Talk:Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

Lacking info
Anyone else feel like this article doesn't actually tell us what this act does, specifically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.40.232 (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea, that is a good way to put it... Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
So far not much on what the Act states. Wetman 14:23, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I posted yesterday on Requests_for_summaries. UtherSRG 14:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Okay, this page really needs some help, which I'm about to start giving it. That having been said, would anyone have an objection to moviing the detailed Supreme Court stuff to McConnell v. FEC, provide a link to there and summarize the basic results? Radicalsubversiv 10:19, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The name and the sponsors
At http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/legislation/mccain.html the companion bill is called "McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Bill."

At http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.2356: (I'm not sure if any of these Thomas links are permanent), it has "McCain-Feingold" in brackets next to the companion bill number (S27), which is consistent with Wikipedia's history section's reference to "first version of the McCain-Feingold Act," but on the S27 page at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:S.27: it just mentions McCain as the sponsor and mentions 41 cosponsors.

In the actual text of the bill S27.IS it says "Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. REED, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. KOHL, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. HARKIN, and Ms. STABENOW) introduced the following bill..." I don't know if those are supposed to be the cosponsors.

I received an email response to a question that I asked the Library of Congress that said: "The bill that passed is named for Sens. McCain and Feingold because they were the ones who pushed the legislation for several years, even though they weren't sponsors of the bill that ultimately was passed (and could not have been, since McCain and Feingold were Senators, and the bill that passed was a House bill)."

So, the Wikipedia information might be wrong where it says "It is also known as the McCain-Feingold Bill, after its chief sponsors..." But even if Wikipedia is correct about that, can it also be correct about "The first version of the McCain-Feingold Act was introduced in 1997"? Should it be called an act or a bill? Considering neither phrase can be found in the Thomas database, maybe you should stick with either the popular title, short title as introduced, short title as passed, or official title.

I haven't thought about exactly what I'd change about this Wikipedia entry to clarify things, but I figured I'd mention some of the confusing data that's out there. I needed to research this for the Campaigns and Elections webpage I'm working on at http://www.polisource.com/campaigns-elections.shtml.

Barry 08:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Washington State Case
The case in Washington state does not involve a challenge to McCain-Feingold, but to a state law. This needs to be modified or deleted. Or if you disagree, come up with a cite. I will modify if nothing more.EABSE

March 19 - I am moving this reference to the Washington state case to the Campaign Finance Reform page. The lawsuit is against a state statute, not McCain-Feingold, a federal law. Note that I will place the content in the campaign finance page, not delete it from Wikipedia. If you feel strongly it belongs here, I would recommend a link to that page. EABSE

''Minors are prohibited from making contributions to candidates and political parties. (Ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.197.112.61 (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unconstitutional?
Say what? Which was ruled unconstitutional? The donations or the provision of the law? -- 24.30.46.12 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

527s controversy
Should this really be here. This is not part of BCRA, and would be more appropriate under campaign finance reform. Overacker 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it is a result of the campaign finance reform, I think it's completely valid to discuss it in this article. However, the entire article needs sources.--Gloriamarie 02:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Three issues?
The beginning of the article states that the bill was designed to address "three issues," but then only lists two. Am I missing something? Was one of the issues removed from the article? Graymornings 04:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001
although the act was passed in 2002, the name of the bill has the year 2001. the article before had 2002, i made the change. you can check votesmart.org to see the history of the bill and why a bill with a 2001 title was passed in 2002, but its not called reform act of 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.96.75 (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101122025942/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Article needs substantial work
Some of this has been pointed out before: I'm happy to bounce around ideas with anyone who wants to improve it! Thanks, Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * the article never clearly explains  what it is—i.e. what the law was and what it changed
 * the lead needs to encapsulate the full history of the law (not go into what it was designed to address)
 * the arguments pro/con are missing or obscured
 * the parties and their interests are muddied—for example, Democrats publicly supported it, but many privately worked against it, and its passage led to a fundraising disaster for them
 * dated sections or bullet points are needed to describe the history, which is mushy and rambling
 * there's undue weight given to Citizen's United, which has its own article