There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. Full disclosure, I am an active ACEP member, I'm on the ACEPNow Editorial Board, but I'm answering as an individual.
First of all, a public censure is a HUGE deal. It is reported to state boards and the NPDB. It will prevent any future work as an expert witness, and can make (re)credentialing difficult. A State Medical Board can take independent punitive action based on the censure. It is a very rare step to take, one that has monstrous legal implications, and lawsuits by recipients of censure actions are not uncommon. I can't remember the last such action by ACEP, so being cautious in reporting is reasonable.
Second, as for not taking action sooner or against more people, currently ACEP can not censure non-members. There have been resolutions within the ACEP Council to attempt to do that, but given the legal implications, it is difficult at best. Members agree to abide by a professional body's standards, non-members don't. So if a non ACEP member offers egregious testimony, there is really nothing we can do.
Third, there is no nefarious plot between ACEP and the various CMGs. A large percentage of EPs work for CMGs, so there will be a large percentage of ACEP leaders who do. The path to ACEP board membership and presidency is long and elections are based on service to the organization. The rules in place to assure fair elections are extraordinary and there are many in leadership, at every level, who are not involved with CMGs. There are others who work for CMGs, but are not in leadership positions with those companies. On the other hand, AAEM has literally become a CMG -
http://www.aaemphysiciangroup.com and they hired Intermedix (a huge management entity) to help with management issues. How is that independent? Because they promise to be nice or treat their people better? That's the same claim every CMG makes... I don't understand how they are still considered a professional organization. How can I pay dues to a CMG I don't work for? Even if you accept some contorted explanation of how this is a good thing or isn't a conflict of interest or principle, advocacy is, in part, based on size and influence. In comparison to ACEP, AAEM has neither.
I would invite anyone who wants to be involved with the future of the specialty to come to ACEP. Learn about what they do. They are suing CMS for transparency in billing on your behalf (
http://newsroom.acep.org/2016-05-19-ACEP-Sues-Federal-Government), they run a huge government advocacy program aimed at improving your ability to do your job (
https://www.acep.org/advocacy/), they sponsor research (
https://www.emfoundation.org) and run the preeminent journal for EM (
http://www.annemergmed.com), they have an active and involved young physicians section (
https://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=30290) that has produced many of the leaders of the College, they host residency fairs, leadership academies, and regional meetings to educate and provide networking opportunities, and no professional organization puts on a better CME conference (
https://www.acep.org/acep16/about/). SAEM, CORD, and EMRA all have seats on the ACEP Council and ACEP works directly with just about every relevant government and regulatory agency. In short, they have your back.
Now as I said at the start, I'm biased. But having "peeked behind the curtain" for 8 years on the ACEP Council, I promise you, ACEP is filled with EPs of all ages, putting forth tons of work on your behalf to better our profession.