Scroll for updates
The decision only applies to contracts that were signed prior to Congress’ vote to ban government funding for the group. Its author focuses on the phrase “provided to” as his basis for the decision.
Mr. Barron said he had based his conclusion on the statute’s phrase “provided to.” This phrase, he said, has no clearly defined meaning in the realm of government spending — unlike such words as “obligate” and “expend.”
Citing dictionary and thesaurus entries, he said “provided to” could be interpreted as meaning only instances in which an official was making “discretionary choices” about whether to give the group money, rather than instances in which the transfer of funds to Acorn was required to satisfy existing contractual obligations.
Since there are two possible ways to construe the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense to pick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breaching contracts.
Naturally. Who knows how many existing contracts are in place or when they expire, but until they do ACORN will continue to receive taxpayer funds for nefarious activities such as providing guidance in obtaining loans for child sex rings and money laundering.
Update: Darrell Issa blasts Justice Department’s decision
But Representative Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said “the bipartisan intent of Congress was clear — no more federal dollars should flow to ACORN.”
“It is telling that this administration continues to look for every excuse possible to circumvent the intent of Congress,” Issa said in a statement. “Taxpayers should not have to continue subsidizing a criminal enterprise that helped Barack Obama get elected president. The politicization of the Justice Department to payback one of the president’s political allies is shameful and amounts to nothing more than old-fashioned cronyism.”