Jump to content

Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.10.215.230 (talk) at 21:40, 30 July 2009 (→‎Embezzlement Charge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Non-partisan

The statement that the group is non-partisan needs to be removed. It's self-proclaimed and is disputed by the fact that the group has entities that engage in political activities and endorsements. It's also contradicted by reliable sources here [1] noting an internal report found that " Project Vote and Acorn made it impossible to document that Project Vote’s money had been used in a strictly nonpartisan manner" here [2] "Acorn, the nation’s largest network, which represents 400,000 families in 110 cities, is quite clearly allied with issues and constituencies that are embraced more often by Democrats than Republicans. Unlike other groups that are strictly nonpartisan, its political action committee has endorsed Barack Obama." And here[3] where it's noted that: The group has been criticized by Republicans as being highly partisan, receives money from Democratic groups, and has been investigated repeatedly for voter registration fraud. "ACORN says it's non-partisan. But the first page of its minimum wage plan says the campaign 'will help defeat George W. Bush and other Republicans by increasing Democratic turnout in a close election.'" And here [4] where the New York Times refers to them as a "liberal community organizing group". ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonpartisan is a technical status having to do with the group's nonprofit status. They are still in that status so they are presumably nonpartisan. There seem to be two counterclaims here, first that despite the technical distinction the group is in fact liberal. That's worth fleshing out so that we don't confuse the reader. It's apples and oranges really. Many nonpartisan organizations have a political bent. That is not worth doing in a claim / counterclaim style. It's well sourced and not reasonably disputable that the organization does have this technical status. People reacting against that and claiming "but they're liberal" are missing the point, and we don't owe it to the readers to repeat opinions that are clearly based on a misunderstanding, whether made by political opponents or Fox News in politicking mode. So there has got to be a more straightforward way to describe it. As to the second part, if there is any internal doubt or external criticism that they are breaking the tax law let's see it. The NY Times source here is indirect - it does not find that the group in fact has violated its status, but itself cites an internal audit of some kind. If there are serious claims or any action on the subject they deserve some note, but not int he lead - it does not seem to be that central an issue. Finally, some time back there were proposals that never gained consensus to mention voter registration fraud and Republican election tactics in the lead. I continue to think that highlighting them in the lead unduly politicizes the article, and is of undue weight. They already have a healthy paragraph each in the body of the article. Wikidemon (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources for the non-partisan designation is the group's claim and a couple mention in articles about voter registration fraud (which you won't allow to be included in the lead). We have numerous descriptions conflicting with this designation. We know the group endorses democrats, receives money from Democratic groups, is described as being liberal by the New York Times (you can't be liberal, a political designation and non-partisan which means you aren't involved in politics). So we have this utterly non-notable bit that's disputed in numerous sources and yet you're trying to keep it in the lead. Where is the substantial coverage of it? We know that some divisions of ACORN have to be non-partisan to do voter registration efforts, but other parts are engaged in political activities as is made clear in the reliable sources I've provided. We need to stop misleading and confusing our readers and to remove this innaccurate statement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with the gist of that objection to the "nonpartisan" designation. Even assuming it is technically true, it is not terribly noteworthy as shown by the fact that relatively few sources see fit to mention it. Moreover, it potentially misleads the reader, as evidenced by the need of most sources to qualify or dispute it when they do mention it. I too question why the "nonpartisan" statement is important in the lead. If it is sourced and relevant it can go in the body in a description of the organization structure, and even there it is best put in context, something like "As a xxxx[designate type of organiation] Acorn is required by tax law to be nonpartisan. In practice, it has openly supported Democratic candidates for office and advanced liberal positions, and some critics question whether by doing so it has violated the tax rules for such organizations." (assuming proper sourcing). There are other sources to be sure. I haven't had a chance to vet all of these but in a few seconds on google I have Washington Post[5], San Francisco Chronicle,[6] Chicago Sun-Times,[7] fairvote[8]. Wall Street Journal says the project vote was the nonpartisan operation / wing.[9] All in all not a big haul of sources. Wikidemon (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a little background reading, I see our article Nonpartisan mentions the issue of tax-status versus de facto sympathy with a particular political party right in the lead of that article. Moreover, that lead mentions the National Rifle Association as an example of such a nominally-nonpartisan-but-sympathetic-to-Republicans organization. Following the link to the NRA article, that particular organization lists its nonpartisan status in its categories, but not in the article lead. Just one data point. LotLE×talk 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for more data points, I started browsing the category for "Nonpartisan US organizations". Here I'm only interested in ones with a clear de facto political slant. Given the methodology, all of these obviously do include the category:

The "take away" I start to get from this is that we are not all alone in listing "nonpartisan" in the lead description, but neither is doing so the most common approach of Wikipedia articles on analogous organizations. I would not object to removing the adjective from the lead (but leaving in the category).LotLE×talk 17:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are interesting results. Thanks for looking into the issue. Much appreciated. Of the two that do include the non-partisan designation, the Future of American Democracy Foundation appears to be legitimately non-partisan (in principle and fact). Calling the Los Angeles National Impeachment Center, a group dedicated to impeaching George W. Bush non-partisan seems ridiculous and should be clarified or excised.
I have no objection to noting ACORN's technical non-partisan designation (although it seems to apply only to one part of the organization?) with context in the article body. Stating it in the lead when it's disputed by political activities, endorsements, alignments, and media coverage, I don't think is right. I'm open to alternative suggestions if there's a better approach, but removing it or addressing it in the body of the article seems to me to be the best approach. Thanks again for taking my concerns seriously and looking into them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add a few comments and questions of my own. Like CoM, I was formerly under the impression that "partisan" = "involved in politics", and as such one could only logically apply the nonpartisan label to ACORN's non-Political Action branches. Then I learned the real meaning of the label, and its "of a party" requirement. ACORN is an issue-driven organization, not a party-controlled organization. We can all agree the majority of issues championed by ACORN are also championed by Democrats, but that is not what defines partisanship. Take a look at the now famous video of ACORN members waving John McCain signs and cheering him as he spoke about immigration. Was ACORN for Republicans before ACORN was against Republicans (if I may so mutilate a now popular political turn of phrase)? No, it was not about political party, it was about issues and McCain was saying what this nonpartisan organization wanted to hear. This was previously discussed, by the way, a couple sections up on this very page. See heading: Quote of WSJ article re" partisan /non-partisan
Looking closer at the interesting wordplay used above, being called "liberal" does not indicate party affiliation. Endorsing Obama for president does not equal "endorsing Democratic candidates" just because he is one, nor does it imply multiple endorsements indicated by "candidateS". Looking at CoMs 4 reference links in the initial paragraph above, "self-proclaimed non-partisan" does not mean it isn't also proclaimed in reliable secondary sources. Project Vote does not equal ACORN. Saying other groups are "strictly non-partisan" does not mean ACORN is not nonpartisan. "Criticized by Republicans as being highly partisan..." doesn't mean they are, obviously; it merely means it's election time again. "The first page of its minimum wage plan says..." nothing of the sort (although I would welcome being proven wrong on this. Link, please?). "...investigated repeatedly for voter registration fraud," has nothing to do with partisanship. In summary, where's the beef?
Wikidemon, how does having the description "non-partisan" in the article "potentially mislead the reader"? It is present in a sentence that, in my opinion, sufficiently precludes any sort of misunderstanding:
ACORN is a non-profit, nonpartisan social justice organization, but its legally separate political action arm frequently champions liberal causes, and endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008.
I suggest that the confusion (resulting in "the need of most sources to qualify or dispute it when they do mention it") is manufactured, in much the same way "voter registration fraud" is confused with "voter fraud" to give the scary false impression of tainted election results instead of the actual reality of a worker trying to make an easy buck. Just about every mention of a voter registration issue is also accompanied by the clarification that it "isn't voter fraud, and no unauthorized votes were cast, nor were any legal votes denied, yada yada...). I suggest that having the accurate, reliably sourced "non-partisan" description in the lead serves to clear up confusion, not add to it. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xenophrenic: I agree that the sentence about the nonpartisan nature of ACORN is worth having in the article. I am not one of those who misunderstands the term to mean "non-political" or whatever. They are most certainly not affiliated with any party, and hardly always agree with Democrats (usually because ACORN is far to the left of the Dems, actually). However, per the evidence I gave above of analogous nonpartisan organizations, I think the weight of Wikipedia editorial patterns suggests the sentence is better put in the article body rather than its lead. I'm not terribly happy about you reverting my edit that did that. LotLE×talk 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@LotLE: I felt a similar unhappiness when I saw you implement a change "per discussion" that I wasn't a party to, despite being a recent editor of the content in question. I did not mean to dismiss your research into editing trends, and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been about my reasoning as it pertains to your findings. Allow me to succinctly explain my position as it relates to your conclusions. (1) The "partisan/nonpartisan" description is found in the lead in some analagous articles, although not the majority of them. (2) The question of partisanship is of particular interest with regard to this organization, as noted by Wikidemon's observation that many sources make extra effort to explain the status. (3) CoM's opinion (as well as the similar opinion of other editors) makes clear that, unlike in the other articles you reviewed, the partisanship issue is of significant importance.
The partisanship is questioned several times in the article, under multiple headings, with multiple mentions of ACORN endorsing Obama, Republicans questioning endorsements, accusations of conflict of interest, accusations by conservatives of ineligibility for certain government funds. It is my understanding that when this much main-body content is devoted to the partisanship issue, having a single summary sentence in the lead is not only appropriate, but routine practice. If I am misunderstanding something here, please let me know. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue here is that "non-partisan" has a specific meaning here which is likely not to be the meaning a reader ascribes to it. The meaning is brought out clearly in the text. Explaining it in the lead would be too much detail for the lead. So, best not mention it in the lead at all. PhGustaf (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Nonpartisan has a specific meaning everywhere, not just here. If a reader is unclear on the meaning of the word, it has been conveniently wikilinked. If they are still prone to ascribing a different meaning to the word, that should be remedied by the fact that its use is self-clarifying, by the single sentence in which it is used. No need for "too much detail" at all. Just to be sure I am not misunderstanding your assessment, could you tell me what meaning you feel a reader is likely to ascribe to the word? And if you feel the word requires a much detailed explanation later in the article, how would you phrase that explanation? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible meanings include "taking no political position", "endorsing no political party or candidate", and "qualifying as a 25 USC 501(c) non-profit corporation". In this context it means the last, as it does for the NRA, where Democrats are about as common as they are in NASCAR. Without qualifiers, the word suggests they take no political position, which is silly. PhGustaf (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the narrow point of where the "nonpartisan" sentence goes, I think we should follow the example of the strong majority of analogous articles. ACORN is not alone in being accused of "partisanship" in the informal sense of "taking political positions" notwithstanding their non-party 501(c) nonpartisan status. That is, this information is a bit notable, but its intricacies belong in the body not the lead (per my recent edit). Counter Xenophrenic, many of the other organizations I found in my brief research above are equally subject to discussion of "partisanship" (no one ever breaths a word about the Heritage Foundation (nor the NRA) without mentioning its political slant, nor pretends it is "non-political" because it is nonpartisan). However, I think PhGustaf's concern is somewhat misguided. We can wikilink nonpartisan to indicate what it actually means. I'm sure someone can misunderstand the word if they don't know US tax law... just like I'm sure many people misunderstand what "non-profit" means (which is different from both "not-for-profit" and "non-profitable" in ways that some readers don't know "without qualifiers"). Wikilinking is an excellent capability. LotLE×talk 16:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Wikilink is all it's worth. From the above discussion, the "officially nonpartisan but accused of having a political agenda" thing seems to reflect either a common misunderstanding or a common rhetorical device that goes with the territory of any politically-oriented 501(c)(3), not a legitimate criticism or real controversy. The reader is best educated by learning the substance of the event, not hollow criticism. Maybe the link to "nonpartisan" could be further refined by also linking to a subsection that goes over this. The notion that these organizations draw that kind of criticism is best centralized in articles about political action groups as a whole. Wikidemon (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what where the outcome of this discussion is heading. At the very least I hope the word non-partisan can be moved to the body. Alternatively it can just be replaced by 501c3 which is more to the point anyway, Describing politicized and politically active groups like the NRA and ACORN as non-partisan is very misleading and confusing. We can do better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon and ChildofMidnight are mistaken to think that ACORN is 501(c)(3). That status is reserved for tax-deductible organizations, which ACORN is not. They are incorporated under one of those 501(c) articles, most likely, but it wouldn't be (3). The correct word to get at what we are trying to say is indeed, and exactly, "nonpartisan" (just like the NRA and Heritage are... neither of which are probably (c)(3) either; I'm sure Heritage isn't). I tend to agree with Wikidemon's idea that a simple wikilink to the relevant article (maybe a subsection of it that we create) is better than the current "nonpartisan but that doesn't mean what you might mistakenly think" approach we currently have. Whether that is in lead or body... well, in the body the current explanation doesn't seem bad, but if we leave the adjective in the lead, I definitely prefer the short, bare wikilink. LotLE×talk 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's 501C(4), but they don't say and it doesn't matter much. Donations are tax deductible[10], which is the point. Your changes look fine. PhGustaf (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's figure out how Acorn is organized, then use and source the right term with a link to that article, rather than confusing things with the word "nonpartisan" - which itself is only going to be one among several things that come with being that type of corporation. It adds little, and confuses much, to call them nonpartisan. True, they aren't affiliated with a party. But most orgs are not, so it goes without saying. Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... there's some subtlety here, PhGustaf. It appears that the ACORN Institute is a 501(c)(3) tax deductible organization. However, that Institute is not ACORN itself. I would guess that ACORN, the parent organization, is 501(c)(4), but I'm not sure (however, I am pretty sure that they are not tax deductible). It is not uncommon to organize sister organizations where one acts on the tax deductible aspect of an overall purpose, but the other side does things that wouldn't be eligible for tax deductible status. I suspect that is what's going on here.
Good point about "Institute". Two groups I'm associated with, Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club have, as you suggest, separate practical and political arms, one whose donations are deductible and the other not. There's a little nudging and winking involved. Perhaps Acorn is the same way, but we surely have no cite. PhGustaf (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Wikidemon's newest comment is that "nonpartisan" simply is the correct and straightforward term for the sense in which ACORN (or NRA, Heritage, etc) are not affiliated with a political party. To try to come up with some original circumlocution just promotes some other misunderstanding in some other subset of readers (as well as bordering on WP:OR). It really doesn't "go without saying", however, that an organization with distinct political goals is nonpartisan; distinguishing between these nonpartisan organizations and, e.g., the Democratic Leadership Council or Republican Leadership Council is a worthwhile bit of information we should give to readers. Just saying that ACORN has 501(c)(4) status (assuming that's correct) fails to do so, since DLC/RLC probably have the same filing status. LotLE×talk 00:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a complicated organization and the sources indicate they have parts that are most definitely partisan and that do political endorsements and fundraising etc. The link PhGustaf provided, for example, targets the Republican party and its chairman specifically. So that certainly falls into the category of what partisanship is all about. If there is something about the organization's tax status or legal status that needs to be said, (that they aren't allowed to officially affiliate with a political party?) then include that. But the word non-partisan is way too confusing and doesn't add anything meaningful or encyclopedic to people's understanding about what ACORN is or isn't. I don't even think it's accurate to say they aren't affiliated with a political party. It's best to avoid this kind of ambiguity and misleading wording and to be clear about what's most notable. As it's only mentioned in a few articles about voting issues, the questions of partisanship are probably best left out all together. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking Michael Steele (or any politician of a particular political party) absolutely does not make an organization "partisan" in itself. Even more particularly, the link PhGustaf gives doesn't even have a whiff of partisanship in its actual meaning (as opposed to in some meaning-of-the-week about "non-political", or "does-things-I-dislike"). Steele apparently attacked ACORN, and he Acorn Institute disagrees with that attack on its sister organization. One would presume that if Tim Kaine also attacked ACORN, ACORN itself or the Acorn Institute would react in a similar manner... or in any case, their reaction would not come out of party affiliation. Likewise, and obviously, the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland might like or dislike some particular politician, and make statements about why their theological beliefs promoted that. The Catholics are equally nonpartisan (even though tending to lean in a particular direction among the US political parties). LotLE×talk 00:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ACORN Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) organization. The main ACORN organization is registered as "tax-exempt", but does not specify a (c)(3) designation. The IRS recognizes 174 "affiliated organizations" under the ACORN name. In 2008, records from one source showed at least 3 of ACORN's social welfare lobbying PACs were registered as 501(c)(4), allowing for a lot more political activism. (Heritage was definitely, at one time, a 501(c)(3), but I am not sure of their present status -- and note that the non-profit NRA also endorses candidates).
I agree with LotLE's most recent edits to the article. My biggest objection was against dumbing down the article because some readers may be uneducated about the meaning of a word. Nonpartisan doesn't mean non-political (for Pete's sake, ACORN was founded to BE a political organization that would take political postions); it doesn't mean non-liberal or non-conservative; it isn't the same as "bipartisan". My second objection was against having the word removed from the lead when it summarized, per WP:LEAD, the large sections of content in the main body devoted to discussing it. As the edits are now, they inform the reader, instead of perpetuate misconceptions. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I feel like I'm witnessing the incredible morphing deletion attempt.

  • First, it was "'nonpartisan' is inaccurate and self-sourced! Delete it!" (Editors then showed it was very accurate, and from reliable secondary sources.)
  • Next it was "Ok, so it's accurate, but it is confusing to some readers! Delete it!" (Editors then wikilinked it to avoid any confusion.)
  • Next, it was "but 'nonpartisan' isn't notable information!" Delete it! (Editors pointed out the fact that it is so notable that many sources go into extended detail describing its nonpartisan status, and the challenges to it.)
  • Next, it was "But the word is already in the body of the text! Delete it!" (Editors pointed out it is WP:LEAD compliant to summarize main body content in the lead, most especially controversies.)

This is beginning to take on the appearance of a premade decision to remove this word based on a particular point of view, followed by a tour through the wikilawyer rulebook in an attempt to find a policy to justify that decision. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've pegged it, Xenophrenic. Welcome to the world of CoM. LotLE×talk 19:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous editors have explained why non-partisan is innacurate and confusing. Sources have been provided contradicting it. It's also not notable enough to be in the intro as it was mentioned in a couple of articles about voter registration fraud investigations (something not included in the introduction). It's been moved to the body where it belongs and needs to be removed from the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case anyone wants to hear me repeat myself, I agree with CoM's comment above and I don't think I'm pushing any agenda here, just wanting the article to best inform the reader. Also, a friendly nudge to others here, please be friendly even when disagreeing! Wikidemon (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Repetition does not equal accuracy. Addressing each of CoM's statements that Wikidemon agrees with above:
  • Numerous editors have explained why non-partisan is innacurate [sic]...
No, they haven't. At least not in the sources you have provided. Some sources directly say ACORN is nonpartisan, while others feel the need to add "...but tends to be liberal." Even your NY Times report about the attorney's internal memo doesn't say ACORN isn't nonpartisan — it just points out due to shoddy record keeping, lack of audits and cross-affiliate employees, ACORN couldn't provide proof if needed. Exactly the problems this attorney was hired to find, and help remedy, which the article informs us was well underway last year. You can find plenty of accusations & criticisms every election cycle, but you still haven't provided a source showing they are not nonpartisan. We can't be any more disingenuous when we say, "That word is inaccurate, so stick it in the body of the article." This is telling; if it isn't true, it shouldn't be anywhere in the article.
  • ...and confusing.
We resolved that complaint by wikilinking it. In the interest of "wanting the article to best inform the reader", any confusion as to the nonpartisan status of the organization should be cleared up as soon in the article as possible, and not buried near the end of the article.
  • Sources have been provided contradicting it.
Incorrect. Please provide a source showing ACORN is not nonpartisan, instead of just accusations, criticisms, charges, allegations, speculation and hearsay.
  • It's also not notable enough to be in the intro as it was mentioned in a couple of articles about voter registration fraud investigations (something not included in the introduction).
Being mentioned in articles supports its notability, not the converse. Accusations of voter registration fraud are not in the lead, correct, and neither are accusations of partisanship. It is disingenuous to say, "it is not notable enough to be in the intro, so stick it in the body." If it isn't notable, it shouldn't be anywhere in the article.
  • It's been moved to the body where it belongs and needs to be removed from the introduction.
It does? What is the reason this time? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It boils down to confusion and noteworthiness (my new name for it, to distinguish it from WP:N). Regarding confusion, of course it confuses the reader to call an organization "nonpartisan" when it has a political slant. It's correct but confusing because of the difference between the technical meaning of the word and the common usage. Indeed the word can be partly resolved by linking to the technical definition of "nonpartisan". But not completely - how many people actually click on the link rather than assuming incorrectly they know what it means? Moreover, the fact that it is nonpartisan goes without saying - all similar organizations are. There isn't anything particularly remarkable about Acorn in this regard. Mentions in the press tend to show that something is worth noting in the article, but that is not the only test. We are written in encyclopedic tone, not news-speak, so the phraseology the press chooses to use to identify things is not the wording we choose. There are plenty of places, most places, where we use our own language to paraphrase things. We don't call summer days "balmy" or winter "frigid", or blame "mother nature" for a deluge of rain, as a newspaper might. When dealing with common misconceptions or words with multiple technical meanings in different context (as in, whether black is the absence of color, or a color, or a perception, or whether tomatoes are a fruit or a vegetable), we use some editorial discretion. The point is to educate the reader. If we want to fully educate the reader, and be technically correct, we can link to the type of organization it is, not that it is nonpartisan, which is but one attribute of that type of organization. Wikidemon (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Approximately the same number of readers misunderstand "nonpartisan" (despite the wikilinking) as misunderstand other adjectives in the lead, such as "community-based", "non-profit", "social justice", "lobbying". I really do think the success rate for readers is about exactly the same for all of those... it's just that the right-wing ACORN-haters put more words into encouraging the one misunderstanding than they do the others. The fact someone could misunderstand amounts to wikilink, but no more than that.
Moreover, it does not "go without saying" that ACORN is nonpartisan. Many similar organizations are not nonpartisan. I gave the examples of the 501(c)(4) organizations DLC and RLC above as counterexamples. The word really doesn't have the vague or multiple meanings that some editors seem to be pretending... it just has some pundits who deliberately and grossly misread it by inventing wrong meanings. But we're not the Mad Hatter here. LotLE×talk 17:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACORN and the National Rifle Association are partisan organizations. They are closely affiliated with one party, they campaign for one party, and they work against the other party. Stating that they are non-partisan (because part of their operations are required by law to abide by certain rules) without qualifying the statement is simply dishonest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, whatever! And up is down, left is right, and winter is summer. LotLE×talk 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tomatoes are referred to, factually, in the lead, as a fruit. The confusion between fruit and vegetable is explained in detail later in the body of the article. ACORN is referred to, factually, in the lead, as nonpartisan. The confusion between nonpartisan and partisan is explained in detail later in the body of the article. Thank you for the analogy.
When I use the Google on ACORN + partisan, I get more than a quarter million hits. On ACORN + "voter fraud", I get over a quarter million hits. ACORN, in 40 years of operation, has never committed voter fraud, nor even faced that charge a single time in a court of law. However, there is reader confusion about these terms because of (what Wikidemon has termed) common usage. The source of the confusion is the same for both terms, and the "common usage" is intentional; that source was generally described in LotLE's most recent comment. It is likely the same reader confused about one of these terms is also confused about the other. Every election cycle, conservative forces launch their misinformation campaigns against the liberal-agenda-driven ACORN; citing individual worker misdeeds during registration and falsely calling it "voter fraud"; citing ACORN policies favored by Democrats, and donations given by Democrats, and falsely calling it partisanship. Voter Fraud and Partisanship (while claiming a tax-exempt status) are both federal crimes, felonies, and while the frivolous accusations have become routine and cyclical (and yes, undeniably "noteworthy"), there has never been a conviction.
ACORN and the NRA are nonpartisan organizations. They are closely affiliated with their respective issues, they campaign for these issues, and they work against opposing issues. Stating that they are partisan just because the issues they champion frequently mirror the issues embraced by a particular political party is simply dishonest. Hiding or burying the fact that they are nonpartisan is a thinly veiled attempt to perpetuate the cause of the disinformation campaigns.
I'm still waiting for a reliable source showing ACORN is not nonpartisan. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, ACORN is not nonpartisan. Name ONE (1) Just ONE Republican they have in any way helped... at all. Just one. We all know... it's almost fact, that they support the Democratic ticket, especially President Obama. Wikipedia CANNOT lie. It isn't right. They're also under investigation for voter fraud, a fact not mentioned in the beginning paragraph. And then all the money.... You need to remove "nonpartisan." User:anonymous user (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.45.83 (talk • contribs) [reply]
"it's almost fact" — that summarizes the above comment nicely. Just another illustration that the disinformation campaigns do effectively resonate with a certain percentage of the public. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following to the article to prove that ACORN is nonpartisian: "It is also nonpartisan, because half of its members voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections." Grundle2600 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whom someone votes for has nothing to do with partisanship. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was reverted almost immediately. I see that my point has been made. Now to be serious, I added the following to the introduction: "While ACORN is classified as nonpartisan for tax purposes, its members and activities generally side in favor of left wing, liberal, and progressive causes." Grundle2600 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the general focus of your edit (with some tweaks probably) and have discussed that above, but others seem to disagree and it does not seem to have won over a consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tried some tweaks (basically returning to the wording of a couple months ago). It now directly states they are nonpartisan, satisfying the concerns of some editors, while also directly stating they usually lean left in their activities -- without all the wishy-washy words diluting those two facts. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACORN Voter Registration Fraud in 14 States

Why has it not been included in this article about the indictment of ACORN in 14 states for Voter Registration Fraud? Also about the controversy surrounded the ponzi scheme this organization is in the middle of? How their connections with organized labor put them in conflict with so many programs they are getting federal money for ? this article is very biased!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellieida (talk • contribs) 03:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add content. Be sure to cite the content to reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider to be a reliable source Mr. Xenophrenic? Someone's blog? An opinion article in Newsweek (not much better). This ACORN article is OUTRAGEOUSLY biased, and is being watched and gaurdeded by like thinking individuals who seem to have the power to censor those that disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterwj (talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia considers a reliable source is explained in detail here. No editor has the "power to censor", and all editors are welcome and encouraged to improve articles, as long as they follow Wikipedia policies. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Censorship is quite common on Wikipedia. A pack of partisans hangs out on the Obama articles and related subjects and tries to keep out all notable dissent. It's pretty saddening and there's an Arbcom proceeding dealing with it. Believe it or not they're siding with those violating the wp:NPOV guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse enforcement of Wikipedia editing policies with censorship. Wikipedia has numerous rules and guidelines specifically constructed to prevent the subtle introduction of disinformation, speculation, innuendo, half-truth and rumor into articles, even when cleverly disguised as notable dissent by packs of partisans. Do not be saddened; you will find that packs of partisans never prevail — even in the case of Obama-related articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is articles like this that threaten to make Wikipedia little more than a joke. I don't know a single article about a conservative person or organization that does not — fittingly enough — have a criticism section (or the equivalent thereof). By contrast, articles like these have little to no criticism whatsoever (unless it is immediately and irremediably contested (or "put into perspective") by some "expert") and read like company fact sheets. (Oh yes, of course, we can just "add it ourselves", can't we; but as a veteran of these edition wars, I know that within a day, or less, that information has been watered down, or eliminated entirely; in contrast to conservative articles, where positive — and even neutral — assessments are (at best) qualified and put into doubt throughout the text.) Where, for example, is the information contained in articles such as The Truth About ObamACORN by Michelle Malkin?! Asteriks (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"American constitutional government cannot survive if the population count is managed and manipulated by organizations with partisan bias" writes Phyllis Schlafly in Get Acorn Out Of Our Pockets, Elections, regarding the fact that the Obama administration chose Acorn to recruit counters for the 2010 Census (and they are already canvassing neighborhoods). "The importance of a fair and accurate count cannot be overestimated because the count can give one party an unfair advantage and control over America for the next decade." Where is the Wikipedia article is this view (or criticism) openly and fairly expressed? Asteriks (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles in general do not have criticism sections. I see no liberal / conservative divide here. This one has some significant information about Acorn, which it (correctly) organizes by topic and within sections by chronological order, rather than dividing it into "praise" and "criticism". At the same time the quality of the article is only so-so, and it could stand some improvement. If you feel that another article is substandard, you can discuss or work on that article in its own article space. Criticism like the conspiracy-ish editorial you posted is, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, discussed only if it is noteworthy in the context of the article. A single person's making a speculative claim is not terribly noteworthy, but particularly prevalent or well known examples, such as McCain's claim about Acorn stealing the election, do get mentioned. Wikidemon (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source about ACORN being investigated in 14 states.[11] Showtime2009 (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

This article seems to be heavily biased in favor of ACORN. I noticed scant, if any mention of the 2008 voter fraud, and even where I found a single mention, it did not seem to mention that ACORN was even at fault. --Scouto2 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion. The majority of two sections, about 15 sentences in all, are devoted to this issue. Reading through them, the wording could be improved. As it is, taken in total it sounds somewhat defensive in my opinion. Note that the issue is voter registration fraud. No serious allegations and no conclusions were ever made of actual vote fraud. Wikidemon (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embezzlement Charge

I added a segment taken directly from the Founder's wikipedia article. It is relevant, because it deals directly with the organization. If somebody is scrubbing this article to remove unfavorable information, then it will vanish. But I would find it hard for somebody to justify that, since it has reliable sources, and is not alligation. Mushrom (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the addition. The exact same material appears in the same level of detail, in the section above. Please assume good faith about other editors' motivations, and do not use article talk pages to make accusations to the contrary. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do like this edit[12] though. I've added back the quote marks and mentioned that the quote comes from the Times. Would it be better to paraphrase rather than quote the news source? That might be hard given the loaded words like "enemies" and "strident".Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting an article that quotes a person who speaks in words that further require emphasis quotes is a cumbersome business. Your edit was a definite improvement. I'm not sure converting the paragraph into prose would convey the same meaning, as we would be paraphrasing the NYT reporter, and she is already paraphrasing much of what Rathke said. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking if you believe this issue is resolved. Did the president of ACORN write this herself? 72.10.215.230 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 census

With regards to this revert, even if there weren't any criticism of its involvement, isn't being involved with a census a notable part of an organization's history? Andjam (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rep. Michele Bachmann seems to hold a large number of beliefs which can most generously be described as "bat-shit insane" (the cited source even says as much). The fact she seems to have some fantasy about ACORN and the census is pretty much automatically irrelevant (though possibly germane to her article). Do you have a source for information on ACORNs actual involvement with the US census. It is conceivably relevant--but definitely not at the level of a whole major section--if we find out what the story is actually about. LotLE×talk 08:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came across one reliable source about congress not limiting their involvement, but I'd prefer to come across more than one before flat out saying that they are involved, especially as more coverage will probably be available soon. Can you please take back the bat... label for BLP reasons? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I look forward to reading solid sources on ACORNs connection to the US census.
The WP:BLP concern isn't as you suggest; my opinion of Bachmann is clearly that, my personal opinion, and my summarization may be colorful, but is is not anything close to libelous. Moreover, this is obviously a discussion where I suggest context, on a talk page. An opinion like mine, even well cited to published sources, might raise a concern in article space, but it doesn't in talk space.
On a similar line, in the archive of this talk page, you will find many examples of editors stating their negative opinions of ACORN or of individuals connected with the organization. While few of those merit any consideration within the article itself, I would not dream of suggesting they were BLP concerns sitting in the talk page (merely that they were unhelpful to writing the article). LotLE×talk 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From The Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 26, 2009:

"ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) is one of 40,000 organizations nationwide that are working with the Census Bureau to promote the census, said Nick Kimball, a spokesman for the Commerce Department, the bureau's parent agency.

'They're getting no money from the Census Bureau, and it's incredibly misleading to insinuate that ACORN will be going door to door, collecting information. It's simply not true,' he said." Abeger (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census
The U.S. Census Bureau is working with several national organizations to help recruit 1.4 million workers to produce the country's 2010 census, including one with a history of voter fraud charges: ACORN.[13]
We have two sources with differing numbers as to just how many "organizations" will be involved in the census unless one is able to meld "several" with "40,000", to say nothing of the voter fraud charge and multiple convictions [14][15]Eyesockett (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you've got a link to an opinion column in the WSJ, a link to "conservative politicians attack ACORN again, and here at FAUX News we take them seriously", and a link to the old voter fraud story, where the guy actually convicted says, ""When I did it, when my team did it, it wasn't to steal any election". And this all proves what? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the Wall Street Journal opinion piece is based upon a nonfactual assertion? One would think that a reliable source such as the Journal would not permit that. When someone is convicted of fraud, fraud is the crime not to mitigated by rationalizations/excuses . But I will now search for newsworthy source to support the facts posited by Mr.Fund. I do think we need to remember that facts exist in their own right and should not be subject to political skewness.Eyesockett (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I a very new at this so bear with me. Would the follow source from the Seattle Times fulfill[16] the requirement of supporting some of Mr. Fund's factual claims? If so then let us use it to support Mr. Fund and perhaps answer: "And this all proves what?" Eyesockett (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also at a loss as to what you are asserting here. ACORN has been convicted of fraud? Never. ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud? Never. The Seattle Times article you cited mentions charges of registration fraud, not voter fraud, and says nothing about convictions (although I believe a few workers eventually pled guilty to certain charges). Every two years during the election cycles, like clockwork, ACORN deals with routine registration fraud accusations. With thousands of temporary paid workers dealing with millions of registrations, there are typically a few bad apples that ACORN and the authorities weed out; just as described in the article. As for the other sources you mentioned above, yes, it appears ACORN will be among the hundreds of organizations enlisted to help with the 2010 census. When that happens, I'm sure that, too, will become part of the article. What, exactly, was your concern? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I am also at a loss as to what you are asserting here. ACORN has been convicted of fraud? Never. ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud? Never." I do not remember stating such. That would be editorialize (POVing) would it not? what i prefer to do is to let the news do the talking. I believe this statement is self annihilating: "The Seattle Times article you cited mentions charges of registration fraud, not voter fraud, and says nothing about convictions (although I believe a few workers eventually pled guilty to certain charges." I do believe a plea of guilt serves as a self conviction!

two quotes from the article will suffice:

ACORN President Maude Hurd said in a statement, "It appears that a handful of temporary workers were trying to get paid for work they hadn't actually done. While we don't think the intent or the result of their actions was to allow any ineligible person to vote, these employees defrauded ACORN and imposed a burden on the time and resources of registrars and law enforcement."

"Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Stephen Hobbs told the board that six ACORN workers had admitted filling out registration forms with names they found in phone books last October. The canvassers filled out the forms while sitting around a table at the downtown Seattle Public Library, Hobbs said."

what does it mean when one says "I am guilty as charged" if not an admission of guilt to the charge?? In this case fraudEyesockett (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the speaker says he was guilty. The articles make it clear that this was a pattern of greed and desperation by lowest-level workers for ACORN; ACORN as an organization was not charged, much less convicted, except in the kangaroo courts of the far-right blogosphere. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
orange mike's point of view is pejorative to the collaborative spirit espoused by wiki and i find that sad. I have not formed conclusions about Acorn. Indeed when challenged on the neutrality of a WSJ opinion piece, i produced a neutral news article in supporting of Mr. Fund's factual claims.
Don't be silly; Orange Mike didn't express a point of view. He reiterated the fact that ACORN is always under frivolous accusation by the far-right fringe, and he said nothing about your conclusions or opinions. The sad act doesn't fly. I noticed that this was the one fact from my comment above that you also declined to respond to. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to this: eyesockett: 'what does it mean when one says "I am guilty as charged"' orangemike "It means that the speaker says he was guilty. it could be said that if multiplied enough one could argue that a "culture of corruption" is tolerated thus impugning the organization. i do not believe that is a correct conclusion, but it does not mean that Acorn does not have a problem worthy of note. Surely we do not want the Acorn article to be a "botoxed" promotional.Eyesockett (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please specifically state what this "problem worthy of note" is. It isn't clear to me from the above conversation. Could you also clearly state what "factual claims" of Mr. Fund are supported by the article you cited? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Please specifically state what this "problem worthy of note" is." Charges of fraud will diminish the public's trust in ACORN whatever its etiology; systemic or individual, regardless of the causative agent, incompetence/criminal. When one read this:
"....During the 2008 election season, ACORN gathered over 1.3 million voter registration forms in 21 states. Many of these registration forms were flagged by ACORN's internal auditors for election official review, with approximately 400,000 being ultimately rejected as incomplete, duplicated or fraudulent." from the article page under voter registration..." from the article page under the subtitle 'voter registration' coupled with reliable sources reporting convictions and ongoing national investigations in many states there can be no doubt the egregious effect, rightly or wrongly, upon the public's trust of ACORN. Thus it is a "problem worthy of note".Eyesockett (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Diminish the public's trust in ACORN?" Incorrect. Charges of registration fraud by ACORN workers will diminish ACORN's trust in it's employees. It is ACORN that is being defrauded (as it says in your sources), not the public. I ask you again to reiterate what this "problem worthy of note" is. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Could you also clearly state what "factual claims" of Mr. Fund are supported by the article you cited" - yes I could, given that the articles i cited were the Seattle Times[[17]] and the Wall Street Journal[[18]]. Would you like me to clearly state what "factual claims" made by Mr. Fund are supported by the article I cited? Assuming yes I offer the following:

WSJ's Fund: "Elsewhere, Washington state prosecutors fined Acorn $25,000 after several employees were convicted of voter registration fraud in 2007. The group signed a consent decree with King County (Seattle), requiring it to beef up its oversight or face criminal prosecution......" Seattle Times: "ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again.

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is the worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington. There has been nothing comparable to this," state Secretary of State Sam Reed said at a news conference with Satterberg, King County Executive Ron Sims and Acting U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan." .... ACORN President Maude Hurd said in a statement, "It appears that a handful of temporary workers were trying to get paid for work they hadn't actually done. While we don't think the intent or the result of their actions was to allow any ineligible person to vote, these employees defrauded ACORN and imposed a burden on the time and resources of registrars and law enforcement."

It needs be noted that Mr. Fund went on to other claims that need to be source elsewhere. Eyesockett (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that Mr. Fund is looking out for the best interest of ACORN? ACORN was defrauded by it's own workers, and suffered for it. The only harm to the public was the wasted time needed to investigate the trouble caused by the few problem employees, and ACORN paid that $25,000 in investigation fees. It appears you are confusing the work ACORN does for the public with the work employees do for ACORN. What "other claims" of Fund's need to be noted? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it is well sourced that there have been incidents and convictions of voter registration fraud by ACORN employees, and in a few cases accusations against the organization itself or its managers. The Nevada case involved their registration incentive pay system being illegal per state law. What we have are a small chorus of Republican operatives and commentators complaining that ACORN is a bad seed (pun intended), and because they can't be trusted they should not have a hand in the census counts. The more paranoid and conspiracy-oriented would take that farther and say ACORN is trying to steal elections to favor the Democrats, whether by election fraud or census fraud. Republicans have for decades been very vocal on the questions of fraud in elections and in census counts. The more cynical would say that this is a purely instrumental concern, because an undue restriction ends up undercounting legitimate homeless, poor, transient, foreign-language-speaking, college student, immigrant, etc., residents, who are more likely to vote Democratic. If enough people make that accusation against ACORN, it will lead to reliable independent coverage in mainstream sources about the accusation being made, and if that rises to a certain level I think it is notable and worth including, as an accusation. Something like: "Conservative [or choose some other adjective] commentators raised objections to ACORN's participation as [what is their role?] in the 2010 census, citing earlier accusations and incidents relating to voter registration fraud in the 2008 [and 2006?] elections." However, we do not need to repeat those anti-ACORN arguments as if they're valid, just report that they exist. Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McCain criticism rebuttal

I can't help but notice that the reference used to cite the final sentence of the article's statement that McCain's statements were exaggerated and unfounded was from Newsweek of all places. Newsweek is sometimes jokingly referred to by Conservatives as Obamaweek for devoting itself so loyally to Barack Obama over the last 5 years. I don't see this as being a reliable source under those circumstances, though I'm sure some[who?] will argue[clarification needed]. 24.186.126.200 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the funny thing about facts. Regardless of where you find them, or who repeats them, a fact is a fact is a fact. If you look more closely at the Newsweek article, you'll see it contains a verbatim report from Factcheck.org. Perhaps you don't trust Factcheck.org either? If you look more closely at the Factcheck.org investigation, you'll see they reference each of their findings to sources including the Inspector General with the U.S. Department of Justice; official statements from the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign; the Office of the Secretary of State, Nevada; the New York Times; the Bloomberg News; CNN; and the Associated Press. Wikipedia has rules regarding where we can get our facts, and Newsweek qualifies. You can disparage Newsweek all you want, but they didn't create the facts — they just report them. Instead of shooting the messenger, how about you show us some facts to the contrary? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The anon reminds me of Stephen Colbert's statement (in character) that he doesn't like facts because facts have a well-known liberal bias. LotLE×talk 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if I can get that on a bumper-sticker ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can. Here's the video of Colbert at WH correspondence dinner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A&feature=related (or Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner)

Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias. ... Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's two-thirds empty. There's still some liquid in that glass, is my point. But I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash.

Recent addition to Housing section

Additionally ACORN has successfully urged lenders to accept alternative forms of income such as food stamps. [1]

I removed the above sentence because it is actually sourced to an opinion piece from the Capital Research Center (Matthew Vadum), and merely quoted verbatim by spectator.org. Do we have a reliable source that can be used to cite this as factual content? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the claim was added by frequent troll/sock-puppet Mathew Vadum himself. I would go so far as to say that anything attributed to Vadum is per-se ruled out as WP:RS. LotLE×talk 06:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "ACORN'S Food Stamp Mortgages".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&oldid=305156914"