Unfortunately for Media Matters, its arguments only work as long as its readers are content with ignoring key facts about ACORN and its role in politics, elections and government itself.

As stated in my previous article posted at many websites, including BigGovernment.com, there are several disturbing connections involving Jack McConnell, the lead paint litigation, and ACORN. Keeping in mind that this is the same “news organization” that still insists that ACORN’s alter ego Project Vote was totally separate from ACORN when Barack Obama worked for them, I will let ACORN’s own words explain its involvement in the Sherwin-Williams California case. The excerpt below is from page 59 of an ACORN report available here (click to enlarge).

Why would Media Matters ignore ACORN’s own words?

For the same reason it tries to dismiss my article as a conservative attempt to use ACORN as the “boogeyman.” By omitting the fact that I worked for ACORN and testified against ACORN/Project Vote in 2008, Media Matters hopes to downplay the significance of my knowledge of ACORN’s inner workings and its relationships with others.

In fact, while in the DC office of ACORN/Project Vote I worked on projects that allowed me to discover that among the donors to Project Vote was the private law firm involved in the California lead paint case.

Court documents show that the petitioners, California counties and cities, had not only hired Jack McConnell’s firm, Motley Rice, but also “Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy” (and others) to represent them against the paint companies (interestingly, the Santa Clara County counsel who initiated the lead paint case was appointed by the Obama administration to the Justice Department last year).

Not only did Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy give over $10,000 to ACORN’s Project Vote,  they were ACORN’s own attorneys. The connection between Motley Rice, ACORN and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy is crystal clear in a reference here from page 31 of a 2006 report by ACORN.

“Amy Schur, directing this effort, was vigilant, and having dogged them all year, has constructed a legal strategy with ALERT and the Cachet firm [sic Cotchett] that has now brought the cities of San Diego and Los Angeles into the lawsuit.”

ACORN founder Wade Rathke mentions donor/attorney Naill McCarthy by name and also explains the lead paint litigation strategy in his book Citizen Wealth.

Wade goes on to explain how organizations like ACORN use litigation to gain power.

To recap for the Media Matters readers who may be used to having their news filtered:

1. ACORN staged a NATIONWIDE campaign against paint company Sherwin Williams.
2. ACORN turned down settlements to clean up the damage because it wanted money.
3. ACORN and its attorneys were in the final stages of given ACORN a seat in the negotiation process in the California case.
4. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy represented ACORN in similar cases against Household Finance and Wells Fargo.

Don’t be fooled by the misspelling in the ACORN report, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy is the same law firm that successfully represented ACORN in the Wells Fargo case.

“Wells Fargo Financial, Inc., the consumer finance subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company, and the law firms of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy (Burlingame, Calif.) and Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. (Madison, Wisc.) said they have agreed to settle a class action lawsuit…..

In the proposed settlement, Wells Fargo Financial commits to continue for three years several improvements it had already put into practice, which have further strengthened its nonprime real estate-secured lending practices, and to implement other practices to benefit its customers. It also agrees to enact a default relief program, earmarking $2.4 million to provide relief to qualifying class members whose loans have become delinquent by more than 60 days. Qualifying class members who submit claims may also be entitled to cash payments, which will be determined using a formula to disburse up to $4.4 million.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a party to the lawsuit, had alleged that Wells Fargo Financial failed to adequately disclose points and prepayment penalties and had inaccurately reported loan balances on some of its California customers to credit reporting agencies.”

ACORN involvement in the lead paint issue was tremendous. Besides releasing reports and, staging protests (both national and international), ACORN even dedicated a separate website to the cause.

ACORN demonstrations included:

A reasonable person would say that given ACORN’s relationship with former Rhode Island Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse and current United States Senator (an enthusiastic supporter of Jack McConnell’s nomination), and its work with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on settlements, does raise the question as whether Motley Rice’s agreement with DuPont paint deserves more scrutiny.

“It’s odd and I think unlawful that the Attorney General, in a sense, appropriated the DuPont settlement moneys for his own purposes. It’s curious part of the money went to his alma mater, another part w[ent] to pay off a pledge made by Motley Rice to a Boston hospital, then the rest of the money went to the Children’s Health Forum, which is not based in Rhode Island at all.”

The fact that ACORN Advisory Committee member and long time ACORN ally Henry Cisneros is on the board of the Children’s Health Forum could be considered a coincidence to the folks over at Media Matters, but what if I were to tell you that the Mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa was on the advisory committee of the Children’s Health Forum?

In 2009 Cisneros was honored for his commitment to ACORN while Villaraigosa engaged in crisis PR for the group. Side note:  Villaraigosa is also board members of the Institute for America’s Future, a group that goes out of its way to protect ACORN interests.

Either Jack McConnell’s law firm Motley Rice was totally oblivious to the FACT that Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy were in the FINAL stages of securing ACORN a seat next to them  at the negotiating table or McConnell lied during his confirmation hearing (see transcript below)

SEN. KYL: I understand. My five minutes is up. It’s kind of hard to have continuity in questioning when we have this kind of limitation. I understood the point you were originally trying to make, but if I can — and I have a couple more minutes’ worth of questions just as a follow up to this.

My point really was not only, is it right to seek this as a movement, but whether you actually encourage these lawsuits in other states — you or your law firm — did you?

MR. MCCONNELL: No, Senator, we did not.

SEN. KYL: Are you aware of any role by the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now — that’s ACORN — in how those cases might have come to be filed?

MR. MCCONNELL: No, neither I nor my firm have had any relationship with ACORN.

President Clinton said that his answer depended upon what the meaning of the word is is. McConnell might say that it depends upon what a relationship is. Apparently McConnell did not want to acknowledge any kind of relationship to ACORN by the time his confirmation hearing was held. Still, McConnell, his firm and ACORN are all connected. McConnell’s key role in the lead paint litigation in Rhode Island, where ACORN had a significant presence, and his law firm’s subsequent participation in the California lead paint case on the side of ACORN and its California law firm contradict his unqualified assurance that neither he nor his firm “had any relationship with ACORN.”

To quote from ACORN Report shown in the screen shots above:

p. 38: “Luck would have it that the major CA lawsuit against the paint industry is being handled by the same law firm handling our Wells Fargo case [Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy]–and they want to work together on the lead case. Over the last month we have been able to convince several major CA cities and school districts to join the lawsuit. In a potentially important precedent for our role in these types of cases, we are in the final stages of negotiating a seat for ALERT (ACORN Law for Education, Representation & Training) on the legal team for the case, which puts us at the table–and in the settlement negotiations.”

P. 59: December 2006–”ACORN gets 2 cities and 2 school districts in CA to join a lawsuit against paint companies”

Congressman Steve King, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, made the following statement in response to news reports that ACORN is dissolving its national structure.

“This is not surprising news. ACORN must change its name in order to try and run ahead of the accountability that is catching up with this corrupt organization.

“Even though the one party controlled federal government is using its resources to protect ACORN, entrepreneurial new media investigators and state attorneys general are tightening the noose. Dissolving its national brand does not change ACORN’s faces nor ACORN’s crimes. This organization specializes in subterfuge, but ACORN cannot outrun the wheels of justice that are catching up with this corrupt criminal enterprise.”

An investigation of the Nelson deal would likely have two focuses. First, is the Nebraska exemption unconstitutional under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which requires “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States?” Secondly, did the deal constitute a form of corruption?

Whether the Nebraska exemption constitutes unlawful corruption obviously depends on the facts surrounding how Senator Nelson cut his deal. However, even a pure constitutional challenge would benefit from a clear understanding and presentation of the facts underlying how and why the Nebraska exemption was reached.

If an investigation about unlawful corruption were to proceed, it would of course be critical to question Senator Nelson himself. Senator Nelson – and Harry Reid – would assuredly invoke the Speech and Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution) to block such an investigation.

The Speech and Debate Clause provides that members of Congress:

shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same, and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

(Emphasis added.)

The Speech and Debate Clause was written so an overly aggressive executive would not suppress and intimidate critical legislators. The Founders, however, did not envision a Congress as gluttonous and corrupt as the one we have today.

The Speech and Debate Clause has been construed by the courts more broadly than its text to include legislative acts and congressional staff within its protections. Given how too many members of Congress have demonstrated contempt for the first principles embodied in our Constitution, and how they’ve exhibited disdain towards limits on power, perhaps the Speech and Debate Clause needs to be reformed by way of amendment.

The most recent high-profile example of use of the Speech and Debate Clause involved now-imprisoned former Democratic Congressman, William Jefferson, along with former Republican House Speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, who invoked the Clause after Jefferson’s congressional office was raided by the FBI using a judge-authorized search warrant. A United States District Court declared the FBI raid unconstitutional. Congressman Jefferson, however, was unsuccessful in later using the Speech and Debate Clause to challenge his conviction of bribery.

Unfortunately, the Speech and Debate Clause has come to be abused all too frequently. Many members of Congress engage in otherwise actionable defamation to bully and impugn witnesses at congressional hearings, or even members of the public. Emboldened by constitutional immunity, and obviously not respecting their offices as representatives of the people, members of Congress frequently degrade hearings into circuses of false charges more suitable for banana republics than the United States.

The more serious degradation of the Speech and Debate Clause, however, may be that it is used to protect corruption under the guise of official activity in Congress. Even if the promise of ‘transparency’ weren’t an utter joke, there are billions of taxpayer dollars being used for payola. Just look at ACORN as one example, where public money is traded for political endorsements.

The states and the people, from whom Congress derives its enumerated powers by their consent, should be able to question their representatives under oath under certain well-defined circumstances, such as when taxpayer money may have been spent unconstitutionally, or as quid pro quo. The Ben Nelson deal appears to be both, and Americans deserve answers under oath, not in response to fluff from a press favoring Obamacare.

I’ve been critical of some state attorneys general, such as former New Yorker AG Eliot Spitzer, for abusing their investigatory powers over private entities and people. However, if state attorneys general may not investigate federal elected officials when corruption may be present, and question them under standards of reasonable cause when there appears to be corruption, then who’s to stop it?

It seems it’s time for a limited amendment to the Speech and Debate Clause, one that fosters the original intent of the Founders in spirited debate among our representatives, yet does not allow – or even encourage – corruption and abuse of the offices representing the people.

A constitutional amendment is no small matter or accomplishment, but the Founders never intended any provision in the Constitution to protect government corruption on the scale we see today. The Speech and Debate Clause should no longer give corrupt elected officials cover, especially because the Constitution was created by men far more honorable and respectful than they.

So, the robocalls were a mea culpa and promise that ACORN would do better in the future? Hardly. Away from the kleig lights of the national press, ACORN continued to deny wrongdoings and deflect attention to “extremists” attacking her. On the calls, ACORN even reiterates the lie that James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles were turned away in Los Angeles.

Listen for yourself (in English and Spanish):

Transcript and more after the jump.

~~

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT:
Hello.  This is ACORN.  We’re calling to let you know that ACORN has continued to fight hard against foreclosures, for affordable healthcare, and now, to beat back the extremist attacks against our members, an organization you have seen on the news this week.  Los Angeles ACORN successfully turned away the two right-wing activists who secretly videotaped a handful of ACORN employees and stopped their attempts to discredit the good will of ACORN here in Los Angeles.  Thank you for your continued support.  Always remember that the people united will never be defeated.  Should you have any questions or would like to find out how you can be more involved, please call the L.A. office at 213 747 4211 extension 215.  Thank you and have a good evening.

SPANISH TRANSLATION:
“Hi, we are calling to inform you that ACORN continues working against the embargo of mortgages and for healthcare reform, and now to fight the attacks of the conservative press like Fox News.  In LA the Fox News activists attempted to infiltrate our office but we (removed them w/o incident)”{I believe this is what was said}. “Thank you for your support and as always ‘A united people will never be overcome.’

~~

The Spanish language part of the robocall explicitly mentions Fox News as the originators of the undercover video sting. The English language part simply mentions “an organization.” ACORN can’t even keep their story straight in different languages. ACORN needs a Chief Organizer of its evolving story lines.

The robocall confirms what we have always expected: ACORN’s commitment to an “internal review” is a scam meant to deflect attention from its many problems. Even before ACORN has publicly released the results of its “review,” they have already sued to have their federal funding reinstated. The robocall and federal suit reveal how ACORN acts when it thinks no one is paying attention.

In the light of day, ACORN’s spin machine jockeys to get just enough favorable media coverage to survive any particular story or news cycle. It will distort and lie, confident that Big Media will never follow-up nor hold the organization accountable for its past statement. The Ombudsman of the New York Times even had to admit that one of the paper’s reporters had, on his own initiative, edited one of Bertha Lewis’ statements to cover-up the fact that she had lied. After videos of ACORN Baltimore and DC were released, Lewis put out a statement claiming that James and Hannah were thrown out of ACORN’s New York office, among other locations. After a video of ACORN New York was released however, the Times reporter edited New York out of any further references to Lewis’ statement.

We’ve stopped waiting for the Columbia Review of Journalism or any other “keepers of journalism’s flame” to weigh in on that episode.

ACORN’s only hope to survive is to deflect public attention long enough that the videos, and the deep corruption they exposed, recede in memory. If Big Media continues to willfully ignore ACORN and its corruption, nevermind actually aid and abet their spin, ACORN may very well get away with it.

Recently, Michelle Malkin reported on a scandal brewing in President Obama’s other party, the Working Families Party.

The Working Families Party, an ACORN front group whose ballot line Newt Gingrich-endorsed radical leftist Dede Scozzafava has embraced on multiple occasions, is up to no good again.

And now, Big Government is reporting on the birth of a new website entitled Nutbusterz, devoted to aggregating all of the scandal coverage of the working Families Party.

Nutbusterz will serve serve as a clearinghouse for media coverage of the illegal activities of ACORN. Media reports on ACORN and the New York Working Families Party (WFP) will be updated daily. Candidates and causes that ally themselves with ACORN will be exposed and held to account.

We would like to point all interested parties toward a series of articles which warrant consideration for inclusion at Nutbusterz, written by a local NY publication called City Hall.

This is the kind of coverage lamestream media wishes it still knew how to do.

Some headlines and excerpts include:

CITY HALL SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

There have long been assumptions and rumors of the collaboration between the Working Families Party (WFP) and its favored candidates, but never before has the scope of or intricate processes behind its joint activity been exposed to the degree made possible by an extensive review of public documents and close to 50 interviews with a range of key players conducted by City Hall over the last few days….

…Money transferred to DFS from the WFP and political candidates can be tracked, however, since these all must report their own expenditures. Already during 2009, according to the latest available records showing their finances through mid-July, the WFP has transferred $554,629 (listed as “wages”) and nine campaigns together have transferred $253,855 (listed as “campaign spending”) to DFS, for a total of over $800,000. The money from WFP is out of the general party account, which is funded in part by union contributions totaling to $345,000 so far this year, with the biggest donors being RWDSU, TWU, UFT and CWA. According to WFP executive director Dan Cantor, the WFP paid full payroll taxes on these wages…..

…..“We set it up as a for-profit so that it could make money and then donate the money back, but at the rate we’re going, I’m not sure it ever will,” he said. “We basically want to break even.”

In other words, Cantor said that the WFP, as a non-profit entity, had established a for-profit entity in the hopes of turning money back to the non-profit.

And while he said WFP does not actively encourage its endorsed candidates to use DFS, he ruled out the idea of DFS being hired by candidates who had not been endorsed by the WFP. [MORE]

CFB Declares DFS An Arm Of WFP

“Based on information acquired by the Board to date, it is the Board’s understanding that DFS exists as an arm of the Working Families Party. Both organizations are located in the same space and share employees; DFS was created by Working Families Party staff; and there are no apparent firewalls between them. In light of the close affiliation, the Board presumes that any activity undertaken by the Working Families Party on behalf of campaigns using DFS as a vendor is non-independent. [MORE]

As ACORN Engaged In Political Work, Affiliate Received Taxpayer Money

A non-profit organization which has affiliates providing campaign-related services for political candidates has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money in recent years, allocated in many cases by some of the same lawmakers on whose campaigns the group worked.

The earmarks have been directed to the New York Agency for Community Affairs (NYACA), which is located at the same office as ACORN and its various political arms.

NYACA received $175,000 from eight state senators this year, $240,500 from 10 Assembly members and $85,000 from four Council members. [MORE]

Four Candidates Pour Cash Into Company With Apparent ACORN Ties

“NY Citizens Inc. is where we write the checks to for ACORN,” explained Griffith campaign spokesman Alan Smith. “ACORN who endorsed us, are also giving us some direct canvas support, and the other canvas support we’re paying for. So the $5,200 in both the filings are for the ground crew of ACORN shifts.” [MORE]

New CFB Filings Indicate Massive Disparity Between Estimated DFS Costs And Payments

Concerns Of “Sloppy Bookkeeping” Were Involved With McGuire’s WFP Departure

And do not miss: Inside The DFS Experience

For all the candidates the WFP backed and that its secretive private company, Data and Field Services, performed services for, though, party leaders never made a secret that de Blasio was their overwhelming priority, even as several other campaigns grumbled that they were being left without help.

And indeed, de Blasio was the candidate whose palm cards every worker coming out of the Working Families Party headquarters was loaded down with on Tuesday afternoon.

But when asked why they were working for de Blasio or the candidates on the other side of some palm cards, like Richard Aborn, the workers were largely stumped.

“He’ll get between black people and the police,” said one woman handing out palm cards for de Blasio in the morning on the Upper West Side, grasping for an answer, and proceeding, like many of her fellow workers to try answering the question by reading off the list of his endorsements on the paper she was holding.

But she was proud to be working for the Working Families Party, she said, recalling a day about 10 years ago when she went with her father into the voting booth and asked what Working Families meant on the ballot line and being told, “That’s us.”

She had been hired for the day, but was holding out hope that she might get an offer extended to come on long term with the Working Families Party (she said she had never heard of Data and Field Services). [MORE]