This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Is there any reason that all the main text of the article is displayed below the infobox rather than alongside it? You get a fairly narrow infobox, with wasted screen space to the side of it. It doesn't look as good, and also you have to scroll down to get to the beginning of the actual article text. twfowler (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The last section about the significance is a one-sided tirade about campaign finance and democracy, which is great and all, but the other side should be represented as well. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Some of the recent edits seem to be trying to reargue the theory of campaign finance rather than describe this case. I think a collateral reference to the "dark money" controversy that began about 35 years after Buckley was cryptic and uninformative. The article, as I read it, quotes the majority mainly to describe it's holdings. The lengthy quote from the dissent seemed to go beyond that core description, and seemed an inappropriate effort to bias the article without equally long excerpts from the majority, which seemed self-defeating. Gadfly1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)