Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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. ] (]) 21:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
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. ] (]) 21:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
==Request for comment: 2012 Koch-organized funding of Americans for Prosperity==
]You are invited to join the discussion at ].  The RfC proposes a one-sentence addition to the ] section of ], a non-profit political advocacy group. The main source for the proposed content is a pair of reports in '']'', supported by ] and the '']''. The proposed content summarizes a key finding of investigative journalism. The discussion of the RfC centers on the due weight of investigative journalism into the sources of funding of a non-profit political advocacy group that is not in general legally required to disclose their funders. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Thanks. ] (]) 17:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC){{Z48}}<!-- ] -->
:Editors of this page are advised to ignore this attempt at ]. ] (]) 16:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Your comments at ] are welcome. By most of us. ] (]) 20:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This request for comment will most likely be closing one week from today, Thursday 6 August 2015. This is an update and a request for wider participation. Issues in the appropriate application of our due weight content policy remain in the discussion. Your comments are needed. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. ] (]) 15:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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?
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
.svg)
