Talk:Citizens United (organization)

message: New proposed edits: 
The current president, David Bossie, has been president since served as the chief investigator into then President Bill Clinton's possible abuse of finances in 1997, and was later the deputy campaign manager for Donald Trump's presidential campaign in 2016. In 2020, he served in executive positions for President Donald Trump's and Prime Minister Netanyahu's reelection campaigns.
References
“About David N. Bossie.” Citizens United, 19 July 2023, www.citizensunited.org/who-we-are/about-david-n-bossie/.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo&pocap (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

message: 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: , . 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)
thread_title: untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Zero Sources

message: 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)
thread_title: Sounds Like Advertising

message: 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)
thread_title:  is this a [[501 (c)]] 3 or what? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why no mention of Fahrenheit 9/11? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Grassroots? 

message: That part of the article feels quite "white washy" 217.224.202.117 (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a more accurate section would say "Citizens United is a corporate mouthpiece that has been very effective at claiming to represent the (christian conservative) people while working very effectively to silence their voice." Unfortunately, Wikipedia must be completely unbiased and well sourced, even if that means obscuring the truth. If you said the sky was blue, it is obviously 100% true, but Wikipedia wouldn't be able to say so if the Washington Post, New York Times, and AP ran a story saying the sky was purple with green spots.Wikipedia can't be biased in any way for or against anything, even if the bias is completely correct. For example, Wikipedia would not be able to say that Hitler was evil, or that North Korea abuses human rights, or that China has renounced Communism. That sort of thing would be under a "Criticism" section of the article in a "they said this and we're just reporting their beliefs"-type format. --70.106.145.215 (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocacy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Citizens United (organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131110191204/http://www.elephantbiz.com/2008/01/citizens_united_against_mccain.html to http://www.elephantbiz.com/2008/01/citizens_united_against_mccain.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How big is Citizens United?  How much does it own, how much does it spend?  How many members are in it?  How can Wikipedia seriously post an article without answering these questions???  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: How big is the group???

message: There seems to be an article on the Bannon documentary, Generation Zero, but links or a search for it redirect to this page on Citizens United. WTF? JuanTamad (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Generation Zero - the documentary?

message: Most people never heard of the company, they are looking for the anti-person Supreme Court case: "Citizens United;" as used below.  There should be a link at the top. 
"
Citizens United was the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that began as a challenge to various...."<BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3963:C38C:4FD5:440C (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs a GO-TO link. 

message: — Assignment last updated by Tuk28507 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics