Talk:Government Accountability Institute

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Government Accountability Institute. 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/20140726213013/http://www.g-a-i.org/mission/ to http://www.g-a-i.org/mission/

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) 15:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Kathleen Sebelius
The end of the Activities section states that President Obama's public schedule showed zero one-on-one meetings between Obama and then-[HHS Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius, without providing a hint of why this is an issue. In contrast, the previous paragraph discussed the issue of foreign contributions to a U.S. campaign, pointing out that this would be illegal, so we know why it's an issue. But the paragraph on Secretary Sebelius lacks any such context. Could somebody please explain? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed the claim, evidence, and reference given the article was byy Peter Schweizer, thus violating rules about secondary sources. Jgmac1106 (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Biased writer
Whomever wrote this article is a biased, leftist with an obvious agenda to sway the public to believe utter nonsense propaganda & to further divide the nation. There WERE no "conspiracy theories" from this group regarding Hillary Clinton, nor Joe Bidden! No conspiracies at all. Only facts & most of the world knows this! 2600:6C5C:6000:39B5:85A4:67C1:E941:B5B0 (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Relax. The fact that Wikipedia's 'coverage' of GAI is so transparently aimed at throwing as much dirt on the group as possible actually serves to enhance the group's credibility--Wikipedia has become that ideologically captured. I say this as a retired reference librarian who's always voted left.  The ideologically committed will never understand this, alas, but people with a genuine concern for the health of the information commons are no more interested in consuming propaganda that supposedly speaks for their views than against them. 142.112.173.26 (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)