Talk:Every Voice

Merge proposal: Public Campaign
I propose that Public Campaign be merged into this article, which covers its successor organization. The article says "The organization was formed in 2014 upon the merger of the Public Campaign Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) group, and the Friends of Democracy." Verbcatcher (talk)
 * The merge would probably be okay, if a redirect is left at the Public Campaign article. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Non-partisan organisation?
The phrase "the non-partisan organization Public Campaign" appears in several articles on major American corporations, relating to their political lobbying expenditure and tax payments, see this search. Every Voice is the successor to Public Campaign. The articles on both organizations describe them as liberal organizations. It it misleading in an American political context to describe them as "non-partisan"? Would "the campaigning organization" be better? Verbcatcher (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The older organization is no longer described as liberal, and the "liberal" reference in this article is curious; FactCheck.org referred to Every Voice as liberal without any context. I'm guessing it was a reference in passing based on the fact that more liberals support campaign finance reform than conservatives.  But the activities of Every Voice aren't liberal-specific.  Regardless, "liberal" is not a party in American politics, so "nonpartisan" still accurately applies in those corporation articles. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of the definition Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics. (from partisan). In British English I wouldn't call a campaigning organization of this sort non-partisan. However, in US English the "An adherent to a party" meaning may be dominant. I'm happy to follow the guidance of an informed US editor. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)