Talk:Citizens United v. FEC/Archive 1

Removing the link to Hillary: The Movie in the See Also section
It's silly, in my opinion, to have a page link to itself. The Hillary: The Movie link redirects to this article. I think we should either change where it directs or remove the link. ObiBinks (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WRONG!
According to my research if the FEC had originally tried to ban the commercials than it abandoned it after the district court case started and certainly the district court ruled that the commercials themselves (and just them because all they did is advocate the buying the movie were ok.

The court did ban the movie though. And whether the government has the power to ban movies and books and whether the First Amendment means what the bloody hell it says is now up for the SC to decide. Look for yourself

http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/citizens_united_memo_opinion_pi.pdf

I will leave it for the author to fix. I am busy right now. --69.37.90.34 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no criticism section?
There are comments pro and con, but why on earth are the quotes on either side from non-credible sources like Limbaugh, Malkin and Olbermann instead of informed advocates. Serious advocates like ACLU and Ctr for Competitive Politics (pro-corporate) and Reclaim Democracy or Program on Corpp Law and Democracy (anti-corp) ought to be the sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.177.252 (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This decision reached has already been universally derided. Why is that not reflected in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.241.49.131 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You must be taking that quote about being bound up in a nutshell literally. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 19:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a bit more criticism from various people, although I think John McCain and Olympia Snowe's criticisms still must be added. BillyJack193 (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added some comments by McCain and Snowe as well as a few other notables. Afasmit (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about the lead...
The sentence about Erwin Chemerinsky seems out of place in the lead. He isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article so should this be removed? Hewinsj (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He's named because he was quoted in the given source. I don't believe that undue weight is being given in this case, just adding context for the quote. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 05:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But the article lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the article, not introduce new information. If it doesn't appear in the article, it shouldn't be in the lead.  Would there be any problem if I moved it to the criticism section?  Hewinsj (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Being that the source in question was published last August (well before the decision), the Background section would be a better fit. The reaction section should be reserved for anything subsequent to the decision. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 16:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I have moved this sentence into the Background section.  Hewinsj (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Some confusion on what laws outlawed what
I'm adding one quote from Adam Liptak, Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit, New York Times, January 21, 2010. One thing that is a bit confusing is which laws banned what, including whether/which laws banned all corp/union ads or just 30 days before a presidential primary and 60 days before the general election. Also should the days earlier decisions be mentioned here? (See David D. Kirkpatrick, Courts Roll Back Limits on Election Spending.

It might help to shorten the lead with less details and then give fuller details to make it all clear in the body? Just in case anyone more knowledgeable wants to do it. Not high on my priorities list, but would be nice to straighten out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind, corrected it myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Corporate personhood and Tillman Act of 1907
In the "See also" section, there are links to the Corporate personhood debate and the Tillman Act of 1907, but there is no mention of either in the body of the text.

Many commentators mention that a century-old law has been revised, i.e. the Tillman Act, but in our text there is only mention of it overruling 1990 and 2003 decisions as well as the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act. Perhaps a knowledgeable person could add if and how this decision overrules the Tillman Act?

With respect to corporate personhood, in the US landmark decisions article the decision currently is even summarized as "limits on corporate and union political expenditures during an election cycle violate the First Amendment; establishes corporate personhood" and the corporate personhood debate article currently ends with a paragraph on this decision. Could the same or another informed person please add a section discussing the impact of the decision on this debate? This article may be a good point to start from. Afasmit (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good questions. The Tillman Act, while being the first U.S. law effecting campaign donations, may not be notable enough for inclusion. The wording of the stub implies that it went out of effect a few years after passage. The corporate personhood debate is a bit trickier. IMO the whole argument against it consists of special pleading of the worst type, yet it seems to be what much of the criticism of this decision is based upon. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 05:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is largely about whether funding
speech... ==

...is there any way to fit a "money talks" joke in here? --Shay Guy (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stevens Retirement
That Stevens stumbled thru the oral presentation of the decision, is about to retire, and that the other dissenters deferred to him withholding separate opinions in light of the circumstances of his immanent departure, are noteworthy and sourceable. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please share them. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 05:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The first is a fact, the other two are widely speculated in the MSM (the intentions of the dissenters, that they didn't present separate opinions and normally would have by their individual custom in so important a case is a fact). 72.228.150.44 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect speculation really doesn't have a place in this article. Even the subject of a Justice retiring is off topic here. I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith. It's just that reliable sources are required for any remarkable claim. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A source 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * John Paul Stevens 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Who voted for and against
Where does it say which Supreme Court justices vote for it and which ones voted against it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.173.3 (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the standard ideological split is just assumed. (Adjusted below for indentation) 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's complicated. Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas joined with Kennedy's opinion. Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor voted against overturning the limitation on corporate political advertising. Thomas was the only Justice to dissent with holding up the requirement of naming donors. I hope this helps (and that I got it right). ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 17:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is really that complicated. Five appointed by Republican Presidents voted for, four appointed by Democrats voted against.  Including who voted is a reasonable reaction.  Including Thomas's advocacy for further dissolution of McCain Feingold is also relevant.  More is better in this article from all sides. Manticore55 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I think the complicated part is the concurrence in part and dissent in part. While I agree that, at the essence of the vote, it is a 5-4 "Republican-Democrat" split, we can't over-simplify the vote. Marchoi (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There are only 3 justices appointed by Democrats. Get the facts before you try to oversimplify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.143.91 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion Section Clarifications needed
Prompted by above, which is over-stated IMHO, this is the first time I've looked carefully at the Opinion of the Court section and some comments/questions/suggestions. Some things maybe people more on top of these issues could fix so I don't have to research:
 * Quotes and info on Judge's opinions should be from WP:RS as much as possible and not editor's own interpretation of Primary sources, per No_original_research.
 * The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311 were valid as applied to the ads for Hillary and to the movie itself. Even if mentioned in lead, good to explain more explicitly (i.e., "also clarifying legal cites not prev. mentioned with text would help").
 * Justice Scalia joined the opinion of the Court, but wrote separately with whom Justice Alito joined, and with whom Justice Thomas joined in part, concurring. What is this person saying with these ungrammatical "whoms"?
 * a then recent California voter initiative - maybe someone could come up with the year? And non primary source refs, in this paragraph as throughout. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow
I really cannot believe this decision. The US is the most undemocratic country in the developed world. (1) the Supreme Court just strikes down democratically passed legislation with whatever obscure theory of constitutional interpretation it wishes (2) the Senate needs a 60 from 100 majority to pass laws, because of the filibuster (3) elections for governments are at a different time, so the will of the people can produce a president from one party and a Congress held up/controlled by another (4) elections for President depend on states' votes, not people's votes.

But, (1) Marbury v Madison was not a necessary judgment, without any explicit constitutional authority and Congress could overturn it (2) the filibuster only exists as a custom, and could be changed by a Senate majority (3) this probably requires something more, but wouldn't be so bad if (1) and (2) were solved, and (4) needs big change, but the same points about (1) and (2). It all shows, especially with a decision like this allowing the modern corporation to exercise its will as some part of its freedom of speech, that the US constitution was good for creating 18th representative government. But not representative democracy. It's such a pity.  Wik idea  13:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI this talk page is not a forum or a place to right great wrongs (whatever that may be). This is for discussing how to improve the article, and ignoring the right to peaceably assemble is no improvement. I see from your user page that you're a lawyer in Britain, so perhaps you will find The Federalist Papers helpful in illustrating the ideals that American government are founded upon. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * His point is reasonable. Furthermore, there is substantial opinion that this violates a hundred years of prescendent.  A public opinion section is certainly warranted. Manticore55 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If precedent were the final word then Plessy v Ferguson would still be in force. And I think you misplaced your response. At least you've made an attempt to find some balance, though Choate's statement seems sensationalistic. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 20:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I added one of several opinions I found that this finally will allow nonprofit citizen corporations/groups to represent their memberships. In the same article listing various opinions from experts, a couple opined that for-profit corporations were likely to stick to current campaign contributions methods and few (except labor unions) would sponsor their own advertisements. But I'll give others a chance to read the whole article before adding more from it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Other commentators blasted the idea that this ruling would somehow benefit nongovernmental organizations, because empirical evidence suggests that there is a comparatively disproportionate amount of resources available to corporations. I do not know the names of the individuals I am referring to, but if sources can be located, we should do something to explain this contradictory viewpoint alongside the other. —  C M B J   22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Carol Moore, this is supportive of the POV that supports Citizens United. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is about sourcing, not personal attacks when you can't find a source for what you believe is true. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a reply to your post, and is about it, not you. It is the subject, not you. It is not even negative. Therefore, by definition, it cannot be a personal attack — no matter how many times, and in how many places, you repeat this lie — and it is pretty uncivil to do so. Thank you for letting me know what Wikipedia is not about, in your opinion. Here is something else Wikipedia's not about. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Article becoming very biased
It's important to be accurate in this article since some advocacy groups are deceptively inferring this decision allows corporations to contribute all the money they want directly to politicians. Other such biases also are evidencing themselves in the article.

I doubt that the following are really encyclopedic: comments by Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Veterans Today, Keith Olbermann. Also Ralph Nader and Olympia Snow should not be quoted unless they say something substantive and Snowe needs to be referenced. Also the note about wikilinks proving those opining aren't "noteworthy" enough shows a certain bias. Wikilinks of those without articles are meant to encourage the creation of articles, not to discredit the person speaking, even when they have been published in a WP:RS.

I'm expanding the list of those supporting the decision. Also I am changing the categories to: Politicians, Academics and attorneys, Advocacy groups and Journalists to reflect the new material. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is commendable that you're working for some balance. But it may be for the best to just get rid of the Reaction section altogether. It seems to be degenerating into a coatrack. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 05:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dred Scott v. Sandford has a rather lengthy reaction section; perhaps the one in this article will mature as the dust settles. —  C M B J   06:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that inclusion of those supporting and opposing this decision are extrelemy academically relevant. Including the reaction of pro and anti slavery groups was certainly relevant to the Dread Scott decision. Waiting a while might be warranted, but the reaction sections are to central to a decision of this magnitude to be left out.  Manticore55 (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Carol Moore, this is supportive of the POV that supports Citizens United. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not remove this totally gratuitous last statement that is little more than another personal attack? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a reply to your post, and is about it, not you. It is the subject, not you. It is not even negative, just a simple fact. Therefore, by definition, it cannot be a personal attack — no matter how many times, and in how many places, you repeat this lie. Advocacy can cause a problem for NPOV. "[E]xpanding the list of those supporting the decision," "is supportive of the POV that supports Citizens United" — by definition. Indeed, claiming I have made a personal attack when I have not, can itself be considered a personal attack. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresentations of the decision
I wrote
 * Many critics of the ruling based their responses on misrepresentations of the ruling. For instance, Jonathan Alter stated that "If Goldman Sachs wants to pay the entire cost of every congressional campaign in the U.S., the law of the land now allows it." However, the ruling only affects the funding of independent advertisements; restrictions on other aspects of campaign financing, such as paying travel expenses, would not affected by the ruling.

How is this a "personal interpretation"? Heqwm2 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Though that's a sensible critique, your statement still falls under the original research category. If that statement were echoed by somebody else e.g. a notable legal scholar who was quoted in a news story the it would be considered a reliable source. I hope that helps. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 23:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a matter of keeping ones eyes open to WP:RS that make that point and I'm sure by now there must be a few. Esp. since even Obama misrepresented it in state of union. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Heqwm2, I don't think your text is personal and obviously it's germane. Moreover, it's part of the basis for Alitos gaff during the SOTU albeit there it was the matter of foreign concerns funding candidates which the ruling also didn't affect. This is apparently a contentious space so one of the many sources to support the text should be added. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You just need a citation. Find the place where you read that quote and you shouldn't have any problem adding that info. Information on citation format can be found at WP:Cite.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There have been several more criticisms of misrepresentation as well as discussion of reason Alito made gestures at State of Union. Where to put them? They need to be a refutation to criticism, so they probably need their own section after criticism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Carol Moore, this is supportive of the POV that supports Citizens United. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully no one will be dissuaded from opining by these kinds of [WP:PA]]s. :-) Anyway, been busy and will decide where to put it at some point since the misrepresentations keep piling up and probably the WP:RS noting them do as well. This remains a relatively narrow ruling, despite efforts of some to paint it as something massively iniquitous. Only future experience will prove if that is true or not. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your post, not you, was the subject of my post. My post was not even negative. So it cannot possibly fit the definition of a personal attack, no matter how many times, or in how many places, you repeat this lie. It's pretty uncivil to repeatedly claim that a fellow Wikipedian has made a personal attack, when they have not. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

John Kerry
The call by John Kerry for a Constitutional Amendment to address this issue must be included.BillyJack193 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just find a RS and you'll be golden. You can probably append it to an existing sentence about an amendment in the reaction section. I'm not doing it. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 05:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it.BillyJack193 (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Donna Edwards and John Conyers proposed an Amendment; that needs to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.149.36 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is subtly but dangerously partisan and should be downgraded or removed.
This article shows how Wikipedia can be used to manipulate opinion while seeming non-partisan. It apparently speaks for both sides but in reality, for two thirds of its length, builds the strongest case possible in favor of the Supreme Court decision (the opinion of the dissenting Justice is derided) while mentioning only the less incisive criticisms against the Court. Only when (and if) the reader reaches the lower third are the voices of the critics heard and they are emotional pleas more than reasoned arguments. (A notable exception: the Laurence H. Tribe quote.) But spin masters know that first impressions carry more weight. Thus, the average reader, assuming s/he gets to the bottom, sees extensive reasoning on one side and a burst of rhetoric on the other. This is unfair. Besides, even if it is rhetoric, the charge that this Supreme Court decision destroys democracy and makes elected officials "prostitutes" is of such magnitude that it deserves ample space up front, no matter what, so that readers know why they should read the whole article.

As it stands, this article is a clever whitewash job and shows how pernicious seemingly collaborative writing can be in Wikipedia. Vestini (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. The introduction of this article is for a concise description of the subject at hand. Shoehorning in an obviously partisan POV is unacceptable. With the Contents box people can jump straight to the Criticism section if they wished. You're free to substitute reasoned arguments for emotional pleas in the criticism section (WP:RS of course). However, I suspect that you won't find any. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 17:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In this case and similar ones, an impression of bias may be created simply by an objective report of the facts. A secondary phenomenon, unfortunately, is that to achieve the best result there has to be an absence of contention on the subject matter or a fight that resolves to that same result. Since most people want to avoid fights, an initial population's viewpoint, will by virtue of a principle of inertia, tend to hold sway, indefinitely if the subject doesn't garner sufficient attention. That's unlikely to be the case but it will prolly take some time before the process works itself out and the decision is still fresh. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Weight
I would encourage people to recognize that WP:Weight refers to the proportion to the prominence of each in reliable sources, and most of what I've been reading in the New York Times and Washington Post has been critical. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And I'd encourage people to remember that the Times and Post are big corporations whose right to opine freely about who should be elected up until and all during election day was protected before this decision, while all sorts of small advocacy nonprofit corps were prohibited from advertising. So their WP:POV's obviously of interest. And there are smaller but equally WP:RS corporate publications that disagree with the Times and Post and even criticize their positions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your bias is clear. That "the Times and Post are big corporations whose right to opine freely..." looks like a standard pro Citizens United argument. Before Citizens United, media corporations could opine. We know.
 * Despite your reply, facts remain:
 * (1) More RS ink has been spilled criticizing Citizens United than supporting it.
 * (2) Wikipedia has recognized the USA's best newspapers (the New York Times and the Washington Post) as reliable sources, since before I started contributing in 2004.
 * (3) Whether the NYT and WP have "positions" is irrelevant to Wikipedia. All sources are written by people with POVs. We still use them. Per WP:DUE, we "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (Besides, both positions have been published by these newspapers.)
 * (4) WP:DUE does not dictate that all significant viewpoints should be given equal weight: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources." -- WP:DUE. (I note that you have not disputed this, yet it was the central point of my post.)
 * If you keep replying without addressing what I write, we'll just go back and forth. I'm duly impressed by your ability to make an argument -- but that's not consensus seeking, just debating to push a POV.
 * It may well be that encyclopedic POVs of "small advocacy nonprofit corps" are "obviously of interest," if they are verifiable -- and that "equally WP:RS corporate publications [...] disagree with the Times and Post and even criticize their positions" -- but this neither contradicts anything I wrote, nor refutes my point.
 * That WP:DUE says what it says is undisputed.. and undisputable. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick review of this talk page reveals that you're all over it, consistently pushing the POV that supports Citizens United. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It may well be that encyclopedic POVs of "small advocacy nonprofit corps" are "obviously of interest," if they are verifiable -- and that "equally WP:RS corporate publications [...] disagree with the Times and Post and even criticize their positions" -- but this neither contradicts anything I wrote, nor refutes my point.
 * That WP:DUE says what it says is undisputed.. and undisputable. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick review of this talk page reveals that you're all over it, consistently pushing the POV that supports Citizens United. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That WP:DUE says what it says is undisputed.. and undisputable. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick review of this talk page reveals that you're all over it, consistently pushing the POV that supports Citizens United. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ANONYMOUS IP 72.219.191.45 wrote that is relevant (in italics with Carolmooredc replies): —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc  (talk • contribs)  15:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) More RS ink has been spilled criticizing Citizens United than supporting it. Carolmooredc replies: According to what WP:RS??
 * (3) Whether the NYT and WP have "positions" is irrelevant to Wikipedia. All sources are written by people with POVs. We still use them. Per WP:DUE, we "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (Besides, both positions have been published by these newspapers.) Carolmooredc replies: But we also allow WP:RS to point out any biases of WP:RS, which is what is done here. Is that what you are objecting to?
 * (4) WP:DUE does not dictate that all significant viewpoints should be given equal weight: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources." -- WP:DUE. Carolmooredc replies: It is not clear what specifically you think needs to be added or subtracted, so this is all theoretical. Personal attacks don't change that fact. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) We usually don't have RS's to substantiate that more of one viewpoint, than another, has been published. Fortunately, that is not a requirement.
 * (3) Yes, "we also allow WP:RS to point out any biases of WP:RS." My post "encourage[d] people to recognize that WP:Weight refers to the proportion to the prominence of each in reliable sources," and states that "most of what I've been reading in the New York Times and Washington Post has been critical." That is not an objection to anything. If you didn't understand my post, why the reply? Perhaps rereading my original post might be instructive. It would certainly be more helpful than all this wasted energy flailing about, searching for a win, rather than consensus.
 * (4) It is not "all theoretical". That WP:DUE states what it does is a fact, not a theory.
 * I have substantiated my contention that your posts have been "consistently pushing the POV that supports Citizens United" — for example, where you wrote you were, "expanding the list of those supporting the decision" — without levying personal attacks against you. It's pretty uncivil to write that I have.
 * Hopefully this is not an attempt to suck me into a back and forth that fills up this talk page with little value added, because arguing with perfect strangers — that don't reply to what I've written, and then accuse me of things I haven't done, may be an effective Wikipedia strategy, but it isn't an ideal lifestyle for anyone that has a life (and it's no good for Wikipedia). Few will appreciate the widening of things into a full-fleged blow-up. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * All IPs are anonymous. Please don't try to make me out to be something less, because I have just as much right to contribute as you do. That's pretty uncivil. I deserve to evalated based on the quality of my contributions. Most Wikipedians are anonymous. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that your contributions here consist of trying to game the system to remove any RS and editor you perceive to be favorable to the ruling. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 21:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never tried to remove any RS or editor — of any kind — nor done anything that even approximates such behavior. Your uncivil attack is very negative, yet is completely without any substantiation whatsoever. I don't even see how it could be substantiated. Your attempt to delete my posts from this talk page in vain, speaks volumes. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I know full well that all edits are recorded and revertible. That you can't contain an argument in a single thread is telling too. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Overall, I have to agree with 72.219.191.45. CarolMooreDC has made some good contributions to this article, but she also seems to have an agenda that reflects bias and may not be in the best interest of an encyclopedic article.BillyJack193 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect 72.219.191.45 hasn't provided any RS to back up their claims. The only impression I get from this editor is that of tunnel vision from reading only two newspapers. They're still free to find RS and edit the main article like anybody else. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My only "claims" were that, "I would encourage people to recognize that WP:Weight refers to the proportion to the prominence of each in reliable sources, and most of what I've been reading in the New York Times and Washington Post has been critical."
 * I never wrote that I've been "reading only two newspapers," yet your disingenuous and derogatory claim that I have "tunnel vision" is based on that. Why do you keep making things up about me?
 * I don't have to have an RS for any content I have not added to the article. What's with all the misdirection?
 * Here is a link to WP:Weight. Here is a link to what I was referring to. I've read it all. You can try to establish that most of it is not critical, but asking for an RS to establish that is nonsensical. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That shows your claim, as you're currently presenting it, is essentially original research. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 04:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It does not. OR refers to published content, not talk page discussion. This is yet another twisting of Wikipedia policies to make it look like they support your nonsensical argument that I don't have an RS to support my contentions, either that:
 * (1) "Most of what I've been reading in the New York Times and Washington Post has been critical," or
 * (2) "More RS ink has been spilled criticizing Citizens United than supporting it."
 * (1) Reliable sources don't publish a viewpoint's prevalence, in sources Wikipedia considers reliable, that individual Wikipedians have been reading.
 * (2) Contending that I need an RS to opine that "More RS ink has been spilled criticizing Citizens United than supporting it," or it's OR, is similarly flawed. Both RS and OR refer to content published in Wikipedia articles, not talk page discussion.
 * Were this illogical contention true, Wikipedians could never discuss WP:Weight, because reliable sources don't publish what a viewpoint's prevalence in sources Wikipedia considers reliable is. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Here" recommended by 72.219.191.45 is merely a link showing that the NY Times, Wash Post and Associated Press have covered the issue. I don't think anyone is denying that. What is relevant for the article is the content of the various news stories. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility break
Here's a special section for Carolmooredc and Chelydramat to team up, levy random accusations and write all about me. Editors that are more interested in improving the article can steer clear of this section.

I won't be replying to anything, not even to defend myself from accusations that are clearly baseless, so have a field day.

I'll start it off with the über-provocative post of mine that started all this:

I would encourage people to recognize that WP:Weight refers to the proportion to the prominence of each in reliable sources, and most of what I've been reading in the New York Times and Washington Post has been critical. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never seen anyone repeat the same phrase as the only response to an editor's comments, i.e., a rote "Carol Moore, this is supportive of the POV that supports Citizens United." It's hard to see it as anything but a personal attack meant to disrupt someone's editing. Especially when it's backed up by no real critique and opinions unsupported by alleged WP:RS. Please stick to specific issues, examples, etc. in a constructive fashion. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll paste the full sentence so everybody here can see what it means in context: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. To date the article has managed to satisfy both of these requirements on both sides of the argument. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 04:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)



RfC: Has criticism or support been more prevalent in reliable sources?
Has most of what's been published in reliable sources been critical or supportive of the majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission? — 72.219.191.45 (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Vestini wrote that the article "builds the strongest case possible in favor of the Supreme Court decision (the opinion of the dissenting Justice is derided) while mentioning only the less incisive criticisms against the Court." If Vestini is correct, then it is crystal clear that this article is not in conformity with NPOV. -- 72.219.191.45 (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of what I've been reading in the New York Times and Washington Post has been critical, and I would encourage people to recognize that WP:Weight refers to a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. Neutrality requires that we represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and that we do so in proportion to the prominence of each.


 * Just let me clarify for anyone passing by that User:72.219.191.45 has not contributed any WP:RS info to the article, which obviously is the best way to deal with his/her concerns. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the New York Times and Washington Post are not neutral sources on this issue. The opinion has positive support from the right to the left (ACLU, AFL-CIO, etc.). THF (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is quite simply not true. The decision is opposed by a large majority of America of every political affiliation. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * About Equal. To make a claim that criticism has been more this and less that is actually synthesis or original research.  You must have a reliable, unbiased source if you're going to support such a broad claim.  I think the amount of coverage, as is, is fine.  In fact, the dissenting justices wrote an incredibly long opinion, which is probably the only thing that's going to stand up to the ravages of time.  Opinions from minor politicians and groups are going to be lost. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What Polls asked
I'm confused on this change which is explained as "(Opinion polls. Primary sources, actual questions that were answered, other relevant aspects of both polls.)"

However, neither article quotes directly what was asked so we must make it clear this is the ABC and WashPost reporters characterization of what was said, especially since both make broad and inaccurate descriptions of what the court decided. So it's important to say something like the wording which was removed: ABC described as “throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns” and the Washington Post described as allowing “unfettered corporate political spending.”

Also it would seem sensible to list the polls in chronological order. Also something reflecting this wording could be added: ''Likewise, Gallup analysts said that the poll did not conclusively mean the public agrees with Citizens United. "Does the ruling square with Americans' views on campaign contribution limits? In some respects, yes. In others, it depends on whether Americans decide that independent expenditures are tantamount to political 'contributions' or are merely free speech," they wrote.'' CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * With my changes I had added links to the ABC-Washington Post and the Gallup polls that do spell out the questions asked. I changed the order since the ABC-Post poll was directly about the decision, while the Gallup poll was about questions clearly related to the issue, but the answers turned out hard to interpret with respect to how people would like the court's decision. You're welcome to add the reporters' interpretation of the results though. Afasmit (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa. I somehow missed link to actual poll originally and in reading your version. I changed the wording to make the point about poll wording. Have been procrastinating on making a misrepresentation section cause can't find my original list of relevant links, but guess I should look again now. I do get your point on the order, just usually prefer chrono. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the interim I found there have been 3 WP:RS responses to the misleading language of the poll that need to be ref'd and are a ref for the way I phrased it, so I'll stick those in now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dartmouth College v. Woodward
[Transferred from my talk page]: Why did you remove Dartmouth College v. Woodward from the See also section of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission with this edit?Tstrobaugh (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The decision is regarding the application of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution to private corporations. If it is related to this decision, it should be mentioned in the article and ref'd with some WP:RS. Otherwise it looks like POV pushing WP:Original research. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With all the editing you've done to this article I would have thought you would have at least read the decision. Please read it. Thank you.Tstrobaugh (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a nonresponsive answer. There are a few places that (as I wrote above):"If it is related to this decision, it should be mentioned in the article and ref'd with some WP:RS." If you are interested in doing that, do it. Don't expect me to read your mind as to where it should be done and then do it.CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't expect you to read my mind, I expect you to read the decision you are editing. You are the one who removed the relevant material, you obviously have no knowledge of the decision as it (Dartmouth College v. Woodward) is mentioned prominently. I'm not a mind reader either, you haven't answered my original question, why did you remove the material? How did you have the knowledge necessary to know the material wasn't "relevant"? If you aren't editing on knowledge what is it? You accuse me of "POV pushing"? I await your response.Tstrobaugh (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on what WP:RS say first, primary sources second. (See WP:V.)
 * I looked at the case and counted 9 decisions that were mentioned, two of which are in the article. Should we link to all of those not mentioned in the article? Or do we wait to see which are mentioned in various WP:RS? Do we at least discuss here which might be linked to as important and which would not be? Or do we engage in POV or Original Research to decide which ones to link to?
 * Explaining why you think it is important to link to that one and not others would be a constructive way to deal with the issue instead of keeping others guessing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the order of prominence that you assign to the "9 decisions" mentioned in the case at hand? One last time, how did you decide that Dartmouth College v. Woodward was not one of the most prominent?Tstrobaugh (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've read WP:Original research yet. It's not for me to decide but WP:Reliable sources to do so. Also, since you want to mention other cases, just state your case as to why you do, which you still have not done. You want me to disprove your unstated case, which again is expecting me to read your mind. There's an old wikipedia principle PROVEIT. ^ When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Applied to WP:External links to avoid: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. My problem is only that without a context within the article most readers would be lost. You have spent a lot of time defending just having a link which you could have spent putting in one sentence from a WP:RS in the text explaining why this case is important. Doing so is what is called WP:Cooperative editing - which hopefully will soon link to the appropriate page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "It's not for me to decide but WP:Reliable sources to do so." But you did decide. It was an existing edit. You deleted it. Please use your own rules and cite what reliable sources you used to make your decision to remove the edit. Or is it your contention that only additive edits require reason and sources, not negative or deleting edits? This is the basis of the deletionist position, is it not? That is, that you don't need a reason or rationale to make a deleting edit? If you have no rationale for your edit I can only conclude that you edited based on a POV. Did you WP:AGF? Why did you make your edit? What criteria did you use? I'm certainly willing to work with you on this but you're not very forthcoming. I can see why you like legal articles, you seem to be a wiki-lawyer, should I reciprocate? Have you read WP:Preserve (specifically, 2.4 Removing other information and 3.1 Be helpful: explain)? I follow the 0 revert rule. I'm not going to edit war with you. I'm going to discuss this until either I can see why you made the edit or you change back your edit voluntarily. Tstrobaugh (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read previous responses
I have responded to you over and over with a number of rationales. I could just copy and list them in one list if you really want to take up more time on this. Why not ask for a 3rd opinion? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinion
I came here because of a post at WP:EAR. See alsos don't have to be referred to in the article text. In fact if they are then they should be removed. So I think that CarolMooreDC's removal of this see also about an analagous case is not justified. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously it's a judgment call what's relevant and what isn't. Maybe the best thing is for me to do to deal with MY concern about reader confusion is to write short paragraph on which cases - including this one - the court considered relevant so at least readers won't be wondering. I'll have to put in on my Do List... :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So you removed the See also link so that you could include some more information in the article so that readers won't be confused about the See also link so that once the decision (Dartmouth College v. Woodward) is included in the article you won't have to have a link in the See also section? Does that about sum it up?Tstrobaugh (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I removed it because it didn't mention the case (as other links did) or clearly relate to average reader. When there was a complaint about it, I said, why not explain in a sentence why this is important in the text. The editor seemed more interested in arguing with me about the deletion and getting me to put it back. So if that was the upshot of discussion, I figured I'd resolve my issue by putting in a relevant sentence myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you've resolved the issue, apparently to you, that the "average reader" will not see the link between Dartmouth College v Woodward and this case. You yourself must be an "average reader" since you also didn't see the connection. That's why it was in the See also section, so "average readers" could learn more about the connection. Now there is just a vacuum until you bring yourself to write a "relevant sentence". According to your logic all See also links should be removed, since they are not mentioned in the body of the article. That's what they are by definition. Links that are relevant but not mentioned in the article. I see you've made several edits since this declaration. Can we get some idea of when it might be complete? Is there a reason that you can't leave the See also link to Dartmouth College v Woodward in the article until you complete your editing? That would also answer my original question.Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The case itself can be relied on as a source (a primary source) assuming it is correctly cited. The reference to Dartmouth in the case proves relevance to me, and therefore inclusion in the see also section is merited (although preferably the reference would be included explained in the main text of the article itself). Regards.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I made it clear above, after several editors comments, that I don't care at this point if the See Also is put back and I'll take it out if/when I put in reference to it in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Dartmouth College v Woodward relevant to this case? Should it be linked in the See also section?
Is Dartmouth College v Woodward relevant to this case? Should it be linked in the See also section?Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No for linking, Neutral for relevance I think it would be redundant since that case is mentioned in the corporate personhood debate link that is still in the "See also" section. ChelydraMAT This cursed Ograbme! 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's sufficiently relevant for a "see also" link. Warren Dew (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

More polls?
while reducing Overacker's "style and grammar edits" to style and grammar edits and some non-controversial additions, I've deleted a paragraph on two new polls he/she had added:
 * " Polls conducted by Citizens United and the Center for Competitive Politics, however, found support for the decision. The Center for Competitive Politics poll found that by substantial margins respondents agreed that Citizens United should have been permitted to air "Hillary: The Movie." "

Including more polls is probably okay (though at some point it may be too much), but polls performed by the involved parties or involved advocacy groups probably should carry little weight. Significant slants in the questions and "likely voters" selection are to be expected. Also, for the other poll results we carefully show which questions people answered how, while in the above paragraph only blanket statements were made. There is no link to the CU's poll but just to the press release. This says that 68% of surveyed believe that the First Amendment prohibits the government from banning books, films, and television broadcasts about federal candidates during elections. The most relevant question in the CCP poll (besides that only 22% of surveyed had heard of the case) probably is "Do you think that the government should have the power to limit how much some people speak about politics in order to enhance the voices of others?", which understandably gets a lot more "no" votes as something like "Do you think unions and corporations should be able to, at any time, spend as much money as they want on promoting or opposing a political candidate?". Also, I don't think that "found that by substantial margins [51%] respondents agreed that Citizens United should have been permitted to air.." is relevant, as a narrow decision of the Court on that would have garnered nearly no news. Afasmit (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason given for any of the other reversions, most of which detract from the article.Overacker (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC) Just to add a few examples: 1. It is not a "landmark 5-4 decision." That implies it is the 5-4 vote that makes it important, as one would discuss a "landmark property rights decision" or "landmark election law decision." Reference to the 5-4 vote follows in the next sentence. 2. Stevens did not argue that the court heard "arguments." The Court hears "argument" (singular) on an issue. Stevens felt that it should not have heard argument on the Austin case. 3. Certainly the polls are relevant, and presented accurately. 4. The President does not make "repeated notions." The president has the notion that the case will have certain results, and he has publicly stated that one notion repeatedly. 5. Added information about the first oral argument is very relevant to understanding why the Court chose to rehear the case. 6. The fact that none of the dissenters were prepared to find for Citizens United on more narrow grounds was specifically mentioned by the majority as one reason why they felt it necessary to overrule Austin to decide the case. Overacker (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that the polls section at present just shows how badly worded the polls are, and how heavily the answers depend on the poll wording. I'd be in favor of removing the whole section. Warren Dew (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Center for Competitive Politics poll is definitely extremely slanted, and none of the questions cover what the Citizens United v. FEC ruling actually did. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Cartoon
I don't really feel that the political cartoon adds to this article. It does not appear to be a syndicated or notable cartoon, and most other pages on political decisions do not contain political cartoons. Should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.202.168 (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The First Amendment is going to turn the United States into the new Brazil
When are you Americans going to snap out of your own form of fundamentalism, namely Constitutionalism? Treating a written constitution as a holy text destroys democracy, and transfers all the power to the people who can afford the best lawyers. Over time, as current conditions bear ever less resemblance to the problems that were taken into account when the constitution was written, the situation only gets worse and worse - look at how well the Koran is working for 21st century Muslims, and it was just as well suited to the needs of 7th century Arabs as the U.S. Constitution was to the needs of 18th century Americans. You need to stop worshipping a piece of paper, and regain the ability to discuss each policy proposal in terms of how well it is adapted to the needs of your nation at the present time. Luwilt (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Annie Leonard's "The Story of Citizens United v. FEC"
Where does Annie Leonard's "The Story of Citizens United v. FEC" fit in the criticism categories (if at all)? alagahd (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert's Super PAC
Stephen Colbert was able to get a Super PAC. He followed the ruling to the letter. - Criticism category — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLAmidei (talk • contribs) 06:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Introduction Sentence
The 1st sentence in the introduction of this article says, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited—because of the First Amendment." However, this case had nothing to do with federal funding "political broadcasts", but rather with the legality of ban certain types of "political broadcasts" around election time. Funding was never an issue here. The law that this case declared unconstitutional didn't ban federal funding of said "political broadcasts", but rather banned the airing of those broadcasts entirely. The rest of the article correctly discusses this case. It is only the 1st sentence that is wrong.

Mhadj001 (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're partially correct – "this case had nothing to do with federal funding". But the article doesn't say anything about federal funding. What was banned was the use of a corporation's general treasury funds for such communications – i.e. "corporate funding", which is exactly what the sentence says. I have not seen any sources saying that any airing of certain types of broadcasts was banned, no matter how funded; do you have any? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion polls
The poll by the Center for Competitive Politics that's mentioned in this article looks suspiciously like a push poll. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Kalle Lasn quote resource, relating to the Occupy movement

 * http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/business/media/the-branding-of-the-occupy-movement.html by William Yardley, published November 27, 2011 NYT ...

99.190.86.93 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Unusual level of page activity Dec. 2, 2011
For better or worse, I use the Page view activity link on the View history page as an integral part of my monitoring and assessment process, re: editing. And today, having done a minor, non-news-related edit to this article on 12/2, I saw that on the same day there was [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission a 10-fold+ spike in page hits, from 2T avg. to 20+T].

I can recall encountering one or two anomalous spikes and shifts that occurred over time, so I am beginning, following fairly serious looks at Google searches for items active in the last week or the last 24 hours, to conclude the 12/2 spike here is not "real" somehow. Nothing huge showed up in the searches, in my estimation. Good stories about related activity in Vermont and Los Angeles that could have generated some spike but I don't think of the one-day (no follow-through on 12/3) magnitude seen. Also, no 12/2-3 spike at Corporate personhood where one could expect to have seen a bit of spillover, via the "See also" Corporate personhood debate redirected link if nothing else.

If someone knows of/finds a large related event(s) I've not noted/found, I expect it's big enough to be added to the article. (While interesting, I didn't deem the Vt. and LA pieces to be big enough.) I'd encourage incorporation of it (or Vt./LA if wished) directly in the article; or giving me a heads-up here. If there's nothing, this is just a precautionary, maybe illustrative, maybe "advance" (something unknown not yet public) little note of a so-far momentary editorial byway. Broader comments on my process/thoughts, of course, also welcome here or at my talk page. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

Citizens United Redirect Reallocation Proposal

 * 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. Ex Parte talkundefinedcontribs 02:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Supreme Court case is obviously the more likely search term, as this case is commonly referred to by just the name of the plaintiff. FYI, not every discussion needs an RfC. VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Supreme Court ruling is more notable than the organization. Hugh (talk) 06:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Supreme Court ruling is more notable and organization is linked from that page within the lede.  Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors   13:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it appears that the common usage and long-term significance of the term "Citizens United" are more likely to refer to the Supreme Court case than the organization that was a party to that case. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, first choice, keep as is. 2nd choice, redirect to Colbert Super Pac. Just kidding, keep as is. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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 of Citizens United (organization) over Citizens United
I've started a requested move at Talk:Citizens United (organization), following the ongoing discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2015_October_27. 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; redirects to this talk page.) Si Trew (talk) 09:17, 27 October 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) 04:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

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


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Snow oppose. MOS:LAW, WP:SNOWBALL. Hugh (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:LAW with those above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Notecardforfree spells it out pretty clearly. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 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.

(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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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):  From Stamp Stampede:  

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)

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)
 * I agree with the first suggestion. It would be the most popular and vernacular name choice, and would aid our readers.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 23:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that I rejected the deletion request because it appears to be in line with the naming convention at 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)
 * 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)
 * You said We shouldn't be following Bluebook for page titles; your words seem to be a rejection of the naming convention. Unless I've misunderstood you, or unless you can demonstrate a solid WP:IAR reason for rejecting the convention here, we have no reason to listen to that suggestion, because aside from an IAR situation, we are required to obey naming conventions.  I have no opinion on your suggestion that "Com'n" is a better way to comply with Bluebook, because you're obviously trying to go along with the convention there, so either opposing or supporting would require familiarity with Bluebook.  Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Nyttend. The naming convention that you're citing (Manual of Style/Legal) is a guideline that stresses applying common sense, while Article titles is a policy that says that we prefer the common name. Looking at <http://www.access-to-law.com/citation/basic_legal_citation.pdf>, it appears that the Bluebook name for this case would actually be Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n (cf. pages marked 122 and 123). Using Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n as the primary page title would be completely against common sense and sound editorial judgment, in my opinion. (It's fine as a redirect, of course.) While you seem eager to cite "Ignore all rules," it's inapplicable here. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 Manual_of_Style/Legal. 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)
 * It seems worth noting that Category:Federal Election Commission litigation is the name of the category, not Category:FEC litigation. While this is obviously a category and not a case name, it points to the accepted practice of typically not abbreviating in page titles on Wikipedia. Shouldn't we be internally consistent? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Nope, totally missed it. Thanks for pointing it out. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Citizens United v. FEC. 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/20121114210357/http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/karl-rove-offers-long-list-of-excuses-after-300-million-debacle.php to http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/11/karl-rove-offers-long-list-of-excuses-after-300-million-debacle.php

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 13:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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.
 * Yes check.svg Done Topher385 (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131084825/http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1%3A95ec266b244de718b80c652a08af06fa%3A81fc3961c4ce20668b006dd8b72852c1/Alito-Mouths-NOT-TRUE-At-State-Of-The-Union-VIDEO to http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1%3A95ec266b244de718b80c652a08af06fa%3A81fc3961c4ce20668b006dd8b72852c1/Alito-Mouths-NOT-TRUE-At-State-Of-The-Union-VIDEO
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121023827/http://blogs.burlingtonfreepress.com/politics/2011/12/08/sen-bernie-sanders-i-vt-offers-constitutional-amendment-on-corporate-citizenship/ to http://blogs.burlingtonfreepress.com/politics/2011/12/08/sen-bernie-sanders-i-vt-offers-constitutional-amendment-on-corporate-citizenship/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513015149/http://socialchangenyu.com/2013/02/01/citizens-united-and-the-paradox-of-corporate-speech/ to http://socialchangenyu.com/2013/02/01/citizens-united-and-the-paradox-of-corporate-speech/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.citizensunited.org/press.aspx?entryid=6526738

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) 19:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)