted at least 2,100
fraudulent registrations in Indiana.12 According to the Wall Street Journal, prosecutors
fined ACORN and entered into a deal requiring ACORN to either increase its oversight
or risk criminal prosecution after several Washington state-based ACORN employees
were convicted of voter registration fraud in 2007.13 During the 2008 election, ACORN
was investigated in fourteen other states.14 In June 2009, judge Richard Zoller, after
holding an ACORN employee liable for election law violations, stated, “[s]omebody has
to go after ACORN[.]””
D. Political Activity
“It is undisputed that ACORN engages in politically partisan activity.34
The Wall Street Journal reported ACORN had direct involvement with the Obama campaign.35
According to John Fund of the Journal, Citizens Consulting, Inc., which controls
ACORN’s finances, was paid $832,000 by the Obama campaign for get-out-the-vote
efforts.36 Nonprofits participating in partisan activity are barred from receiving federal
funds, yet ACORN has received $53 million in federal funds since 1994 and could
receive up to $8.5 billion more.”
“This reality is illustrated by recent events. In June 2009, seven ACORN workers
in Pennsylvania were charged with forging 51 signatures and violating election laws in
advance of the 2008 presidential election.58 In May 2009, two ACORN staff members
were prosecuted in Clark County, Nevada for paying bonuses to workers who registered
over 21 individuals per day.59 In July 2008, three ACORN workers were convicted of
voter fraud in Kansas City because they flooded voter registration rolls with over 35,000
false or questionable registration forms.60 In March 2008, an ACORN employee in West
Reading, Pennsylvania, was sentenced to up to 23 months in prison for identity theft and
tampering with records,61 and forging 29 voter registration forms in order to collect a
cash bonus.62 In 2007, three ACORN employees pled guilty, and four more were
charged, in the worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington state history.63 In
2007, a man in Reynoldsburg, Ohio was indicated on two felony courts of illegal voting
and false registration, after being registered by ACORN to vote in two separate
counties.64 In 2006, eight ACORN employees in St. Louis, Missouri were indicted on
federal election fraud charges.65 In 2005, two ex-ACORN employees were convicted in
Denver, CO of perjury for submitting false voter registrations.66 In 2004, a grand jury
indicted a Columbus, Ohio ACORN worker for submitting a false signature and false
voter registration form.67 In 1998, a contractor with ACORN-affiliated Project Vote was
arrested in Arkansas for falsifying 400 voter registration cards.68 In addition to Nevada,
Missouri, Pennsylvania, Washington, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, and Ohio, there have
been prosecutions against ACORN workers in Connecticut, Texas, Wisconsin, and
Michigan.69”
“In response to voter registration fraud during the 2004 General Election, the
Special Investigations Unit of the Milwaukee Police Department reported:
[T]wo persons who had entered guilty pleas to misdemeanor
charges of Election Fraud within one year of the November
General Election also were employed as Election Inspectors for
the Election Commission on November 2, 2004. . . . These
reviews lead the Task Force to find that 18 persons were sworn in
as Deputy Registrars in 2004 that were convicted felons and
under Department of Correction supervision. Of the 15 felons
that listed a sponsoring organization, eight named ACORN as
their sponsoring agency.”245
ACORN disregarded the risks of hiring those with criminal records to register
voters. ACORN attorney Brian Mellor, writing to King County, Washington prosecutor
Norm Maleng concerning a voter registration fraud case, wrote “my review of the [voter
registration] applications has led me to decide to refer these three employees to your
office to investigate them for possible voter-registration fraud[.]”246
According to testimony before the House Judiciary Committee:
[ACORN] knew there was a problem with “the quality of the
people they were getting. Some of the people didn’t know how to
use basic office . . . systems, which made it very hard for copying
244
the registration card and making sure that they were turning in
accurate counts and work ethic issues.”247
On February 24, 2009 Project Vote General Counsel Brian Mellor told a Nevada
state criminal investigator the following concerning bonuses for voter registrations:
In regard to “Blackjack,” MELLOR stated that it was not ACORN
policy to pay performance related bonuses to their staff. MELLOR
stated that back in 2003, ACORN engaged in a voter registration
drive during which they compensated their canvassers through
bonuses linked to the number of voter registration forms collected
by each canvasser. This policy turned out to be a bad policy and
since then, ACORN has not compensated canvassers based on
performance.248
According to notes produced from former ACORN insider Anita MonCrief, the federallyfunded
Project Vote actively maintained registration quotas and provided monetary
incentives based on registrations:
Standards for canvassers – 20 cards/day – is this a realistic
number? In Cincinnati, canvassers tended to stop at the number
instead of go on; problems with duplicates (voters registering with
ACORN multiple times), Missouri (KC and St. Louis) had lots of
people who did this; saturation leads to duplicates; not because
standard is unrealistic but because not enough people working on
developing new sites; 20 standard can create practical equivalent
of pay-per-card, legal concern . . . .249
A 2004 ACORN voter registration manual stated, “[a]nyone who performs at less than
three voter registrations per hour should not be on the staff [sic].”250
Heather Heidelbaugh testified before the House Judiciary Committee that
ACORN’s voter registration programs lacked on-going training of canvassers251 as well
as other problems such as a practice ACORN encouraged of its canvassers turning in
duplicate registrations.252 Regarding voter registration, Anita MonCrief testified,
“ACORN was more interested in the total number of submitted registrations than the total
number of valid registrations.”253
While ACORN aspires to institute quality control mechanisms for its voting
efforts, these guidelines failed on a regular basis.254 Documents obtained by the
Committee show ACORN authorizing the selection of members charged with voter
registration. Accordingly, ACORN can be held responsible for any fraudulent conduct
having arisen from Project Vote’s registration efforts.255
A nonprofit corporation’s legal protections are disregarded if “its finances are not
kept separate from individual finances . . . the corporation is used to promote fraud or
illegality,” or “corporate formalities are not followed.”256 If just one of these factors is
proven, then the tax-exempt privileges of ACORN and its affiliates are dissolved and
what remains is the absolute uncertainty about ACORN’s having complied with election
and tax laws, among others.257 In a settlement agreement between ACORN and the King
County prosecutor in Seattle, Washington, ACORN acknowledged its liability “as a
corporate entity” for the submission of “fraudulently collected” voter registrations “not
reviewed pursuant to the quality control procedures” and “willfully turning in fraudulent
cards.”258”
ACORN And Its Affiliates Violate Their Restrictions as Nonprofits
“According to HCSE, ACORN, a 501(c)(4), has actual control over the decisions of
Project Vote, a 501(c)(3):
Project Vote has on paper a procedure to select regions where
it will do voter registration, but [we] have heard reports in the
past that in practice those decisions may be communicated to
[Project Vote] from ACORN. . . . Project Vote (and PICA, the
other voter registration corporation) needs to really be in charge of
deciding where 501(c)(3) resources will be focused. The [Project
Vote] and PICA Executive Director(s) must be charged with
implementing the procedures (or supervising that work) to set
strategic priorities for the organization without answering to any
other entity or person. These corporations and their chief staff
people must control their own funds; the ED must report only to
her/his own board, unless a formal, legally vetted written
agreement appropriately delegates that authority elsewhere. And
the ED must not be wearing other ‘hats’ that jeopardize her
ability to act solely in the interest of these 501(c)(3)s.275”
ACORN And Its Affiliates Engage In Substantial Lobbying Activities
“However, according to ACORN’s 2005-2007 Strategic Plan, ACORN might be in every
respect a political organization:
But just as important as our organizations’ role in mobilizing
existing progressive voters, ACORN and similar groups actually
create new progressive voters. We reach out to people who are
perhaps apolitical, or whose connection to politics is mediated
through right-wing media, and their experiences in organizations
like ACORN turn them into politically engaged citizens who
cast their votes based on what they learn through their work
with the organization. They join a campaign to increase the
minimum wage, or to win more affordable housing, or to end
predatory financial practices – and they find out which
political leaders are on their side on these issues, and which
ones aren’t. Candidates who purport to stand with low and
moderate income voters by promoting tax cuts and so-called
“family values” are then measured against a different
yardstick – and are caught short when voters realize they are
really standing with the corporate interests. In summary, groups
like ACORN are creating an expanded progressive electorate.316”
“While section 501(c)(4) organizations are permitted to engage in campaign
activity, they are subject to tax if they make an expenditure for a section 527 “exempt
function” defined under the Code as “influencing or attempting to influence the selection,
nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any federal, State, or local
public office or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential or Vice-
Presidential electors.”317 Both the tax and campaign finance laws are relevant for
determining whether 501(c)(3)s and 501(c)(4)s may engage in campaign activity.318”
“According to the Wall Street Journal, ACORN and its affiliates operate as a
political organization:
Acorn [sic] – made up of several legally distinct groups under that
name – has become an important player in the Democrats’ effort to
win the White House. Its voter mobilization arm is co-managing a
$15.9 million campaign with the group Project Vote to register 1.2
million low-income Hispanics and African-Americans, who are
among those most likely to vote Democratic. Technically
nonpartisan, the effort is one of the largest such voter-registration
drives on record. The organization’s main advocacy group lobbied
hard for passage of the housing bill, which provides nearly $5
billion for affordable housing, financial counseling and mortgage
restructuring for people and neighborhoods affected by the housing
meltdown. A third Acorn [sic] arm, its housing corporation, does a
large share of that work on the ground.331”
“In a November 22, 2006 memorandum, Zach
Polett, ACORN’s political director, stated his organizational plans for Project Vote, a
501(c)(3):
Develop and promote a Project Youth Vote, as a branded project of
Project Vote/Voting for America, Inc., thus taking advantage of the
fact that Project Vote and its work with ACORN were, by far, the
largest Youth voter registration program in the country in 2004 . . .
Expand Project Vote’s 2005 – 2006 anti-voter suppression work by
raising the funds to enable Project Vote to serve as the national
clearinghouse for voter suppression state legislation (stopping the
bad bills) and begin the work of expanding the franchise by
introducing Voter Bill of Rights legislation in a targeted set of
states.343”
“Allegations that ACORN has been inappropriately involved in partisan politics
have dogged the nonprofit for years. As far back as 1997, the former House Committee
on Economic and Educational Opportunities identified numerous problems with
ACORN-affiliated entities involving improper participation in partisan political activities.
The Report stated:
Most notable in this regard is . . . the apparent cross-over
funding between ACORN, a political advocacy group and
ACORN Housing Corp. (AHC), a non profit, AmeriCorps
grantee . . . . [I]t was learned that AHC and ACORN shared office
space and equipment and failed to assure that activities and funds
were wholly separate . . . . [I]t was revealed that AmeriCorps
members of AHC raised funds for ACORN, performed voter
registration activities, and gave partisan speeches. In one
instance, an AmeriCorps member was directed by ACORN staff to
assist the White House in preparing a press conference in support
of legislation. AmeriCorps members were also directed to
encourage their clients to lobby on behalf of legislation.369
These problems still exist. Anita MonCrief’s cited testimony before the House Judiciary
Committee suggested that the federally-funded 501(c)(3) Project Vote and the politically
partisan, active lobbyer ACORN were practically inseparable. She testified:
Project Vote is basically considered ACORN political operations.”
Ms. MonCrief testified: [page 44, line 1-25] “There was active
cooperation between ACORN’s political wing and Project
Vote…[They] basically had the same staff. Nathan Henderson
James was the strategic writing and research department…director
of ACORN and he was the research director of Project Vote. Zach
[Polett] was the executive director of Project Vote and the
executive director of ACORN political. All of the organizations
and the entities worked together. We shared the same space.”
Further, Ms. MonCrief testified: “…there’s no real separation
between the organizations for real. So when you have the same
people that are working, that are—like, I was getting paid through
Project Vote’s checkbook, but I was working on ACORN stuff. I
even did PowerPoints during the midterm elections for Jeffrey
Robinson where they were like, okay, don’t vote for Albert Win
[sic] (ph) or vote for this person. And they had doorknob – door
hangers that they would go and put on people’s doors, and we
turned this into a PowerPoint presentation. So there was never any
division between the staff where you would say, okay, this is (2)(3)
stuff and this (c)(4) stuff. It was just—I don’t want to say business
as usual, but it was a lot of collaboration between the
organizations.” [page 89, lines 21-25, page 90 1-25, page 91, lines
1-3].370
More factually, former Oklahoma Congresswoman Cleta Mitchell was concerned about
ACORN violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971:
A not-for-profit corporation is treated no differently from a forprofit
corporation for purposes of the federal campaign finance
laws, which absolutely prohibit corporate contributions to
campaigns of federal candidates and / or corporate expenditures to
support or oppose a federal candidate. The FECA further prohibit
expenditures by non-profit corporations such as ACORN and
Project Vote which are made in coordination with, at the request,
behest, suggestion or with the material involvement of a federal
campaign (such as the Obama presidential campaign). The
solicitation of funds by an organization for purposes of engaging in
partisan campaign activities or to support or assist a federal
campaign and/or candidate convert the organization into a Section
527 political organization and further [instantiate] a federal
political committee required to register with the Federal Election
Commission (“FEC”). Contributions to such an organization are
limited to $5,000 per calendar year and may not be received /
accepted from corporations. Further, expenditures made by an
organization in coordination with a candidate or political
committee are considered contributions to that committee and are
subject to the $5,000 per election limit.371”
“An internal document shows ACORN Political Director Zach Polett controlling the
activities of ACORN, Communities Voting Together (“CVT”) and Citizens Services Inc.
(“CSI”):
Story for Election Day will be makeup of the House. Places where
voter mob can be a factor in these races is where we should think
pushing a strong program.”
Read the entire report:
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090723ACORNReport.pdf
Citizen WElls 