The goal of ParentAdvocates.org
is to put tax dollar expenditures and other monies used or spent by our federal, state and/or city governments before your eyes and in your hands.
Through our website, you can learn your rights as a taxpayer and parent as well as to which programs, monies and more you may be entitled...and why you may not be able to exercise these rights.
Mission Statement
is to put tax dollar expenditures and other monies used or spent by our federal, state and/or city governments before your eyes and in your hands.
Through our website, you can learn your rights as a taxpayer and parent as well as to which programs, monies and more you may be entitled...and why you may not be able to exercise these rights.
Mission Statement
Click this button to share this site...
The E-Accountability Foundation announces the
'A for Accountability' Award
to those who are willing to whistleblow unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status. They ask questions that need to be asked, such as "where is the money?" and "Why does it have to be this way?" and they never give up. These people have withstood adversity and have held those who seem not to believe in honesty, integrity and compassion accountable for their actions. The winners of our "A" work to expose wrong-doing not for themselves, but for others - total strangers - for the "Greater Good"of the community and, by their actions, exemplify courage and self-less passion. They are parent advocates. We salute you.
Winners of the "A":
Johnnie Mae Allen
David Possner
Dee Alpert
Aaron Carr
Harris Lirtzman
Hipolito Colon
Larry Fisher
The Giraffe Project and Giraffe Heroes' Program
Jimmy Kilpatrick and George Scott
Zach Kopplin
Matthew LaClair
Wangari Maathai
Erich Martel
Steve Orel, in memoriam, Interversity, and The World of Opportunity
Marla Ruzicka, in Memoriam
Nancy Swan
Bob Witanek
Peyton Wolcott
[ More Details » ]
'A for Accountability' Award
to those who are willing to whistleblow unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status. They ask questions that need to be asked, such as "where is the money?" and "Why does it have to be this way?" and they never give up. These people have withstood adversity and have held those who seem not to believe in honesty, integrity and compassion accountable for their actions. The winners of our "A" work to expose wrong-doing not for themselves, but for others - total strangers - for the "Greater Good"of the community and, by their actions, exemplify courage and self-less passion. They are parent advocates. We salute you.
Winners of the "A":
Johnnie Mae Allen
David Possner
Dee Alpert
Aaron Carr
Harris Lirtzman
Hipolito Colon
Larry Fisher
The Giraffe Project and Giraffe Heroes' Program
Jimmy Kilpatrick and George Scott
Zach Kopplin
Matthew LaClair
Wangari Maathai
Erich Martel
Steve Orel, in memoriam, Interversity, and The World of Opportunity
Marla Ruzicka, in Memoriam
Nancy Swan
Bob Witanek
Peyton Wolcott
[ More Details » ]
|
Current Events
Appeal Filed of Decision Overturning Century-Old Law Banning Corporate Contributions To Candidates & Parties
The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 have filed an amici brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in U.S. v Danielczyk, an appeal of a controversial district court decision overturning the century-old federal restriction on corporate contributions to candidates and political parties. ..Campaign Legal Center Associate Counsel Tara Malloy: “In the post-Citizens United world, corporate vehicles are already being misused to avoid disclosure and the district court’s Danielczyk decision invites the additional evasion of contribution limits. We do not need another decision that will further undermine public faith in their elected officials and the judiciary.”
Campaign Legal Center & Democracy 21 File Brief in Appeal of Decision Overturning Century-Old Law Banning Corporate Contributions to Candidates & Parties
LINK Today, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, filed an amici brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in U.S. v Danielczyk, an appeal of a controversial district court decision overturning the century-old federal restriction on corporate contributions to candidates and political parties. The corporate contribution restriction overturned in the case dates back to the Tillman Act of 1907, signed into law by President Teddy Roosevelt in the wake of the Gilded Age, an era awash in political corruption and campaign finance scandals. Since that time the restriction on corporate political contributions has been upheld repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court, most recently in FEC v Beaumont in 2003. The May 2011 lower court decision overturning the 104-year-old law, issued by Judge Cacheris of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, failed to consider or even cite Beaumont. Criticism of the action led to a rebriefing of the case, though Judge Cacheris eventually reaffirmed his earlier decision, refusing to abide by Beaumont and other controlling Supreme Court precedent. “This judicial overreach, if left standing, will authorize large-scale circumvention of existing contribution limits and give rise to political corruption and the appearance of corruption,” said Campaign Legal Center Associate Counsel Tara Malloy. “In the post-Citizens United world, corporate vehicles are already being misused to avoid disclosure and the district court’s Danielczyk decision invites the additional evasion of contribution limits. We do not need another decision that will further undermine public faith in their elected officials and the judiciary.” “The corporate contribution ban was upheld by the Supreme Court less than a decade ago in FEC v. Beaumont, and a federal district judge cannot overrule direct rulings by the Supreme Court,” said Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer. “Furthermore, the district court judge was clearly wrong in saying that the ‘logic’of the Supreme Court’s misguided Citizens United decision also requires the invalidation of the ban on corporate contributions. The Supreme Court, which has long distinguished between contribution restrictions and spending restrictions, never addressed the corporate contribution ban in Citizens United and did not overturn the Beaumont decision which remains the law of the land.” The case, U.S. v. Danielczyk, is a criminal matter concerning a number of alleged campaign finance violations, including that the defendants illegally directed corporate contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign. The Campaign Legal Center took the lead in preparing the brief. To read the brief, click here. Released: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 Contact: Erin Kesler 202-355-9600 ekesler@democracy21.org FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. BEAUMONT (02-403) 539 U.S. 146 (2003) 278 F.3d 261, reversed. |
© 2003 The E-Accountability Foundation![]()
