Talk:Buckley v. Valeo

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Infobox[edit]

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)[reply]

Citations[edit]

This article totally lacks citations. 65.100.48.249 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

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. 204.111.244.233 (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tagged for copy-editing[edit]

I tagged the article for copy editing because it has numerous grammatical errors and uses terms which seem baised to me, e.g., the court "contended" rather than "the court decided" or "the court wrote"; "had legitimately recognized", rather than "had recognized"; using a pull quote in the lead with the words "moral danger"; etc.

Perhaps someone with good copy editing/grammar skills who has no other interest in the topic could go through it and clean it up. Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the grammatical errors; however, your the phrases "legitimately recognized" and "mortal and danger" are cited as Justice White's beliefs: they are not the opinion of the writers.Strawberryfields77 (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

The first two paragraphs of the Significance section sight no sources while making claims about Buckley's influence on the political process that seem to be based on assumptions.Strawberryfields77 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference[edit]

There is a reference for a "forthcoming" article about "fascism-lite" that seems to have no bearing on the content of this article. Recommend deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.162.56 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]