Where Do Giannoulias & Hoffman Stand On ACORN?

Monday, 21 September 2009 13:32

In the News

WASHINGTON - Following the release of video footage showing employees of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) helping a fake prostitute and pimp illegally secure housing, the United States Senate overwhelmingly voted last Monday to cut off the organization’s federal funding by a bipartisan margin of 83-7. Among the seven ‘nays’ were Illinois Senators Dick Durbin and Roland Burris.

On Wednesday, Cheryle Jackson, formerly a senior advisor to the disgraced Rod Blagojevich, launched her campaign for U.S. Senate and told reporters "she would have voted with Illinois Senators Dick Durbin and Roland Burris to continue funding the social action group ACORN."

Then on Thursday, the Senate voted a second time to prohibit funding for ACORN (85-11) with Durbin and Burris again casting two of the few "nay" votes.

Yet as of today, Democrat Senate candidates Alexi Giannoulias and David Hoffman have remained silent on the issue, even as the controversy has gained widespread national media attention.

Even President Obama, a former attorney for ACORN who once held the Senate seat Giannoulias and Hoffman hope to claim, was asked about the scandal-plagued group during his media blitz yesterday, and he called the behavior on the tapes "inappropriate."

"After the national embarrassment of the Blagojevich scandal, corruption is a very prescient issue to the people of Illinois, and they deserve to know where all their Senate candidates stand regarding the federal funding of the ethically-challenged ACORN group," National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson said today. "Dick Durbin and Roland Burris twice voted to continue federal funding for ACORN, while Blagojevich’s old deputy, Cheryle Jackson, says she would have done the same. At least the voters know where they stand. If Alexi Giannoulias and David Hoffman want to represent Illinois in the Senate, they ought to immediately clarify to their potential constituents whether they support spending taxpayer money on a group whose very legitimacy faces very serious questions."