Fox News bumps the AP story here regarding the re-branding of ACORN.
For the two or three of you who have followed my blogging at ivoteforfreedom.com, you will recall that I corrected predicting this as part of ACORN's political rebuilding process. Anyone who thought this powerful and (unfortunately) highly successful Liberal tool was going away were simply wishing aloud. So now instead of branded offices (which I would have preferred to keep - at least you know where the enemy is) there are more decentralized, re-branded state offices and local affiliates such as Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment in California, and New York Communities for Change in NY State. Even the national ACORN Housing organization has changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America.
Like I said, new wrapping on the same old turd. Same activism, same voter tricks, same progressive agenda.
This is a place where campaign funding reform would do the most good. Establish a policy in which the same level of financial disclosure required of publicly-held companies is also required of all organizations which donate to candidates for public office, or their political parties. This would include PACs, community activist/advocacy groups and think tanks. Documentation of who contributes, how much is given, and where the money goes. Also tracking of which candidates or initiatives they support, and how much is given out to them. Salaries, costs and investing information all for the public to see.
And while we are at it, let's legally incorporate PACs and activist groups in a similar manner as LLCs, corporations or partnerships. Hold them to similar regulations - and punishments - as other incorporations with legal standing. And require disclosure regarding organizational structure (mother-daughter, master-slave??!) in these filings - something which is sorely lacking now.
Not that I'm holding my breath for this to happen, but it seems to me this is a good first step to holding BOTH parties accountable for their supporting political infrastructure. You see, I fear these organizations more than I fear the real estate, oil, internet or entertainment gazillionaire who has cash to give the candidate of his/her choice. And at the core of it, any organization which has to hide its structure or business practices in the shadows DOES has something to hide.
Of course, neither party is really interested in transparency. Perhaps the illusion thereof, but not the real thing. Professional politicians (oxymoron?) are far too narcissistic, too ingrained in the culture of back-room dealing and underhanded tactics to support such openness. But it is a dream I have...