www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Citizens United v. FEC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.90.158.23 (talk) at 18:07, 12 November 2019 (→‎23. article says decision was 5-4. but part D was 8-1: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

David Kairys Quote

I think there is a WP:NPOV issue with block quoting the David Kairys quote in the Criticism section without any type of clarity or explanation why this block quote deserves to be separated from being put in a proper area (academic criticism) while there is no other quote for the Support section. The inclusion of a quote makes it appear like there is added weight to this particular quote and skews the criticism section. 01:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamTyer86 (talk • contribs)

I agree that its placement at the very beginning of the Criticism section was poor. Kairys is an academic, so I moved it there and reformatted it as a "pull quote". (Note that all the commentary in the academic subsection is criticism...) AV3000 (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Right) Side Bar Summary

The summary of the case on the right side bar, under "Case Opinions" is misleading / confusing. Why does it say Concur/Dissent for the justices who Dissent? I wish I knew how to fix these figures, and if some editor knows how, please do fix it (... and if you have a moment, please also direct me to any how-to resources so I can make this type of correction in the future). Thank You! Jj1236 (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates partial concurrence/partial dissent, so no correction is called for, though you can propose any clarifying change to the template at Template_talk:Infobox SCOTUS case. AV3000 (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The side bar mentions "Part IV" several times, but the article does not even mention "part iv". There should be at least a keyword in the side bar explaining what "part iv" is about. -- Austrian (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But who was for one side and who was for the other? Came here for that information, but didn't find it and the Side Bar summary is just completely confusing. — al-Shimoni (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background - Citizens United and Michael Moore

I am noticing that the current version of this article gives the impression that the FEC's rulings on Fahrenheit 911 and on Hillary: The Movie were inconsistent. Looking over the documents, it looks to me like the commission was consistent. Advertisements could not be broadcast during the restricted period in either case, but sales of recordings and cinema tickets in both cases constituted non-broadcast, commercial activity and did not fall under the BCRA rules. Perhaps someone with more legal expertise than me could clear up this question. 24.5.84.218 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing part of the article

Missing is the sequence that led to Citizens United appearing in District Court initially. Did television executives (who?) refuse to air it? Did executives ask for guidance from the FEC? Did the ad(s) even get airtime? Who reported it to the FEC? "The District Court for the District of Columbia denied Citizens United's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") from enforcing these provisions of the BCRA against Citizens United." From the site of footnote. ("disclosure requirements (reporting and disclaimers) imposed on "electioneering communications" by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA")") Did a television station report (disclose)? Did Citizens United disclose THEMSELVES?

Did the ad(s) actually run? If so, where, by whom, and how often? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydogtrouble (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Upon further research, Citizens United DID initiate the court proceedings. They asked for the injunction prior to any action taken (according to http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-205

That might need to be specified. Mydogtrouble (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of ABC-Washington Post Poll

What's the point of including this poll in the article? Especially as the only one with a graphic. The wording of the poll itself discredits any findings and makes it irrelevant. 2620:0:1000:1402:26BE:5FF:FE0D:CDE0 (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens United Redirect Reallocation Proposal

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
"Citizens United" should remain redirected to this page. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that the redirect of “Citizens United” should rather be used for the actual organization, or a top-level organization listing, which indicates the different organizations with the same name. It doesn't make sense for the organization name to redirect to a SCOTUS ruling concerning the organization. ExParte talk | contribs 02:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 27 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Wbm1058 (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Citizens United v. FEC → Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Shall we spell out "FEC"? George Ho (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow oppose. While I appreciate the desire to spell out acronyms that may appear obscure to some readers, MOS:LAW provides a direct answer to this question: "Articles on cases should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case." According to the Bluebook (which is, for better or worse, the de facto lingua franca of American legal citations), "[s]ome entities with widely recognized initials, e.g., AARP, CBS, CIA, FCC, FDA, FEC, NAACP, NLRB, are commonly referred to in spoken language by their initials rather than by their full names; such abbreviations may be used without periods in text, in case names, and as institutional authors" (see B4.1.2 and R6.1(b)). Furthermore, R10.2 states that these commonly used abbreviations should be used in case titles. Therefore, the current title is appropriate. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can't "snow" vote; we don't know whether others feel the same way. Also, I don't think FEC is recognizable to everyone. George Ho (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this is one of those rare situations where the Manual of Style provides a direct, unambiguous answer to the question presented. I cited WP:SNOWBALL in the hopes that this RfC can be wrapped-up as soon as possible (after the mandatory seven-day period), pursuant to relevant portions of the MOS. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move of Citizens United (organization) over Citizens United

I've started a requested move at Talk:Citizens United (organization)#Requested move 27 October 2015, following the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015_October_27#Citizens_United. I suggest that the organization is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should be moved over this redirect, with a hatnote to the legal case. I appreciate that this was discussed about a month ago here, but feel it did not have a wide enough audience to reflect broad consensus. (Listing here to get a broader audience; Talk:Citizens United redirects to this talk page.) Si Trew (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Citizens United v. FEC

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Citizens United v. FEC's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Politicker":

  • From Ben Cohen (businessman): Alex Isenstadt (2008-02-09). "Ben Cohen endorses Obama". PolitickerVT.com. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
  • From Stamp Stampede: KEN PICARD (2012-11-21). "Ben Cohen Has a Plan to Purge Money from Politics: Stamp It Out". Seven Days. Retrieved 2012-12-03.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

Hi. I think the page title should be Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, not Citizens United v. FEC. The move rationale provided by Good Olfactory in January 2015 doesn't make any sense to me. We shouldn't be following Bluebook for page titles, but even if we were, I think "Federal Election Comm'n" is what would be used, not FEC. Anyone have any thoughts or objections to a page move? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first suggestion. It would be the most popular and vernacular name choice, and would aid our readers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I rejected the deletion request because it appears to be in line with the naming convention at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. MZMcBride, why do you think that we should ignore this naming convention's proscription of following "Bluebook format, normally"? Article names need to obey established conventions, so unless this is an exceptional, WP:IAR, situation for ignoring the guideline completely, or one of the ordinary exceptions (the reasons they say "normally"), I see no reason to deviate, especially if we're using the vernacular in defiance of what the scholars use. Of course, your suggestion that "Comm'n" is more compliant with Bluebook is completely different; I'm not familiar with Bluebook, so I can't have a solid opinion on that. Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Nyttend. I'm having difficulty parsing your reply. You seem to be saying that we should follow Bluebook, but then also saying that you're unfamiliar with Bluebook. This seems like it would make it difficult to enforce a propriety style guide.

      Our article on the Federal Election Commission lives at Federal Election Commission, not FEC or FEC (United States) or similar. We typically avoid abbreviations in page titles. The common name of the case is "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission", looking at citations such as Oyez.org and SCOTUSblog. I'm not asking anyone to ignore rules here, I'm asking for a bad page move to be undone. I'd also like it if we were internally consistent in how we use abbreviations in page titles.

      Do you object to the page title being "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission"? If so, why? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Bluebook recommends using "FEC" and other commonly used acronyms (such as FCC, FTC, NLRB, NCAA) in case names. Whether we use Bluebook is of course a separate issue, but I was simply implementing the recommendation at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Legal#Article_titles. To deviate from the Bluebook standard, I suppose we should have a consensus, since the way it's worded, it's the "normal" or usual format that is used for U.S. cases. This guideline has been reworded a bit since I moved the article to allow for more flexibility. I note that the issue is broader than this single article, since there are a number of articles in Category:Federal Election Commission litigation that have "FEC" in the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MZMcBride: since you don't seem to specifically mention it, I've gotta ask - did you see the move discussion from Oct 27 a couple of sections up? VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notecardforfree: You quoted Bluebook the previous discussion about this page title. Do you have an online reference for Bluebook? GregJackP pointed me to <http://www.access-to-law.com/citation/basic_legal_citation.pdf>, but it doesn't seem to include what you're quoting (or maybe I'm just bad at searching). It seems very problematic for Wikipedia to be relying on a seemingly proprietary and closed-source style guide, but I may just be missing something very obvious here. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride, I don't think there is a free, publicly accessible version of the Bluebook online. In the RFC above, I cited the hard copy of the Bluebook that I keep in my office (I think I have the 19th edition). To be honest, I've been thinking a lot about this discussion over the last few days. Ultimately, I think it is more important for articles about legal cases to use a consistent naming convention than it is to be consistent between articles that have "Federal Election Commission" in their name. For the longest time, I understood MOS:LAW's title policy to require that articles follow Bluebook conventions, though in recent weeks I have come to the realization that it might make more sense to abbreviate SCOTUS case titles according to the title that appears in the U.S. Reports or slip opinions (incidentally, the title that appears in the U.S. Reports is "Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n" -- see p. 310 of Volume 558). That said, I think it might be time to start an RfC at WT:LAW (or somewhere else) to find consensus about how to title articles for legal cases. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being labeled as too pragmatic, I am not sure how much this all matters. It can be taken care of by a redirect. However or whichever way it goes. Let common sense be our guiding principal. It is only important the the readers can find it, and that they get the case name right. This is a tempest in a teapot. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support original poster move suggestion (in conjunction with a redirect from the abbreviated version ...FEC of course) based on WP:READERSFIRST rather than MOS:LAW or the Bluebook; no objection to move. Oppose "Fed. Election Comm'n" except as redirect. On the broader issue, I would be interested in participating in an RfC, mainly to comment in favor of an alternative to the Bluebook which is available online to all editors, and is simpler; I don't think we should incorporate by reference, into our MOS, sources which are copyright protected and available online only per fee. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A move discussion is tailored towards discussing page moves and is what we should use here. We last had one about this specific proposal a couple of months ago, but of course consensus can change over time. VQuakr (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Citizens United v. FEC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Included decision vote in lede paragraph

I put the vote (5–4) in the lede paragraph. I had wasted 10 aggravating minutes looking for it, finding it buried inside the article. Also, the vote is not in the summary box on the right side of the page....odd because if ever there were a "summary" item, the vote would be it. Could someone also please add this to the summary box? Some of us who use Wikipedia are not judicial clerks...we just want a summary of the facts....especially in the first paragraph and summary box. N0w8st8s (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)n0w8st8s[reply]

Request For Data

The political impact section of this article is rather small. Given that it's now been over six years since the decision, I'm guessing that there must be a wealth of data out on whether or not the decision has actually changed the outcome of races. It would be nice to see if there's any actual evidence that the decision has made incumbents more vulnerable (as it's proponents claim) or allowed rich people to dictate the outcomes (as it's opponents have charged). I realize that the two claims are actually not incompatible with each other and we're not likely to have iron clad evidence in any direction, but I still think it would still be of service to have some statistical analysis that goes beyond peoples gut feelings about how things are likely to impact (or are impacting) things.
Thanks, Costatitanica (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legalese in lead

The second half of the second lead paragraph, as currently written, is full of legalese that makes it rather difficult to read. It also does not summarize much of the article body, in particular, the reactions section. I will take a stab at rewriting it a little, but if somebody better acquainted with the article has any suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them. Vanamonde (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2016

Just a formatting edit request or advise to correct.. basically first section improper formatting, needs additional bracket for html correctness. Specific section (as is with error) is below, along with ^ indicating error/correction.

Done Topher385 (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case summary

In the case, {ussc|volume=558|page=310|year=2010|docket=08-205}}, 

            ^add another {


Endlesspath (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Endlesspath (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Overturn/Overrule?

Before I add Austin to the infobox as having been overturned by Citizens United, I wanted to know if there is a reason the infobox Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce here says overruled - I can check my copy of Black's later but I think they are the same thing in this case? Seraphim System (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Citizens United v. FEC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Citizens United v. FEC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updates to Opinion Polls

There have been opinion polls conducted much more recently than the one included in the article. For instance there was an Ipsos poll conducted in August of 2017 (link here: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/center-for-public-integrity-2017-08-31) which found that 48% of Americans opposed the decision and 30% were in favor. I think this poll should certainly be added, but I would like other people's opinions on whether we should keep the old poll data. Is it really relevant to include poll data which is nearly 10 years old in the article?

Thanks, DiscoStu42 (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Link leading to 404 error

Currently, the 10th citation leads to a 404 error and is not functional. ( Carney, Eliza (2010-01-21). "Court Unlikely To Stop With Citizens United". National Journal. Retrieved 2010-01-21.) https://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/rg_20100121_2456.php

Sorry if I made any mistakes. I didn't have much time to look up the etiquette or sign up. 76.14.115.35 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Philip M[reply]

Old Poll Data

Is there a reason that this article contains so much outdated polling? Many of the polls included are nearly 10 years old. If nobody objects, I will remove some of the older polling. DiscoStu42 (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23. article says decision was 5-4. but part D was 8-1

parts A B C and E of the opinion were 5-4, and expand freedom of speech. part D was 8-1, and purports to narrow it, by upholding the disclosure and disclaimer provisions. previously, the court has distinuished between the two, and often upheld disclosures but always found disclaimer reguation unconstitutional censorship. so this passage has confused lower courts ever since, and continues to be controversial. subsequent cases such as reed v town of gilbert and beccerra and janus show that the court was not giving up its opposition to micromanagement of poltical speech by allowing 'paid for by' type disclaimer regulations. but lower courts are still pointing to this passage as authority.

what actually happened was that plaintiff's complaint, as drafted by james bopp, made an argument that the speech was not express advocacy, and therefore didn't need a disclaimer or disclosure. the court found the speech was express advocacy or its equivaent, so the argument lost. the rest of section D is dicta, not holding. but it continues to confuse lower courts,and the supreme court has not clarified the issue.

the wikipedia article should be changed to clarify that section D was 8-1, not 5-4, and that it's meaning remains obscure and controversial.

50.90.158.23 (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)robbin stewart gtbear at gmail[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Citizens_United_v._FEC&oldid=925845928"