Talk:Taft–Hartley Act

= =

"According to First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams, the Act "was the first law barring unions and corporations from making independent expenditures in support of or [in] opposition to federal candidates".[2] However, there is no language in Taft–Hartley that actually bars such contributions and, upon a careful reading of the cited article, it can be seen that Professor Abrams is merely hypothesizing about what could happen had the Supreme Court decided the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission differently."

The second sentence is saying that the first is irrelevant. This is silly. Why does this section even exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.228.144 (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit War
I replaced a dead source on this article with a live one that was nearly identical. Recently I made an edit on another article that apparently was objectionable. Upon reverting the edit to that article, MrOllie reverted the edit I made to this article without explanation. I disagree that my edit was objectionable in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salzano1 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping for a second opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salzano1 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It's an unreliable, self published source. See WP:RS. It's also redundant with a citation that's already in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)