btw - Ed Towns is not just a supporter of the protest, he's a supporter of MEK. They have contributed thousands to his campaign. They have also contributed to Gary Ackerman's campaign.
So, how does a terrorist group whose assets have been frozen continue to contribute? One answer: they hide their identity by changing their name.
He's also the only Democrat from my congressional delegation to routinely oppose the anti-smoking zealotry that characterizes most pols from my city.
That stance is most likely related to his southern roots, and presumably, the corresponding support he receives from the tobacco industry, so it's not too far-fetched to say that there might be a reciprocal political-and financial-relationship between him and MEK.
However, I don't know if that's the only factor at work.
Timmerman has done a phenomenal job of exposing the linkage between campaign contributions by the MEK-and its more appealing, pr-oriented front, the Nat'l Cou. of Iranian Resistance-and support for their agenda, e.g. pols like Towns, Toricelli, among many others in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, who have lobbied vociferously for their removal from the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations.
However, there could also be a significant minority of officeholders who simply support them because they stand in opposition to the IRI regime, and are under the impression-or misimpression-that they can be integrated into some sort of anti-mullah coalition, in much the same manner that fractious dissident organizations like the PUK, KDP, SCIRI, Dawa Party, Iraqi National Accord, etc., were able to coalesce under an anti-Saddam banner.