Talk:Citizens United (organization)

New proposed edits: The current president, David Bossie, has been president since served as the chief investigator into then President Bill Clinton's possible abuse of finances in 1997, and was later the deputy campaign manager for Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016. In 2020, he served in executive positions for President Donald Trump's and Prime Minister Netanyahu's reelection campaigns.

References “About David N. Bossie.” Citizens United, 19 July 2023, www.citizensunited.org/who-we-are/about-david-n-bossie/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo&pocap (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

untitled
anon comment moved from article - "Citizens United is not a 527 but rather a 501(c)4. The people writing this should research their sources better."
 * according to their website, the Citizens United Foundation is 501(c)(3), which I've added to the article. I've removed the disputed 527 group. Some links:, . Rvollmert 11:35, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
 * perhaps this should also link to Political action committee... Rvollmert 11:38, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Removed:


 * It ran the infamous "Willie Horton" ad against Michael Dukakis.

That ad (the one with the photo) was run by the "National Security" PAC. See the Willie Horton page for more info. Ellsworth 15:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zero Sources
How can this article exist with only a single source to the Mark Foley scandal? How are any of us to know whether any of the assertions here are true? Bluefield 17:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds Like Advertising
It sounds like it was written as a self-promotional piece. In addition the final section rambles and makes little sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.179.108 (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

is this a 501 (c) 3 or what?
they basically got corporate free speech rights enshrined in the form of electoral ads and I don't even know what type of legal enntity it is. HEEELLLOO?!?!?! S*K*A*K*K 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Citizens United is actuall a 501 (c) 4. There is actually two entities, Citizens United (501(c)4) and Citizens United Foundation (501(c)3). The Court Case involved Citizens United, and not Citizens United Foundation. The article seems to switch back and forth between the two, or at least it talks about CU, then inserts one paragraph about CUF being a 501(c)3, and then goes back to talking about CU without ever mentioning the tax status of that organization. I've tried to edit the article to show the difference between the two organizations. Dusa1981 (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention of Fahrenheit 9/11?
Given that Citizens United's efforts to block its release using McCain-Feingold were so totally contradictory to their lawsuit that got that law overturned just a few years later, it really deserves mentioning. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Grassroots?
"The American Sovereignty Project is the grassroots lobbying arm of Citizens United, ..." I'm not sure that a political non-profit organization can have a grassroots division. I'm cutting the adjective for the obvious logical fallacy. If it's goal is to encourage grassroots lobbying, state it as such. If it itself is lobbying, then it's not "grassroot". 206.196.158.130 (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy
That part of the article feels quite "white washy" 217.224.202.117 (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, a more accurate section would say "Citizens United is a corporate mouthpiece that has been very effective at claiming to represent the (christian conservative) people while working very effectively to silence their voice." Unfortunately, Wikipedia must be completely unbiased and well sourced, even if that means obscuring the truth. If you said the sky was blue, it is obviously 100% true, but Wikipedia wouldn't be able to say so if the Washington Post, New York Times, and AP ran a story saying the sky was purple with green spots. Wikipedia can't be biased in any way for or against anything, even if the bias is completely correct. For example, Wikipedia would not be able to say that Hitler was evil, or that North Korea abuses human rights, or that China has renounced Communism. That sort of thing would be under a "Criticism" section of the article in a "they said this and we're just reporting their beliefs"-type format. --70.106.145.215 (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Citizens United (organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131110191204/http://www.elephantbiz.com/2008/01/citizens_united_against_mccain.html to http://www.elephantbiz.com/2008/01/citizens_united_against_mccain.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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) 04:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Citizens United (organization) → Citizens United – Move over redirect, see discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2015_October_27. In my view, this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and we should then hatnote it, once moved, to Citizens United v. FEC, which the redirect at currently targets. I realise this was discussed about a month ago at Talk:Citizens United, but I feeel it did not have a wide enough audience to achieve broad consensus. Si Trew (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The renaming discussion about this organization (and the metonymic SCOTUS case) is occurring in at least four places: here, the Citizens United v. FEC article, and two posts at Redirects for Discussion. Shouldn't we wait to see the results of the debates at Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 27? If the consensus is to keep "Citizens United" as a redirect to the SCOTUS case, then this RfC will be moot. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but if one suggests a move at RfD the response will usually be that it's out of process (because it's discussing the target not the redirect) and so to take it to RM. Were I to wait until the close of the RfD, we'd just wind up having another RfD if it were subsequently moved, which seems like makework. Si Trew (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:OTHERPARENT. Si is right about common jurisdictional opposition at RfD, but a full discussion about this had already occurred before it was listed at RfD. This is the third or fourth request for this move within the last two months. Consensus is clearly against this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of my opinion on the proposal, I must concur with Ivanvector. This issue has been raised multiple times recently with consensus against moving. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per . We have had this discussion already; it was a RfC - how much of a "wider audience" can you expect? VQuakr (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not the primary topic, it is clearly the court case Speedy close we just discussed this at an RfC. And the recent RfD Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 27 -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite that this statement will have no value, I support the move as I said in the RfD; the consensus is against common sense. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 06:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Court case is the primary topic. Hugh (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.

How big is the group???
How big is Citizens United? How much does it own, how much does it spend? How many members are in it? How can Wikipedia seriously post an article without answering these questions??? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Generation Zero - the documentary?
There seems to be an article on the Bannon documentary, Generation Zero, but links or a search for it redirect to this page on Citizens United. WTF? JuanTamad (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Article needs a GO-TO link.
Most people never heard of the company, they are looking for the anti-person Supreme Court case: "Citizens United;" as used below. There should be a link at the top.

" Citizens United was the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that began as a challenge to various...." --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3963:C38C:4FD5:440C (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)--Doug

Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics
— Assignment last updated by Tuk28507 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)