ACORN Investigations: Analyzing the Controversy and Legal Findings
In 2009, the community organizing group ACORN became the center of a national firestorm following the release of undercover videos. These recordings purportedly showed employees providing advice on illegal activities, leading to immediate calls for investigations into the organization's conduct and its use of federal funding. To address these allegations, several independent legal bodies and government agencies launched comprehensive reviews to determine the truth behind the footage.
[ไม่มีภาพประกอบ]
Key Facts
- No Criminality: Multiple investigations, including those by the California and New York authorities, found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by ACORN employees.
- Selective Editing: Investigations revealed that the released videos were heavily edited to create a misleading impression of the events.
- Financial Integrity: The GAO and CRS found no evidence that ACORN mishandled federal funds or violated federal regulations in the five years prior to the reports.
- Privacy Violations: Investigators suggested that the individuals filming the videos may have violated state privacy laws regarding non-consensual recording.
Independent and Federal Reviews
The Proskauer Rose Investigation
On September 16, 2009, ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis froze all service programs and suspended new client intake to facilitate an independent review. This process was led by Scott Harshbarger, a former Massachusetts Attorney General from the firm Proskauer Rose. The investigation concluded that while some employee and volunteer conduct was "unprofessional and inappropriate," the released videos had been substantially edited and no illegal actions were taken by ACORN staff.
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report
Commissioned by the House Judiciary Committee, the CRS released a report on December 22, 2009. The findings indicated that ACORN had not violated any federal regulations or the terms of its federal funding within the previous five years. Crucially, the report found no instances of voter fraud by individuals allegedly registered improperly by ACORN. Additionally, the CRS noted that the filmmakers, O'Keefe and Giles, may have violated laws in California and Maryland that prohibit recording face-to-face conversations without the consent of all parties.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Findings
By the time the GAO released its findings on June 14, 2010, ACORN had already disbanded. The GAO reported that there was no evidence that ACORN or its related organizations had mishandled any of the $40 million in federal money received in recent years.
State-Level Legal Investigations
New York Attorney General and District Attorney
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo launched an investigation on September 15, 2009, to ensure state grants were spent properly. Simultaneously, the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office reviewed the videos. On March 1, 2010, the District Attorney concluded that the videos were "heavily edited" to mislead viewers and found no criminal wrongdoing by the Brooklyn staff.
California Attorney General's Comprehensive Review
Following a request from Governor Schwarzenegger, California Attorney General Jerry Brown conducted an extensive review. To obtain the raw, unedited tapes, the AG granted immunity from prosecution to James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles. The resulting report, released on April 1, 2010, provided a stark contrast to the publicized clips.
The report found that O'Keefe and Giles lied to elicit compassion from low-level employees and edited out their own statements to manipulate the narrative. For example, in a San Diego recording where a worker appeared to help smuggle girls for prostitution, the edited video omitted the fact that the "contact" in Mexico was actually a police official. The employee had collected detailed information and alerted the Mexican police to the plot.
Attorney General Brown noted that O'Keefe did not act as an objective journalist, stating he was intent on damaging ACORN. While the report criticized ACORN for being disorganized and lacking transparency, it concluded that the employees' actions did not rise to the level of prosecutable crimes, but were rather employment matters involving "terrible judgment."
Summary of Investigation Findings
| Investigating Body | Primary Focus | Key Conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Proskauer Rose | Internal Conduct | Unprofessional behavior, but no illegal actions. |
| CRS | Federal Regulations | No federal violations or voter fraud found. |
| GAO | Federal Funding | No evidence of mishandling $40 million in funds. |
| NY Attorney General/DA | State Grants/Criminality | Videos were misleading; no criminal wrongdoing. |
| CA Attorney General | Privacy & Criminality | Videos heavily edited; no prosecutable crimes by staff. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Did ACORN employees commit any crimes according to the investigations?
No. Investigations by the California Attorney General, the Brooklyn District Attorney, and the Proskauer Rose firm all concluded that ACORN employees did not commit prosecutable crimes, though some were criticized for unprofessional behavior.
Was there any evidence of voter fraud?
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report stated that there were no instances of voter fraud by people who were allegedly registered to vote improperly by ACORN or its employees.
How were the undercover videos handled by the investigators?
Investigators found that the videos were heavily and selectively edited to omit salient facts and feature only the most inappropriate statements, creating a misleading impression of the organization's activities.
Did ACORN misuse its federal funding?
No. Both the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found no evidence that ACORN violated the terms of its federal funding or mishandled the $40 million it received.
Were the filmmakers subject to any legal concerns?
Yes. The California Attorney General's report suggested that O'Keefe and Giles violated state privacy laws (the 1967 Invasion of Privacy Act), and the CRS noted potential violations of recording laws in Maryland and California.