Talk:Citizens United (organization): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:51, 7 February 2011

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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: [1], [2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 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. [[Special:Contributions/75.76.213.106|75.76.213.106]] ([[User talk: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". [[Special:Contributions/206.196.158.130|206.196.158.130]] ([[User talk:206.196.158.130|talk]]) 15:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)