posted on April 8, 2005 09:11:12 PM new
Who We Are
People For the American Way Foundation is a national nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving First Amendment freedoms and promoting the ideals of liberty, fairness and equality.
PFAWF was founded almost 25 years ago by a bipartisan group of business, religious, civic, and civil rights leaders. Among those founders were television producer Norman Lear, the late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, former Republican Congressman Rev. John Buchanan, and Father Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame. They were concerned about the increasing visibility and power of religious and political leaders who were suggesting that in order to be a good American, you had to be their kind of Christian, and that to be a good Christian, you had to share their ultraconservative political views. PFAWF's founders believed that faith, patriotism and love of country belonged to no single political party, religion or ideology.
"Our purpose is to meet the challenges of discord and fragmentation with an affirmation of 'the American Way,'" they wrote. "By this, we mean pluralism, individuality, freedom of thought, expression and religion, a sense of community, and tolerance and compassion for others. People For the American Way will reach out to all Americans and affirm that in our society, the individual still matters; that there is reason to believe in the future – not to despair of it – and that we must strengthen the common cords that connect us as humans and citizens."
Today, People For the American Way Foundation promotes the values that sustain a free society through research, public education, legal advocacy, grassroots organizing, and coalition efforts in Washington, D.C., around the country, and on the Internet. We carry out nonpartisan voter education, voter registration and civic participation activities. We monitor the activities of political organizations that threaten democratic values. And we inform Americans about the importance of an independent judiciary to preserving and protecting constitutional principles and individual liberties.
People For the American Way Foundation is actively educating Americans about the importance of our constitutional system of checks and balances and the historic role played by the Senate filibuster in preventing any president or political party from having absolute power. Our nation’s founders wanted America’s courts to be independent and free from partisanship. But Senate leaders are threatening a “nuclear option” –code for breaking Senate rules – to eliminate the filibuster and make it easier for judges to be appointed without both parties having a say.
People For the American Way Foundation has also published Courting Disaster, which documents the constitutional principles and legal protections that would be undermined by a Supreme Court dominated by justices eager to reverse decades of legal precedent and social justice progress, a threat that would increase greatly if the Senate filibuster were eliminated.
PFAWF’s advocacy affiliate, People For the American Way, mobilizes Americans to advocate for strong democratic institutions and for public policies that reflect the values of freedom and fairness. PFAW helps lead national coalition efforts to evaluate nominees to lifetime positions on the federal courts, and has opposed judicial nominees whose records do not reflect a commitment to upholding individual liberties and constitutional protections.
Together, People For the American Way Foundation and People For the American Way help more than 750,000 members and supporters focus their energies and resources to champion shared values.
COPY AND PASTE THE LINK BELOW TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD
posted on April 8, 2005 09:31:36 PM new
A bipartisian Group?? I know this is old it tells the story.
April 26, 2002 8:45 a.m.
Media For The American Way
Why are big news organizations supporting a high-profile liberal lobbying group?
People for the American Way, the liberal interest group that has spearheaded some of the most intensely partisan attacks on President Bush's judicial nominees, has received financial support from several of the nation's top-tier media organizations, including the New York Times Company, Time, Inc., and CBS.
Annual reports from People for the American Way have listed those companies — along with other media organizations like NBC, Disney (parent company of ABC), and America Online — among its financial supporters. It appears that the media corporations, some of which operate their own charitable foundations, did not make direct contributions to People for the American Way, but instead purchased tables — for $500 to $600 per seat — at the group's annual fundraising dinners in New York City.
A spokeswoman for the New York Times says the New York Times Company Foundation bought tables at People for the American Way fundraisers in 1998, 2000, and 2001. The 1998 dinner, which honored Times chairman emeritus Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Sr., was also something of a celebration of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose husband was at the time trying unsuccessfully to fend off impeachment in the Monica Lewinsky matter. "Several hundred admirers in formal wear cheered when the first lady arrived at their cocktail hour," said an Associated Press account of the dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel. "The audience was obviously enamored of Mrs. Clinton." (The dinners have frequently been celebrations of liberal politics; the year before the first lady's appearance, for example, the event featured filmmaker Michael Moore as its host.)
A spokesman for Time, Inc. says the company last contributed to a People for the American Way dinner in late 2000 but has since changed its policy about participating. "We determined that for news organizations such as ours, it would not be appropriate for us to do that, so we stopped doing it," spokesman Peter Costiglio says. "We made a determination that this was not something we should support on a regular basis."
A CBS spokesman says the network also purchased seats for the 2000 dinner. Officials point out that CBS has had a long and close relationship with Norman Lear, the legendary television producer who founded People for the American Way in 1981. "We love Norman dearly," says network executive vice president Marty Franks. "After all, he did produce one of the most popular shows [All in the Family] in the history of CBS." But Franks, who earlier in his career served in top positions with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the staff of Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, says CBS at times finds itself at odds with Lear and People for the American Way over issues affecting the entertainment industry, and in fact bought tickets to the dinner because it was honoring Motion Picture Association of America head Jack Valenti. "We tend to give to more traditional charitable organizations," says Franks.
TAX-EXEMPT LOBBYISTS
The statement of purpose for People for the American Way says the group "organizes and mobilizes Americans to fight for fairness, justice, civil rights and the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution." In Washington in recent months, People for the American Way has worked closely with Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to oppose Bush White House judicial nominations. The group scored a high-profile success with the defeat of the nomination of Charles Pickering to a place on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and it is likely to launch similar campaigns against other Bush judicial choices in coming months. For example, People for the American Way chief Ralph Neas recently referred to appeals-court nominee Miguel Estrada as a "Latino Clarence Thomas," suggesting the group will wage a fierce battle to stop that nomination.
Although Neas engages in sharply partisan political activity, he presides over an organization that is both a lobbying group and a "nonpartisan" tax-exempt charity. The lobbying side, People for the American Way, is a so-called 501(c)(4) organization — named for the section of the Internal Revenue Service code that provides for such groups — and is legally allowed to engage in partisan political activity. But the other half of People for the American Way, the People for the American Way Foundation, is a 501(c)(3) organization, meaning it is allowed to receive tax-deductible charitable donations but is prohibited by law from engaging in partisan political work.
Both sides of the organization take in impressive amounts of money from direct contributions and fundraising dinners like those attended by major media organizations. According to tax records for the year 2000, People for the American Way received $5,140,131 in contributions, while the People for the American Way Foundation took in $7,469,722 — for a total of $12,609,853 in one year alone.
It appears there is significant overlap between People for the American Way's partisan and nonpartisan sides. Neas's salary, for example, is paid by both the main group and the foundation. In 2000, he received $79,556 in salary from People for the American Way, the political arm, and $119,335 from the People for the American Way Foundation, the nonpartisan arm. The salary of People for the American Way's number-two officer, Carol Blum, was also divided between the two parts of the organization.
While it is true that People for the American Way does engage in some nonpartisan projects — like the purchase and exhibition of a 1776 copy of the Declaration of Independence — the group's aggressive attacks on the Bush administration suggests that the line between partisan and nonpartisan can sometimes be quite blurry. It is perhaps that mixing of the partisan and nonpartisan that led Time, Inc. to stop purchasing tables at People for the American Way fundraisers. But it appears that Time's decision is the exception, rather than the rule, concerning media support of People for the American Way.
posted on April 9, 2005 07:14:32 AM new
HEY READERS, WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT IS FOR YOU NOT TO BELIEVE PEOPLE LIKE LIBRA63 OR ME ONLY TRUST YOUR OWN VIEWS ON ISSUES
Fellow readers. Have you thought about whether you want the filibuster to go away? Please read the article below. If you agree go to its web site link below and voice your own views.
As the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington so eloquently conveys, one of the country's most critical checks and balances has been a 200-year-old Senate tradition: the filibuster. What would our country be without it?
The filibuster is a tool created by Senate rules that allows senators to block a nominee or a piece of legislation until 60 Senators agree to end debate. It is an important part of our system of checks and balances. It prevents any one party from having too much power.
Both parties have used the filibuster to prevent action on bills or block nominations that generate strong opposition. On important issues, it encourages compromises that can get broad support from senators from both parties. But now Senate leaders are threatening to misuse their majority power and change the rules to weaken the Senate’s checks and balances. They are angry that Democratic Senators have used the filibuster to block a handful of President Bush’s most controversial judicial nominees – even though more than 95 percent of President Bush’s judges have been approved by the Senate.
As you can imagine, some folks are glad to see these judges denied lifetime seats on powerful federal courts; others want these judges confirmed. But the threat to do away with the filibuster is a bigger issue – it would change the role of the Senate and leave the country open to abuse of power by whoever happens to be in the majority.
Fortunately, common sense Republicans and Democrats understand that it is important to preserve our system of checks and balances. If you are one of those people, we encourage you to get in touch with your Senator before there’s a vote on the rule changes.
posted on April 9, 2005 02:56:05 PM newHEY READERS, WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT IS FOR YOU NOT TO BELIEVE PEOPLE LIKE LIBRA63 OR ME ONLY TRUST YOUR OWN VIEWS ON ISSUES
That's right readers, Bigpeepa is fullofshit and he actually has the guts to say so, LOL, therefore you should take him at his word and NOT BELIEVE him. Libra63, on the other hand is believable and when she posts you can trust that what she says is fact, not some regurgitated bullroar from some commie, leftwing, pinko rag.
posted on April 9, 2005 03:27:08 PM new
desquirrel, You are right the republicans will be able to pass any law they want by being the only party without opposition.
The Tailiban,Saddam,Nazi plus more all had the same privilege. They controlled their governments and law makers without opposition. It looks like some republican law makers and the small minority of Americans that support them also want a government without opposition.
The Bush White House got 95% of his Judges passed and appointed. Now a small RADICAL minority of republicans law marker and their supporters want more.
I believe the majority of level headed republicans and democrats won't let the filibuster go away.
posted on April 9, 2005 03:35:09 PM new
yellowstone, thanks for your comment. You are just the kind of person that is making more and more Americans look at what is really going on in America.
AGAIN I SAY DON'T BELIEVE YELLOWSTONE OR ME. LOOK INTO THE ISSUES YOURSELF AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS WHAT YOU WANT.
posted on April 9, 2005 07:14:40 PM new
Bigpeepa
You're just bound and determined to lose any credibility that you MAY have LEFT. Hey people don't believe anything Bigpeepa says, he admits that he must be wrong about what he posts. LOL
posted on April 9, 2005 09:09:52 PM new
This is one reason the democrats needed a candidate that was truthful. If the democrats had put up a candidate that people believed in they would have won the election. Now your complaining. Evidently the democrats didn't think this election was important. Well even the not so smart people knew that maybe a couple of the Supreme court justices would retire. Appointments would then be made by the President and seconded by the congress. This was an important election but the democrats failed to run a candidate that was honest. So now they are doing all in their power to stop the nominations. Don't you think it is a little to late. JMHO
I can see old red faced Ted Kennedy up there trying to filibuster. Remember it can go both ways.
posted on April 10, 2005 10:25:36 AM new
What's all of this news about saving filly busters? Since when are filly busters endangered? I would think colt busters could do the same job.
posted on April 10, 2005 11:13:54 AM new
He was more honest than the democratic one. It was an election where both candidates were iffy. But when push comes to shove the majority took Bush.
I will tell you if the democrats would have put up a candidate that was better than Bush
I would have voted for him, but how can you vote for a traitor... At least Jane Fonda appologized. JMHO
posted on April 10, 2005 07:53:49 PM new
Cheryl, I am glad when people like yellow-toes make that kind of post. For all level minded Republicans and Democrats to see. People like yellow-toes,bear,libra63 are very upset that all the polls are showing that more and more Americans aren't buying their minority radical views any longer.
Libra63, your living in the past again. We are posting about today 4/10/2005.
posted on April 10, 2005 08:09:05 PM new
[i]The Bush White House got 95% of his Judges passed and appointed. Now a small RADICAL minority of republicans law marker and their supporters want more[/].
In case you didn't know this, this is why the people went to the polls and voted republican because they didn't want the liberal adgenda to pick the judges. It is a very important time in history when new judges will be appointed and I for one don't want abortion judges to get in, or gay right judges. I might be in the minority but I am Not in favor of abortion and especially partial birth abortion. I am not infavor of gays to marry.
posted on April 11, 2005 04:35:21 AM new
Libra - What you had were church leaders like Jerry Falwell breaking every non-profit IRS tax code to push their agenda on their church members. You didn't have normal every day fold suddenly waking up and saying, "Well, I think I'll vote republican today because I don't like abortion or gay people."
I for one don't want abortion judges to get in, or gay right judges
Yes, what you want are judges who will completely ignore the Constitution. Better yet, how about ones that will work to completely erase the Constitution and will re-write it to suit people like you? The statement you made is truely bigoted and my opinion of you has shifted from one of mild annoyance to complete disgust. You should be so proud. One day your words will come back on you and I, for one, am glad I will be no where around you. In case you don't know your bible, Jesus loved all people and he championed the poor. People like you are making a mockery of everything he stood for. We will take back the white house and you can be sure that everything people like you have done to reverse the cause of HUMAN rights, will be fixed. The Jerry Falwell's of the world don't live forever.
posted on April 11, 2005 06:25:41 AM new
I am sorry you think that way. But that is my opinion. I do not believe in Abortion. What is bigoted about that. What is bigoted about not having gay marry? Darn, I don't believe in some of the things you say but I still let you have your opinion. Yes I know he loved all the people. Every child born has a right to life. Abortion is used like birth control. Don't want to get pregnant and if I do I will have an abortion. Children, yes I said children are having children at age 14. Sex among teenagers is running rampant. Can you blame that on the Jerry Falwells?
I will tell you if I have or had a gay child I would love them but I do not believe in gay marriage. Gay unions is fine not marriage.
No Cheryl that is what the liberals want? And if you don't like what I say then please don't respond. You or I can't help that you had a gay brother and you seem to bring your family life into everything someone says on this board. You need to get over that. It isn't about you. When someone posts on this board they are not talking directly to you.
Explain to me how the Conservative judges will not uphold the constitution?
posted on April 11, 2005 06:31:18 AM new
If you have candidates like John Kerry the democrats will not take back the White House.
You don't seem to understand the history of John Kerry so I think you had better read up on him. He was everything that the voters in America didn't like and they showed it at the polls.
Your statement "Take Back the White House" was stupid. You had the "White House 5 years ago and that president did nothing but womanizing. Find a candidate that will bring something good to the White House and you will probably win...
posted on April 11, 2005 07:03:02 AM new
Libra, they just want to take back the white house and turn it into a whore house and plaster 'free tibet bumper stickers' all over the place. Just like they have on their Subarus and/or Volvos.
They again want a President who has no self control, a President that will indulge himself/herself in whatever hedonistic notions that happen to pop into his/her puny pea brain, without even a shread of concern what damage it will do to the country, the office itself or our credibility around the world. They're looking forward to the orgy in the oral office if and when they ever win it back.
But don't take the idiot Bigpeepa's word for it because he's fullofshit and his misguided followers also. LOL
posted on April 11, 2005 02:50:48 PM new
Yellowtoes you said, "They again want a President who has no self control, a President that will indulge himself/herself in whatever hedonistic notions that happen to pop into his/her puny pea brain, without even a shread of concern what damage it will do to the country, the office itself or our credibility around the world."
Shame on you yellowtoes for the way you talk about the minority radical right wing Republicans and THEIR leader George W Bush.
YELLOWTOES POSTS SHOW EXACTLY WHY THE FILIBUSTER NEEDS TO BE SAVED.
posted on April 11, 2005 06:49:37 PM new
I find it quite amusing this is even a partisan issue to begin with.
Removing the ability to filibuster is bad politics all together. Whether the Republicans or Democrats are in the majority, the point of a filibuster is to shed light on an issue, a nominee's past, etc. Yes, it is true, Republicans are in control right now. It won't last, because it never does. The so called "mandate" that Bush has ridden has brought his popularity below 45%. Well, what do the Republicans plan to do when a Democratic President is nominating someone they don't think should be appointed?
It is the balance of power that is needed, and a filibuster is one of those tactics that are used by both sides. Neither should want it removed.
posted on April 11, 2005 08:22:39 PM new
I agree with Rustygumbo, this should not even be an issue.
It has served both parties in the past and should continue to do so in the future.
