October 21, 2009
Opinion: Attacks on Acorn Signal a Bigger Problem for Charities Dealing With Controversial Issues
By Pablo Eisenberg
The most recent attacks on Acorn, the largest low-income grass-roots network in the country with more than 400,000 members, have put the organization in grave danger.
The troubles facing Acorn are important not just because they put the survival of an important poverty-fighting group at risk but also because it demonstrates what could well happen to any nonprofit group—or other entity—that refuses to toe the line of conservative ideologues and activists. Such assaults will continue unchecked unless nonprofit groups join forces to push back. Thus far they have been unwilling to do so.
Acorn’s latest woes came after two conservative activists, posing as a prostitute and pimp, visited four of the organization’s affiliates, pretending to seek advice on how to establish a bordello. The activists shot videos that they released to Fox News, which, along with some conservative blogs, has spearheaded an attack on the organization.
Acorn was already reeling from the revelation a year ago that the brother of its founder and former director had embezzled almost $1-million from the organization 10 years ago. During the past year, Acorn has been working hard to revamp its governance structure and improve its financial-accountability mechanisms.
Few people would defend the mistakes, mismanagement, poor staff training, and lack of accountability that has marred Acorn practices in the past. Indeed, the current leadership of the organization has acknowledged those shortcomings and is trying to do something about them.
But the critics have gone much further than Acorn deserved. In the assault on Acorn, no lies have been spared, no accusations tempered by reason, and no acknowledgment has been made of the enormous good Acorn has done over the years. Behind the attacks are a deep hatred of liberals and progressives—especially those in the Obama administration—and a lack of concern and respect for poor and minority constituencies. It is part of a strategy to divert attention away from the important legislative efforts that many conservatives don’t want to succeed: a health-care overhaul; stiffer environmental standards; tougher regulations for financial institutions; and efforts to create jobs.
While lies, innuendos, and unproved accusations by conservative critics and politicians might have been expected, it is harder to explain why mainstream observers and progressive politicians have not questioned many of the anti-Acorn criticisms and allegations.
Only six Democrats in the Senate were gutsy enough to oppose the bill that prohibits Acorn from receiving any more federal money. Their Democrat colleagues, including some of the allegedly most progressive senators, like Tom Harkin of Iowa and Charles Schumer of New York, ran for political cover and voted to support the measure, scared by the onslaught of right-wing broadcasts and newspaper articles. Ironically, Senator Schumer had appeared two months earlier in Washington at an Acorn fund-raising event where he lavished praise on the work and accomplishments of the organization.
Those senators, as well as all but 75 members of the House, which passed a similar bill, accepted the substance of the allegations against Acorn without bothering to verify them or to ask Acorn and its supporters to present their side of the story.
The mainstream press was slow to pick up the story about the videos but did so when criticized by the right for either ignoring the scandal or protecting Acorn. The Washington Post’s ombudsman acknowledged the criticism and said the Post would do a better job.
What he failed to mention was the lack of fairness and balance in the Post story that appeared on the front page the same day, an article that repeated at length the attack on Acorn by Rep. Darrell Issa, Republican of California, and others but did not bother to get comments from Acorn leaders or describe recent efforts by Acorn to improve many of its practices. Other major newspapers similarly gave little space to Acorn’s side of the story.
Not unexpectedly, major progressive foundations abandoned ship a year ago when news of the Acorn embezzlement first became public. They either cut off grants or suspended payments to the group with the promise that the grants would be reconsidered if Acorn took the proper steps, financial and administrative, to turn itself around.
A network of grant makers was created to provide a single source to which Acorn could communicate its progress. But those foundations have not yet provided any money, even relatively small amounts, to help Acorn manage its difficult transition, even as the organization was making necessary and difficult changes. With the exception of a few very small foundations, they simply left the group high and dry, not a very responsible position for wealthy institutions that say they believe in risk taking and in strengthening the management of nonprofit groups, not to mention providing assistance to poor and disadvantaged people.
The Ford Foundation recently awarded Acorn $500,000, but after the video scandal received wide publicity, its board suspended the grants indefinitely. Only one major foundation appears to have the courage to support Acorn during its trying times. The California Endowment is reviewing a $500,000 grant to California Acorn, and the odds it will make the award are good.
The failure of foundations to provide even minimal support to Acorn as it struggles to overhaul its governance and financial structures reflects poorly on grant makers’ commitment to save an important champion of low-income and minority people and the courage of philanthropic leaders.
Progressive nonprofit groups have also been slow to rise to Acorn’s defense.
When the videos were first broadcast and the conservative attacks accelerated, one could have heard a pin drop among progressive nonprofit organizations. They seemed loath to respond or get involved. Finally, a few organizations like the Alliance for Justice came out publicly in support of Acorn and distributed comments about the situation to journalists. But valuable time was lost during this initial period of silence, giving conservative activists, politicians, and journalists more opportunity to spread their poison relatively unchallenged.
If foundations and nonprofit groups do not learn to join forces to fight back against such attacks, other community-organizing networks are likely to become targets of future attacks. So are Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, consumer groups, and others.
Nonprofit groups must throw away their fears of going public in defense of reasoned analysis and debate. They must be prepared to talk to the news media, hold press conferences, write articles and blog posts, and rebut scurrilous allegations that are not based on fact.
Their trade associations, which have remained silent about Acorn thus far, should be ready to get off the sidelines to protect the integrity of the nonprofit world. Rapid, intensive counterattacks may be one of the most effective means to blunt the force of future irrational but effective right-wing assaults.
The Boy Scouts has it right: “Be prepared” is their motto. It should be the watchword of responsible nonprofit organizations as well.
Pablo Eisenberg, a regular contributor to these pages, is a senior fellow at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute. His e-mail address is pseisenberg@verizon.net.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Obama Promotes Community Service at 'Points of Light' Event
Next: Task Force Proposes Ways to Help Volunteers Have More Impact
C’mon, Pablo. Planned Parenthood and the Sierra club aren’t going to counsel people on how to set up a prostitution ring for underage girls.
— The Untied Way Oct 21, 01:58 PM #
Apparently Mr. Eisenberg is not aware of the fundamental rule of trust in business, management, leadership, or relationships. What takes weeks, months, and years to build can be destroyed overnight by the breaking of trust. To blame the messenger for the problems Acorn is experiencing is simply called blame shifting.
Integrity is fundamental to all organizations. The number of issues surrounding Acorn where trust has been broken, strongly suggests that there is something rotten within the structure of Acorn.
— skeeter davis Oct 21, 02:07 PM #
Were the 2 conservative activists affiliated with ACORN? I bet there’s more to this story that makes people nervous about funding ACORN, the non profit, as opposed to funding the poor and disadvantaged.
— Cathy Hampton Oct 21, 02:13 PM #
I am shocked that Mr. Eisenberg would dare to put the likes of ACORN in the same sentence as “important poverty-fighting groups.” They are crooks and should no longer receive funding or cooperation from any government entity.
— Daryl Clemmens Oct 21, 02:18 PM #
Mr. Davis,
With all due respect, “strongly suggests”?.. I would assume a 10 mile high plume of black smoke might “suggest” that there is indeed a fire below! Tim
— Tim Butte Oct 21, 02:20 PM #
I can’t believe the Chronicle would publish such rubbish! Where has Pablo been for years when numerous stories of ACORN’s shady work were being revealed. Don’t blame Fox news or ‘conservative’ media—blame the greed and unethical behavior of ACORN. This is a disgrace for non profits.
— Shelly in California Oct 21, 02:26 PM #
As I read the article there were several shortfalls mentioned, and minimized by the author. That’s too bad because the concerns about ACORN have been raised over a period of time and in a number of locations. Apparently they didn’t understand, and weren’t counseled by their supporters, to investigate and make sure ethical practices were being followed.
He also doesn’t mention the fraudulent voter registration problems that are being handled by the legal systems of several states. That indicates that there are charges that are being handled by the courts, not just unfounded accusations.
I’m empathetic about the poor being denied services now, but choice have been made by the ACORN leaders and board of directors to not clean up complaints and change the way they do business.
— annetta Oct 21, 02:28 PM #
Mr. Eisenberg apparently forgets that the supposed “lies, innuendos and unproved accusations” have proven true — mismanagement of funds, voter registration fraud, etc. For years, we have all heard rumors to that effect. But funders can’t base decisions on rumors. Now that the rumors are true, funders are correct and justified in choosing to invest their funds in more trustworthy organizations.
— Susan Oct 21, 02:35 PM #
The problem with Mr Eisenberg’s comments are that they are emotional only and present no facts. He said there were lies. What lies? Everyone could see the videos. The brother of the founder embezzled a $1 million, and they covered it up and he continued to work for the agency, abet in a differnt positon. Name me a business where a person embezzles $1 million and doesn’t go to jail, much less continue to work in the agency. There is documented proof they committed voter registration fraud.
I don’t know enough about ACORN to say they don’t provide any sevice to needy people. I am sure they do provide some needed services. The changes at ACORN did not occur because they found fraud and abuse, but because somebody else found it and publicized it. If the word had not gotten out, there is no reason to believe they would have changed anything.
How many chances do you give a crook? Is everybody at ACORN crooked? No, I am sure they are not. But the actions of the leadership showed that they were more about self-serving, than about helping people.
Your comment about Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club is idiotic. They are not crooked or mismanaged. People may disagree with some of their positions, but I have never heard anyone document cases of fraud and abuse.
— GF Oct 21, 02:36 PM #
Eisenberg is defending the indefensible. ACORN’s deception, corruption and illicit activity hail from its very inception, and the real crime is that it has been able to milk the system for decades.
Realizing all the imagery that the word invokes, the most apt description of a dupe/dope like Eisenberg is “collaborator.” That the Chronicle soils its pages with his intellectual excrement is an offense to its readers’ intelligence.
— Jeff Steele Oct 21, 02:47 PM #
Really? “Be Prepared” – Give me a break! All not for profits that are managed well and are honest about their business practices have nothing to fear. Those who aren’t don’t deserve their funder’s trust and money. It’s as simple as that.
If non profit groups should band together, they should do so to push back against the organizations like Acorn that give the NPO world a bad name.
— Nicole Oct 21, 03:14 PM #
Pablo, if I am reading your second paragraph correctly, you are in essence saying that liberals would approve of ACORN’s behavior. I do not agree!
So as not to be shunned by their own party, many liberals have remained quiet about ACORN’s history of bad bahavior.
Thank God we have a two-party system!
— Kevin Feldman Oct 21, 03:17 PM #
ACORN suffers the fate it does because of ACORN and no one else.
— Adele Conner Oct 21, 04:12 PM #
First of all, let’s stop acting like this happened to us! ACORN members—low income residents of some of our nation’s poorest communities; and ACORN staff, with an average annual salary of $23,000 — experienced an embezzlement, a massive management screw up, and a cover up by their exec dir. As soon as the board found out, they met and fired the founder/exec dir and others. The board then authorized (and raised the money to pay for) a series of internal investigations and the implementation of new systems.
So let’s at least get this part straight: ACORN members and employees are the VICTIMS of the embezzlement, not the perpetrators. Some of the accusatory tones in these postings make it sound like you think ACORN is some small group of relatively rich people like us. They aren’t.
And why this rush to judgement by our sector? I see no evidence that the whole story has yet been told, so why are you prepared to issue your judgment? Investigations into possible voter registration fraud have not been completed but we come out sounding like the worst elements of a Nancy Grace-style attack: why wait for the justice system to do its work — we already know! Why wait for the full video tapes or transcript — we already know!
I’d like to hear from those who have sat down with ACORN staff, attorneys, or others to get their side of the story — it will give a lot more credence to the comments given here. But if the primary sources are the entertainment media (remember that Glenn Beck,Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and others of that ilk are pretty good at reminding us that they are entertainers, NOT journalists), then a little more investigation is in order. And if the sources are the NYT or NPR, then we should slow down because these outlets are finally doing some original investigation and not just repeating what the entertainers say. (Though Stephanie Strom did do original reporting after the ACORN board met last May, but until recent days, there’s been little original reporting.)
No one needs to respond to the nastiness of a Jeff Steele, but as for the rest of us…please, if you’ve got some inside information then pass it on to law enforcement. Otherwise, consider that Pablo might be right—or at least close to right.
Because I am worried that however ACORN comes out, those who think that being clean and well-managed will protect progressive nonprofits from vicious political attacks are doing their part to weaken the nonprofit sector. ACORN is first, but not last.
— Denise Oct 21, 04:57 PM #
Would CoP run a piece as offensive to liberals as this is to conservatives? Mr. Eisenberg’s race baiting and erroneous observations appear more phobia than worthy of publication by CoP.
— Mark Fitzgibbons Oct 21, 05:44 PM #
The Emperor has new clothes! The liberals are now called “Progressives” but they are still dishing out the same emotion-based garbage as always. If you want to really confuse one, try facts and logic. Those things are totally beyond their understanding.
— Jim Oct 21, 07:52 PM #
Wow, this article is baloney on stilts, and I’m surprised that the CoP would run such a thing. The Acorn incident(s) doesn’t illustrate what happens to nonprofits that don’t “toe the line of conservative ideologues and activists.” Rather it shows what happens to nonprofits that are so poorly run that someone can freely run off with $1m and the staff gives advice on how to set up brothels. There are plenty of progressive organizations that don’t toe the rightwing line, and which are not caught on tape coaching criminal behavior, nor found to have have embezzled seven figure amounts, because they are well run organizations. You would think that Mr. Eisenberg wouldn’t need someone to point that out to him.
And despite Mr. Eisenberg’s attempt to soft pedal the scandals, it was much worse than he would have us believe. Among the things that the actors suggested was bringing in under-age girls from El Salvador to work the brothels. But hey, what’s a little sex slavery when you are doing really good work. Presumably all of that good work happens when they are not busy helping to set up illegal enterprises.
As much as many people (including myself) don’t like Fox News and other partisan blowhards on TV, this often devolves into shooting the messenger. Acorn was filmed giving this advice in multiple locations – clearly there is a systemic problem with their management procedures. The fact that you don’t much like the politics of the people that filmed this is totally irrelevant, nor does it mitigate the fact that Acorn was working to increase criminal activities in the very neighborhoods that they are supposedly working so hard to make better.
The other foundations are pulling back their funding because Acorn has consistently shown that they can’t be trusted with other people’s money – whether it’s embezzlement or helping set up prostitution rings. They can do what they want with their money, but they would be fools to keep giving it to Acorn. If you, Mr. Eisenberg, think that Acorn is so great, then get out your own checkbook.
— bif Oct 21, 08:01 PM #
As you can see, a group like the Galleon Group went out of business today, for bad business practices, why should Acorn be any different?
— Alan White Oct 21, 11:11 PM #
WTF. Where there’s some bad actors there is usaully other bad actors—birds of a feather. It didn’t take long to find four examples of bad actors. Was the attitude of the bad actors just allowed or required? What else is ACORN doing? What other improper/illegal actions has ACORN set in motion? Live by the political action die by the political action. If ACORN wants to help the poor then they should get totally out of politics. So the lesson might be the poor actually get poorer with ACORN. Some can be hypnotised so easily. WAKE UP.
— dj Oct 22, 08:50 AM #
The need for effective oversight of nonprofits continues to be the issue that rises to the surface for me. It is generally left to the office of the Attorney General which tends not to get involved until a situation has risen to the a very serious, media attracting level, as is the case with Acorn.
Let’s get to the essence of the issue, rather than raising concern about the many fine and effective organizations which operate with integrity.
— csk Oct 22, 09:13 AM #
At first I thought that this was a serious article but when I reread it I found it laughable and on the third pass it became downright hilarious. This is an unintentional satirical screed on what is wrong with idealogically bent organizations and what infects those who defend the indefensible. Right or left, wrong is wrong.
— David Buechner Oct 22, 04:39 PM #
When will social action nonprofits get it that we are using other people’s money, and we need to be accountable? Not just in our fiscal management, but in how our staffs function and are trained. What happened was inordinately stupid of the Acorn staffers who were filmed. It also raises questions about how the Acorn operation is run and how it conducts itself in all things. Good intentions are not enough. Care and discretion are also required. We all live in glass houses, and we need to be aware of that at all times. Blaming the guy with the flashlight doesn’t make the action excusable.
— J C Stromberger Oct 23, 01:11 PM #
Thank you, Pablo, for taking a courageous stand. Two thoughts occur to me: First, to my knowledge, Acorn is an enormous and highly decentralized organization, so it’s just plain wrong to extrapolate blame for one local agency’s serious mistake to the whole group. Second is the issue of entrapment: If you’ve got the resources to send a team in search of a weak link in the employee chain at an organization as large as Acorn, you’re bound to find what you’re looking for eventually. (The right wing lies awake at night inventing schemes like this.) These particular Acorn representatives made a huge mistake—but it’s about them and their supervisors, not about the rest of Acorn.
— Ruth Conner Oct 23, 03:43 PM #
This article is a joke…I don’t know of anyone who is defending ACORN right now except for ACORN itself.
— Buddy R Oct 23, 04:45 PM #
Ruth,
The next time two thoughts occur to you, make sure the second one is “Never mind.”).
— Jeff Steele Oct 23, 09:51 PM #
Pablo, Wake up and smell the coffee. I can’t believe you put your name to that. Skeeter Davis said it best,“Apparently Mr. Eisenberg is not aware of the fundamental rule of trust in business, management, leadership, or relationships.”
— Dee Rutter Oct 23, 10:44 PM #