Well not really, it's Acorn(s).
I was watching some clips from the past year on the O'Reilly Factor (Fox News) last night and one particular section caught my eye - he had the CEO of Acorn and the Chairwoman of one Acorn chapter on his program. It baffled me because Bill was just straight forward asking both women if they thought it was okay, since he was a 'rich man', for the govt to take half or more than half of his money and give it out to various others like Acorn to then give to other people. He also asked them if they were a socialized or socialist group and the CEO in particular laughed and was saying no. But what caught my ear the most was both women saying they are not aware of the govt giving his money to them. And not aware of the govt giving any tax payers' dollars to them like that. I was very confused --- where do they think the money comes from then??? The CEO of Acorn kept saying that they 'apply for grants' and Bill was getting very frustrated with them because they refused to answer his question directly. If they apply for grants from the govt - WHERE do they think that grant money comes from?? It was truly baffling. When I applied for a grant for a college course, I knew it came from govt coffers which were really full of tax dollars... so why didn't those women admit it? He must have asked the question 4 times and never did get a direct answer, just the comments like 'I am not aware of...'. How can you not be aware of where the 'grant' money comes from? Why did they have a hard time admitting to Bill that 'yes' tax payers who are better off get their money taken from them to be filtered down to groups like Acorn? It was just really bizarre. Bill wasn't even necessarily telling them it was wrong - he was just setting it up for asking why the group that handles the money for Acorn (something like Citizens Inc) is considered a private company so his investigators are not allowed to look at their books. I believe his point was that they use tax payer dollars so his investigators should be able to look at their books - but the CEO and chairwoman would not admit it. He finally asked flat out at the end if the CEO would agree to letting his people look at the books and her response began like this: ""There you go again..."". I get Bill's point - if it is a largely publicly funded group, why can't the public find out where THEIR money is going? But according to the CEO, they apply for 'grants' and that is her excuse for it not being a publicly funded group, open to public scrutiny? WHATEVER!