I would also like to see the documents you refer to (if you have links), and the analyses you presumably got your info from.

Fair question:

Source

"Although ACORN's projects run a wide gamut, the group claims as its purpose helping low- and middle-income Americans — through initiatives ranging from improving urban public schools, to providing counseling on how to avoid "predatory lending," to increasing the availability of "affordable housing." Most of these programs are conducted locally, by state-level ACORN organizations — which are often set up as 501(c.)3 nonprofit entities distinct from the national ACORN umbrella, a 501(c.)4 lobbying organization. Sounds benign enough — except that, according to Bob Huberty, executive vice president of the Capital Research Center, these tax-exempt 501(c.)3s "have no reason for existence other than to get grants from the government and foundations." They are, essentially, an ACORN front for asking Uncle Sam to subsidize political activity."

I was perhaps a bit vague in the way I explained it previously but the end result is the same.  The money gets put into a "fund" and later gets handed out to the groups by whoever controls the fund (which is setup by the legislation typically or its put into existing funds), its not a direct hand-out but its a method of moving money around that, as far as I can tell, both parties use.  Only occasionally do they call each other on it because they both like to use it and neither side has an interest in shutting it down.

You can read further in that article for more specific examples of Acorn recieving money.  Although I have to admit, even without this kind of info I would find it pretty hard to swallow that I'm supposed to take ACORN's word for it that they don't do this kind of thing.  They've had enough tangles with voter fraud accusations among numerous other criminal allegations that I think its safe to say they aren't the most straightforward and honest group.

In all honesty this too could probably be its own topic =P

A lot of it is extremely spread out, and I've been following this for nearly two months now, so I don't know that I can retrace my steps precisely for you.  What I can tell you is that the two people who have done the majority of the leg work here are Steve Diamond (D) & Stanley Kurtz (R) but I'm not entirely sure how closely they've worked but I do know that they've at least exchanged info on some level. 

I can also tell you that the Obama campaign has engaged in a pretty heavy ad hominem campaign against Kurtz for his work, I wish I still had a copy of the audio from his 2 hour interview on WGN radio back on August 27th, it does a good job giving a feel for how meticulous Kurtz has been, he even corrects Milt Rosenberg (the host) on a few issues where he tries to stretch a conclusion further than the facts can support.  The Obama camp was invited to be on the broadcast with Kurtz and rebutt him (their national HQ was 2 blocks from the station) and when given that offer they instead hung up on the station manager producer(according to the station manager producer at least) and sent out an email asking Obama supporters to bombard the show with calls along with a talking points list they read off at the start of the show (and which callers followed in order =p).  edit: NM found it!  Audio edit2: I missremembered, it was the producer not the station manager.

Aside from the side-show that has resulted from this I can give a couple of links to try to get you started, there is plenty to read =P

WSJ Article with Kurtz

Steve Diamond's Blog - You can dig back a bit here, not sure how far back he was reporting on this though.

If you want I can try to dig up some more, but I need head out for now, the interview with Kurtz is a good one and I think you will get a feel for what I mean about his demeanor. Thus far Kurtz is the only person I know of who has sat down and poured through the documents at length and his findings have gone almost entirely (if not entirely) substantively  unchallenged.  There have been a number of attacks on him personally as I said but I as we both know ad hominem attacks are a deflection of the issue and not a refutation of the facts.

Thanks! I understand not being able to give me every site you ever saw, I was just hoping for something to latch on to.

I am obviously new to this info, and it may take some time before I can comment intelligently on it -- if I even find the time, but there's one thing I think I can respond to right away:

Well for the record I think it is grossly irresponsible and unfair to say Obama is a terrorist or supports terrorism. I think Ayers has moved away from that aspect of his activism and I don't think Obama would have associated with him if he hadn't. I think any report done on the story should indicate that, but not to the point where it obscures what has taken place.

Supposing all the alleged activities are true, it's completely hilarious that McCain is passing up legitimate dirt for blatant fearmongering smears.

I think the current economic news would drown anything out short of actual new news, not this old stuff.

This. That is what folks want to here about. Palling around with terrorists? Please - the Bushes worked with the binladens in the past. It's documented - and brought to the big screen by Mike Moore.

Voters want to know who will fix the economy. And Dems have that advantage. The GOP can forget it this year - and in light of the terrorist comments and links, they've played that card too many times. Folks are just turning the channels and ignoring the negative stuff. The economy is trashed, Wall St. is crazing, health care is a joke - and the GOP *thinks* screaming 'Drill, baby, drill!' or calling Obama out for palling around with terrorists and other smears is gonna change this election? Nope. Folks are facing foreclosures and want someone in the office will be focused on them and helping folks. McCain is just proving he'll do anything and let stuff slide that he should call.

For him, personal attacks - or letting paid members in your crowd - are the way to go. Have them say what you want. But my friends, the economy, not Iraq, not experience and not taxes will determine this election. McCain's goose is cooked unless he focuses on the economy, saves his money and tries hard as the devil to win the public's trust.

Hottest governor without script or teleprompter:

Obama campaign aides said the Illinois senator did not know of Ayers' past when they first met in Chicago. Palin told reporters the lack of clarity about their relationship was precisely why it was relevant to raise it on the campaign trail.

"It's relevant to connect that association he has with Ayers, not so much he as a person Ayers, but the whole situation and the truthfulness and the judgment there that you must question if again he's not being forthright in all of his answers, " Palin said. "It makes you wonder about the forthrightness, the truthfulness of the plans he's telling Americans with regards to the economic recovery.''

Pressed on whether she was saying Obama was dishonest, Palin said no.

"But in terms of judgment, in terms of being able to answer a question forthrightly, it has two different parts to it, that judgment and that truthfulness,'' she said.

Palin said also claimed her husband, Todd, is ``an open book'' on the controversy back home involving allegations that the couple pressured state officials to fire the governor's former brother-in-law, a state trooper.

"Nobody has anything to hide,'' she said.

Both Palin and her husband had refused to be interviewed in the state Legislature's probe, and Palin said the inquiry "has been kind of a goat rope, very partisan and very controversial type of investigation.''

Palin reiterated her disappointment that John McCain's campaign had pulled out of Michigan, saying she had hoped to share the GOP ticket's economic message with blue-collar voters there. And she said she'd love to appear on ``Saturday Night Live'' with Tina Fey, who's made famous a hilarious caricature of Palin.

"I love her, she's a hoot and she's so talented. It would be fun to meet her, imitate her, and keep on giving her new material,'' Palin said of Fey.

Reflecting on the campaign in which she was transformed from relative obscurity into a visible national figure, Palin said she'd been ``energized'' by the experience and had high hopes for victory in the Nov. 4 election.

"We're at the halfway point and there is a lot that can happen and will happen in this campaign still to go,'' Palin said. "I've been in an underdog position quite often in my life and so has John McCain and we've both come out victoriously from that underdog position.''

"It would be fun to meet her, imitate her, and keep on giving her new material,'' Palin said of Fey.

This explains much.

PALIN FTW!