![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added the Non-Compliant and Advertisement tags (wasn't sure which was the best, so I put both up). The article reads like marketing from a website/brochure, and as such is not NPOV. For example, the section "Election Reform Agenda" is copied from Common Cause website [1]. I think the problem is obvious if you glance through the piece, especially the use of "we". Vudicarus 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
User 216.64.80.226 vandalized the page and I reverted to the previous version edited by you. Unfortunately, my edit summary got truncated so that it looks as if I attributed the vandalism to you. Vudicarus 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been noted that the IP address 208.201.146.137 currently has a reverse DNS entry of "cause2.commoncause.org", and that a number of edits to this article have been coming from that IP. Several editors (I among them) have been reverting these edits, in general as conflict of interest. Studerby 20:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there some additional material can be found through Special:Whatlinkshere/Common Cause. ( SEWilco 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC))
Much of the information blanket-deleted on the basis that it came from the Common Cause website was still factual and NPOV. For instance: "Common Cause is a nationwide membership organization with members in all 50 states. It has 35 state chapters which lobby their legislatures as well as an active Washington, D.C. lobbying team." I think people were too over-zealous in deleting information, basically leaving the article as a stub with little historical information. Phaedrus79 16:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
To user Dbarnold1 ( talk · contribs): why did you remove (in this edit) the Category:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities? — Athaenara ✉ 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: The article has been in that category since 20:24, 27 December 2004 (UTC) when it was added by user Kevin Baas ( talk · contribs). — Athaenara ✉ 17:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Most members of Common Cause try mightily to avoid being labeled as they are a process organization and generally do not deal with policy. They avoid partisanship.
I see a reference to the Washington Post reportedly describing Common Cause as "Liberal" but when I checked the link, it simply connects with the Washington Post homepage. So I question the validity of the statement which is not properly referenced.
The article does go on to define the 'process' issues which are the focus of the organization. The number of 'policy' issues addressed by Common Cause are very narrow: ie.'the Bottle Bill' (pertaining to the recycling of glass bottles.
It is also clear that Common Cause has an extensive history of forming broad coalitions to promote 'process' reforms.
So I would recommend that the Wiki Editors modify the first paragraph's second sentence which define Common Cause as a liberal organization and Common Cause resists ideological labeling and I think the article--right of the bat--inaccurately labels this organization without proper citation.
Thus the article appears to be biased as it prejudices the Reader without proper citation. 75.6.247.87 ( talk) 15:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The quite from WaPo is this: "Eight organizations -- from liberal Common Cause to conservative Judicial Watch -- said the ethics committee has taken action on only five cases since 1997, when the panel ended an investigation of then- Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was forced to pay a $300,000 fine after the probe on charges he used charitable funds for political purposes." While that is indeed the Post calling the organization liberal in its own voice, I would argue strongly that such a throwaway statement (the purpose of which was to emphasize the non-partisan stance being taken) is not sufficient to prejudice the organization as "liberal" in the opening paragraph. It might be worthy of a mention further down in the article in a section about Common Causes' perceived ideology, but not the opening paragraph. The Washington Post did *once* call the group liberal, but many other sources at many other times have identified the group as non-partisan. That statement is misleading and should be removed, or at least moved out of the opening paragraph. Statyk ( talk) 23:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed the reference to "conservatives" in this head. No evidence is cited of generalized activism against any group, as the heading implied. Only one case was cited, and could as easily been characterized as "activism against supreme court justices," or activism against men over 60." Elinde7994 ( talk) 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)elinde7994
I removed the one entry in the criticism section because it seemed non-substantive , thereby removing the entire criticism section. The citation supporting it was a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and a response from Common Cause. This did not seem like criticism worthy enough for an entry. Instead, it seemed like a prank that was played on Common Cause. Rather than a criticism, I think it fit more into the category of a "manufactroversy." I realize deleting sections like this can be controversial, so I'm happy to hear other opinions. Ideally, if the organization had faced more substantive criticism, such instances would make sense for this section. Ahuertas ( talk) 20:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
There are over 200 citations available in RS that describe Common Cause as "liberal". The New York Times, Washington Post, National Journal, ABC, NBC, CBS, the list is endless. It is entirely appropriate and even required to accurately describe this organization in its article. It is its defining characteristic, if you believe the Washington Post and such. Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
There are raft of academic sources for the use of the descriptor "liberal" as well. I am aware that this is piling on, but I intend to and can easily add a dozen academic references. These include Cambridge University, Princeton University, the Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections, Cal State, University of Tampa, Cambridge University (again), and Yale. Interestingly, one of the books is entirely about Commom Cause and is an in-depth study of the organization. It will add much to this article. Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly with Capitalismojo. Loonymonkey's argument (that the "liberal" label is opinion and therefore unprovable) has no basis in policy or guidelines and directly contravenes WP:V and WP:TRUTH. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 07:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Nitsuj88 has removed the reliably sourced "liberal" from the first sentence (source here, representative of many) and replaced it with "nonpartisan" based on Common Cause's own website. This is a pretty blatant violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. "Liberal" is verifiable based on reliable sources, "nonpartisan" is not--at least, not based on the subject's website. Nitsuj88 claims that "nonpartisan" satisfies all five parts of WP:ABOUTSELF, but this is incorrect, as "nonpartisan" is clearly self-serving. In addition a single organization can be both nonpartisan and liberal, so no reason has been given why Common Cause shouldn't be labeled as liberal. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, I agree with everything Capitalismojo wrote in the discussion thread above, so while you're responding to my arguments here you might as well respond to his/hers as well. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Common Cause often criticizes both liberal and conservative politicians for allowing themselves to be influenced by large campaign donations. If I provide verifiable evidence, would that make it nonpartisan? Kchwe ( talk) 04:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello all - I work with Common Cause (see my userpage) and would like to see this article expanded to include more information about our activities, history, etc. I can provide articles and verifiable sources, but obviously I shouldn't be the one editing the page.
What is the best process to request an expansion of the page? Drop some articles about our campaigns and activities here?
Thank you Jlittlew ( talk) 13:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!
First, my apologies for the long post below. If you want me to split it into different sections, I'm happy to do that.
Please reply if there is more context, or different sources, would be helpful.
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
Suggested content and sourcing: Adding a "States" section would be helpful -- each of the 35 state offices ( http://www.commoncause.org/states/) have their own state-based policy priorities and campaigns. This is not currently reflected on the page. Here are some examples:
- Common Cause New Mexico's recent nonpartisan legislative scorecard: http://krwg.org/post/common-cause-new-mexico-releases-first-ever-legislative-summary-and-scorecard
- Common Cause of Wisconsin working to keep the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board:
http://fox11online.com/news/elections/eliminating-nonpartisan-wisconsin-elections-board-considered and
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/01/12710/gop-injects-partisan-politics-gab-elections-board and
http://www.thonline.com/news/article_5ca7f5de-a46e-11e5-ad17-c7cfff23579a.html and
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/national/political/story/2015/oct/24/wisconsgop-abolishes-john-doe-probes-seeks-ot/332334/
- Common Cause Maryland's work on redistricting reform http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-redistrict-20151103-story.html and https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/in-maryland-anti-gerrymandering-activists-take-message-to-their-target/2014/09/21/2f3dce36-4180-11e4-9a15-137aa0153527_story.html and http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/12/constitution-check-finally-a-test-of-partisan-gerrymandering/
- Common Cause North Carolina's campaign for the Judicial Public Financing program
http://www.smokymountainnews.com/news/item/15628-republicans-ask-for-more-partisanship-on-ballots and redistricting reform (
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article10873580.html)
- Common Cause Connecticut's public campaign finance law
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-karen-hobert-flynn-common-cause-president-20160613-story.html and petition to CT Citizens Ethics Advisory Board for the State Insurance Commissioner to recuse herself from overseeing a proposed merger of her former employer
http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/wade_fires_back_at_critics/
- Common Cause New York's official complaint that New York Mayor Bill De Blasio's nonprofit "Campaign for One New York" violate the city charter and campaign finance law (de Blaosio later shut down Campaign for One New York()
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/nyregion/watchdog-group-asks-for-inquiry-into-nonprofits-tied-to-de-blasio.html?_r=0 and
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/common-investigation-de-blasio-funders-article-1.2540374 and
http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2016/02/de-blasio-defends-his-nonprofits-amid-calls-for-investigation-031493 and
http://nypost.com/2016/03/17/mayor-de-blasio-shuts-down-his-controversial-non-profit-fundraising-arm/
- Common Cause Rhode Island's biennial Legislative Scorecard
http://www.golocalprov.com/news/common-cause-scorecard-how-did-each-senator-do
- Common Cause Indiana's work to reform judicial selection
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/09/judge-rules-marion-county-judicial-election-system-unconstitutional/16977637/
- Common Cause Oregon's work on amending the state constitution and Multnomah County charter to allow for campaign contribution limits:
http://www.bendbulletin.com/newsroomstafflist/3640518-151/activists-angle-for-oregon-campaign-finance-measures
- Common Cause Michigan's opposition to removing straight-party voting options in Michigan (which recently were held due to an injunction)
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/08/house-panel-oks-eliminating-straight-party-voting/76982326/ and
- Common Cause California's work to put the Overturn Citizens United Act as a ballot measure in California:
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/17746/20140722/californians-will-asked-november-ballot-whether-want-overturn-citizens-united.htm
- Common Cause Georgia's calls for investigation into potential violations of election day laws:
http://www.wtoc.com/story/30484827/ga-secretary-of-states-office-to-investigate-illegal-election-day-campaigning-in-chatham-county
- Common Cause Massachusetts's successful campaign for public record reforms:
http://baystatebanner.com/news/2015/nov/12/mas-broken-public-records-laws-targeted-pending-re/ and
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/gov_charlie_baker_signs_public.html
The "Activities" section could be expanded with more thorough description of our work, including:
- Redistricting reform (commoncause.org/redistricting -- note that this page contains a unique resource that descriptions how each state draws congressional districts -- a dataset I believe no one else has). This includes the "Gerrymander Standard" writing competition: http://www.commoncause.org/issues/voting-and-elections/redistricting/first-amendment-gerrymander-standard-writing-competition.html and urging the Census Bureau to count prisoners in home localities, not prisons
- Transparency and accountability of elected officials, including calling on President Obama to shut down Organizing for Action ( https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2013/02/28/common-cause-calls-on-obama-to-pull-plug-on-nonprofit/)
- Ending gridlock in congress, including holds on public service nominees:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/23/public-service-nominees-become-pawns-in-political-squabbles
- Support of Net Neutrality:
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Michael-Copps-former-FCC-commissioner-on-net-5626535.php
Other: Good background on early days of CC from this NYT obit of David Cohen, 2nd CC President http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/politics/david-cohen-pioneer-of-public-interest-lobbying-dies-at-79.html
Please let me know what else would be helpful.
[edited 8/8/16 with requested edit tag]
Jlittlew ( talk) 20:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
OK this has been updated an added to the Conflict of Interest Request Board. I encourage anyone following this page to please either:
1) look at, and implement some of these suggested edits
and / or
2) give me feedback on what will make requesting edits easier for other editors
Thank you! Jesse Jlittlew ( talk) 21:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Redistricting
The organization has sought to end the practice of gerrymandering [1]. In 2016 they filed a lawsuit in North Carolina challenging the constitutionality of district maps. [2] The organization's North Carolina chapter has led a campaign to create a nonpartisan redistricting process which has bipartisan support in the state [3]. Jlittlew ( talk) 17:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Coh848en ( talk) 02:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)== Requesting the addition of new section under activities: "Ethics" ==
![]() | This
edit request by an editor with a
conflict of interest was declined. The edit request was not written from a neutral point of view. |
The organization seeks to hold elected officials as well as judges to high ethical standards and reduce conflicts of interest. [1] During the 2016 presidential elections, Common Cause suggested that the Clinton Foundation would create ethics and conflict of interest challenges for Hillary Clinton should she become president. [2] [3] They criticized Hillary Clinton's plan to give Chelsea Clinton control of the Foundation [4] and called for an independent audit and full disclosure of the Foundation's donors. [5] [6]
The public interest group also criticized Donald Trump on his refusal to release his tax returns during the 2016 presidential elections. [7] [8] The organization has been outspoken about the potential conflicts of interest from Mr. Trump's businesses [9] [10] and called for Mr. Trump to put his assets into a blind trust [11] [12] instead of handing over control of his businesses to his children. [13] [14]
Jlittlew ( talk) 18:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Dear St170e, Thank you for your reply -- it is *very* helpful to get this kind of feedback, and your concerns make sense. I'll work to re-draft this, format the references correctly (I'm still new at this) and post it again here. Should I overwrite the original entry or post a new one? Thanks again, Jlittlew ( talk) 17:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I reedited the section based on suggestions and fixed references.
I'd like to raise the issue of whether three recent edits removing content set forth below should be reinstated:
Coh848en ( talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Let's start from the beginning here. My only purpose is to develop an objective page that summarizes what Common Cause actually does, not what it doesn’t do. I don’t know why the other editor's content was added, but at best it's irrelevant and, along with the other attempts to label Common Cause as liberal, it appears to be a deliberate attempt to tarnish CC's reputation for political or ideological reasons.
Coh848en ( talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Why was the section added to begin with? The reason for removing it is that the “Partners” section is outdated, which is why it’s not on the CC website. There is no rule that outdated or irrelevant information should be used, whether those pages are retrievable from or not.
From other similar organizations, "coalition partners" isn't a common item to have on the page. As I understand it, Wikipedia strives to list only important matters on the page. Why would it be important in this case but not in others? It appeared to be an unnecessary dated addition that offered no benefit, wasn't important, and should be removed to keep the page clean and readable. I see history here on the talk page as well on the edits that items have been removed or edits rejected because they weren't notable enough. I'm trying to follow Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight. Coh848en ( talk) 23:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Coh848en ( talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)This is not about removing minimum wage content. The full section removed was “Common Cause has sought to address climate change, gun control, student debt, and the minimum wage. Common Cause has also targeted the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative group, partially on the grounds that ALEC opposes climate change legislation.”
The only source for that claim is made in a National Review (clearly not a bastion of liberal thinking) article ( http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418021/common-causes-georgia-purge-ian-tuttle) The source for the quote was one of two members (a Republican and a Democrat) who were replaced on the Georgia Common Cause Board. The lead sentence in that National Review article is this: "Common Cause — “the original citizens’ lobby” — is “committed to . . . encouraging citizen participation in democracy.” Well, maybe not all citizens. Down in Georgia, where the nonpartisan, if generally left-leaning, Common Cause has been led by a balance of Left and Right, the national organization has just carried out a purge."
Even if CC addressed the issues one ousted Georgia CC board member claims, how does a change in leadership in Georgia rise to a regular activity of a national organization in 35 states? it doesn't.
According to Common Cause http://www.commoncause.org/about "Common Cause is a nonpartisan grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process." And one National Review article mostly agrees.
Again, I think to the standard of what is 'due weight.'
As far as a reliable source, in the National Review article you can find evidence of Common Cause advocating against ALEC but no evidence, beyond reporting in that article about the organization firing people in Georgia that they have involved in advocacy in these other issues. (Here's the removed citation again: “Common Cause has sought to address climate change, gun control, student debt, and the minimum wage. Common Cause has also targeted the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative group, partially on the grounds that ALEC opposes climate change legislation.”) There is/was no citation of this 'agenda' and I haven't been able to find something that corroborates that. Given the ample evidence in the media and on their own website of what Common Cause DOES do, it seems quite strange to include activities that aren't listed in the news or on their website, and seem to come from someone disgruntled (who knows, justifiably) about their treatment by the organization. Does seem to pass the verifiability test to me, but I'm new here, and would welcome additional help from other edits. I'll repeat what I wrote in the preface once again: My only purpose is to develop an objective page that summarizes what Common Cause actually DOES, not what it doesn’t do. Coh848en ( talk) 23:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Coh848en ( talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)You're right, it may be newsworthy because the media loves conflict. This is in the Ethics section of the page, something that Common Cause does work on. So whether reported or not, one small rally, where a few protestors who may or may not have been affiliated with Common Cause, is not representative of a public interest organization or good government group that has been working in the policy arena ethics for 47 years. Furthermore, Common Cause condemned it. The source states "Common Cause Condemns Hate Remarks at SoCal Rally" : “A political watchdog group that organized a rally at a weekend meeting of conservative political donors near Palm Springs apologized Thursday for hateful comments made by some attendees that were videotaped by a conservative activist and circulated online… ‘We condemn bigotry and hate speech in every form," Common Cause said in a statement.’ ”
It'sAllinthePhrasing ( talk) 04:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Nope I know their work and I am interested in objective coverage of it. Coh848en ( talk) 23:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
As multiple reliable sources - NYT and Politico to name two - describe Common Cause as liberal, anyone seeking to remove this descriptor should first participate on this talk page and provide their justification. The most recent edit (which I just reverted) citing CC as "non-partisan" is sourced from CC's own website, and that is a self-published source so it's not as reliable as the NYT or Politico. Please seek WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page before re-adding any material. It'sAllinthePhrasing ( talk) 16:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I find that to be factually incorrect. It certainly appears that AllinthePhrasing selected two articles from NYT and Politico because they labeled Common Cause "liberal" and then called that "multiple reliable sources." In fact, most of the articles cited in the References (and probably elsewhere), including at least five other NY Times articles and the one other Politico one, refrain from labelling Common Cause with any political label. That's because — as stated in the page edits below — "a group may be both liberal/conservative and nonpartisan. "Nonpartisan" means having no political party, not having no political view." In addition there is general agreement about Common Cause issue areas: voting and elections, money in politics and ethics, transparency, etc. These are mainstream, democratic small d values rooted in our Constitution. IMHO, it's only in the extreme partisan times we're living in that someone would portray those issues or the group that promotes them as left or right.
Secondly, I find the suggestion that from now on editors "participate in the talk page and provide justification,” interesting since it looks like they have already and the issue remains unresolved. See, for example, "liberal" vs "nonpartisan" and IS PROCESS LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE? or the justification for the last two page edits that AllinthePhrasing undid:
03:41, 13 April 2017 Neutrality (talk | contribs) m . . (25,649 bytes) (-6) . . ("while" is not appropriate because there is no inconsistency with the two clauses; a group may be both liberal/conservative and nonpartisan. "Nonpartisan" means having no political party, not having no political view.)
05:15, 7 April 2017 Alittlew (talk | contribs) m . . (20,008 bytes) (-7) . . (I deleted the word "liberal" in the description. Common Cause is non-partisan and indeed is currently being attacked by the far left for its position on a Constitutional convention.)
The latest it's AllinthePhrasing undos to these are somewhat contradictory any way: "Liberal advocacy group" in the opening sentence and "Sometimes identified as liberal[5] or liberal-leaning, Common Cause is nonpartisan... " in the first sentence in the second paragraph.
If this isn't enough "justification" then I suggest we get a moderator or whatever the procedure is to resolve this so we don't have to keep going back and forth. Coh848en ( talk) 00:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the response I got for a moderated dispute resolution: "General close due to lack of response. If there are any remaining issues, discuss them on the article talk page. A request for moderated dispute resolution can be filed here, but only after extended inconclusive discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)" But I've been waiting a month to play by those rules so If I don't hear back then I guess I'll just have to make the edit the page again so it's at least consistent. Coh848en ( talk) 18:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I tried to come up with a compromise solution for all the reasons above, but especially to avoid the conflict that CC was described as a "liberal advocacy group" in the opening sentence and then "Sometimes identified as liberal[5] or liberal-leaning, Common Cause is nonpartisan... " in the first sentence of the second paragraph. So I lost the first liberal — also because it says nothing about what they do — and kept the second as "Sometimes identified as liberal-leaning, Common Cause has also been identified as nonpartisan..." Even though I don't love it I think it's a reasonable compromise since most footnotes refrain from labelling Common Cause with any political label, but liberal or liberal leaning is at least sourced to two footnotes there. I hope this puts the labeling issue to rest. Coh848en ( talk) 22:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added the Non-Compliant and Advertisement tags (wasn't sure which was the best, so I put both up). The article reads like marketing from a website/brochure, and as such is not NPOV. For example, the section "Election Reform Agenda" is copied from Common Cause website [1]. I think the problem is obvious if you glance through the piece, especially the use of "we". Vudicarus 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
User 216.64.80.226 vandalized the page and I reverted to the previous version edited by you. Unfortunately, my edit summary got truncated so that it looks as if I attributed the vandalism to you. Vudicarus 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been noted that the IP address 208.201.146.137 currently has a reverse DNS entry of "cause2.commoncause.org", and that a number of edits to this article have been coming from that IP. Several editors (I among them) have been reverting these edits, in general as conflict of interest. Studerby 20:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there some additional material can be found through Special:Whatlinkshere/Common Cause. ( SEWilco 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC))
Much of the information blanket-deleted on the basis that it came from the Common Cause website was still factual and NPOV. For instance: "Common Cause is a nationwide membership organization with members in all 50 states. It has 35 state chapters which lobby their legislatures as well as an active Washington, D.C. lobbying team." I think people were too over-zealous in deleting information, basically leaving the article as a stub with little historical information. Phaedrus79 16:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
To user Dbarnold1 ( talk · contribs): why did you remove (in this edit) the Category:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities? — Athaenara ✉ 17:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: The article has been in that category since 20:24, 27 December 2004 (UTC) when it was added by user Kevin Baas ( talk · contribs). — Athaenara ✉ 17:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Most members of Common Cause try mightily to avoid being labeled as they are a process organization and generally do not deal with policy. They avoid partisanship.
I see a reference to the Washington Post reportedly describing Common Cause as "Liberal" but when I checked the link, it simply connects with the Washington Post homepage. So I question the validity of the statement which is not properly referenced.
The article does go on to define the 'process' issues which are the focus of the organization. The number of 'policy' issues addressed by Common Cause are very narrow: ie.'the Bottle Bill' (pertaining to the recycling of glass bottles.
It is also clear that Common Cause has an extensive history of forming broad coalitions to promote 'process' reforms.
So I would recommend that the Wiki Editors modify the first paragraph's second sentence which define Common Cause as a liberal organization and Common Cause resists ideological labeling and I think the article--right of the bat--inaccurately labels this organization without proper citation.
Thus the article appears to be biased as it prejudices the Reader without proper citation. 75.6.247.87 ( talk) 15:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The quite from WaPo is this: "Eight organizations -- from liberal Common Cause to conservative Judicial Watch -- said the ethics committee has taken action on only five cases since 1997, when the panel ended an investigation of then- Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was forced to pay a $300,000 fine after the probe on charges he used charitable funds for political purposes." While that is indeed the Post calling the organization liberal in its own voice, I would argue strongly that such a throwaway statement (the purpose of which was to emphasize the non-partisan stance being taken) is not sufficient to prejudice the organization as "liberal" in the opening paragraph. It might be worthy of a mention further down in the article in a section about Common Causes' perceived ideology, but not the opening paragraph. The Washington Post did *once* call the group liberal, but many other sources at many other times have identified the group as non-partisan. That statement is misleading and should be removed, or at least moved out of the opening paragraph. Statyk ( talk) 23:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed the reference to "conservatives" in this head. No evidence is cited of generalized activism against any group, as the heading implied. Only one case was cited, and could as easily been characterized as "activism against supreme court justices," or activism against men over 60." Elinde7994 ( talk) 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)elinde7994
I removed the one entry in the criticism section because it seemed non-substantive , thereby removing the entire criticism section. The citation supporting it was a Wall Street Journal opinion piece and a response from Common Cause. This did not seem like criticism worthy enough for an entry. Instead, it seemed like a prank that was played on Common Cause. Rather than a criticism, I think it fit more into the category of a "manufactroversy." I realize deleting sections like this can be controversial, so I'm happy to hear other opinions. Ideally, if the organization had faced more substantive criticism, such instances would make sense for this section. Ahuertas ( talk) 20:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
There are over 200 citations available in RS that describe Common Cause as "liberal". The New York Times, Washington Post, National Journal, ABC, NBC, CBS, the list is endless. It is entirely appropriate and even required to accurately describe this organization in its article. It is its defining characteristic, if you believe the Washington Post and such. Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
There are raft of academic sources for the use of the descriptor "liberal" as well. I am aware that this is piling on, but I intend to and can easily add a dozen academic references. These include Cambridge University, Princeton University, the Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections, Cal State, University of Tampa, Cambridge University (again), and Yale. Interestingly, one of the books is entirely about Commom Cause and is an in-depth study of the organization. It will add much to this article. Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly with Capitalismojo. Loonymonkey's argument (that the "liberal" label is opinion and therefore unprovable) has no basis in policy or guidelines and directly contravenes WP:V and WP:TRUTH. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 07:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Nitsuj88 has removed the reliably sourced "liberal" from the first sentence (source here, representative of many) and replaced it with "nonpartisan" based on Common Cause's own website. This is a pretty blatant violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. "Liberal" is verifiable based on reliable sources, "nonpartisan" is not--at least, not based on the subject's website. Nitsuj88 claims that "nonpartisan" satisfies all five parts of WP:ABOUTSELF, but this is incorrect, as "nonpartisan" is clearly self-serving. In addition a single organization can be both nonpartisan and liberal, so no reason has been given why Common Cause shouldn't be labeled as liberal. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, I agree with everything Capitalismojo wrote in the discussion thread above, so while you're responding to my arguments here you might as well respond to his/hers as well. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Common Cause often criticizes both liberal and conservative politicians for allowing themselves to be influenced by large campaign donations. If I provide verifiable evidence, would that make it nonpartisan? Kchwe ( talk) 04:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello all - I work with Common Cause (see my userpage) and would like to see this article expanded to include more information about our activities, history, etc. I can provide articles and verifiable sources, but obviously I shouldn't be the one editing the page.
What is the best process to request an expansion of the page? Drop some articles about our campaigns and activities here?
Thank you Jlittlew ( talk) 13:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!
First, my apologies for the long post below. If you want me to split it into different sections, I'm happy to do that.
Please reply if there is more context, or different sources, would be helpful.
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard. |
Suggested content and sourcing: Adding a "States" section would be helpful -- each of the 35 state offices ( http://www.commoncause.org/states/) have their own state-based policy priorities and campaigns. This is not currently reflected on the page. Here are some examples:
- Common Cause New Mexico's recent nonpartisan legislative scorecard: http://krwg.org/post/common-cause-new-mexico-releases-first-ever-legislative-summary-and-scorecard
- Common Cause of Wisconsin working to keep the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board:
http://fox11online.com/news/elections/eliminating-nonpartisan-wisconsin-elections-board-considered and
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2015/01/12710/gop-injects-partisan-politics-gab-elections-board and
http://www.thonline.com/news/article_5ca7f5de-a46e-11e5-ad17-c7cfff23579a.html and
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/national/political/story/2015/oct/24/wisconsgop-abolishes-john-doe-probes-seeks-ot/332334/
- Common Cause Maryland's work on redistricting reform http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-redistrict-20151103-story.html and https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/in-maryland-anti-gerrymandering-activists-take-message-to-their-target/2014/09/21/2f3dce36-4180-11e4-9a15-137aa0153527_story.html and http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/12/constitution-check-finally-a-test-of-partisan-gerrymandering/
- Common Cause North Carolina's campaign for the Judicial Public Financing program
http://www.smokymountainnews.com/news/item/15628-republicans-ask-for-more-partisanship-on-ballots and redistricting reform (
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article10873580.html)
- Common Cause Connecticut's public campaign finance law
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-karen-hobert-flynn-common-cause-president-20160613-story.html and petition to CT Citizens Ethics Advisory Board for the State Insurance Commissioner to recuse herself from overseeing a proposed merger of her former employer
http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/wade_fires_back_at_critics/
- Common Cause New York's official complaint that New York Mayor Bill De Blasio's nonprofit "Campaign for One New York" violate the city charter and campaign finance law (de Blaosio later shut down Campaign for One New York()
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/nyregion/watchdog-group-asks-for-inquiry-into-nonprofits-tied-to-de-blasio.html?_r=0 and
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/common-investigation-de-blasio-funders-article-1.2540374 and
http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2016/02/de-blasio-defends-his-nonprofits-amid-calls-for-investigation-031493 and
http://nypost.com/2016/03/17/mayor-de-blasio-shuts-down-his-controversial-non-profit-fundraising-arm/
- Common Cause Rhode Island's biennial Legislative Scorecard
http://www.golocalprov.com/news/common-cause-scorecard-how-did-each-senator-do
- Common Cause Indiana's work to reform judicial selection
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/09/judge-rules-marion-county-judicial-election-system-unconstitutional/16977637/
- Common Cause Oregon's work on amending the state constitution and Multnomah County charter to allow for campaign contribution limits:
http://www.bendbulletin.com/newsroomstafflist/3640518-151/activists-angle-for-oregon-campaign-finance-measures
- Common Cause Michigan's opposition to removing straight-party voting options in Michigan (which recently were held due to an injunction)
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/08/house-panel-oks-eliminating-straight-party-voting/76982326/ and
- Common Cause California's work to put the Overturn Citizens United Act as a ballot measure in California:
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/17746/20140722/californians-will-asked-november-ballot-whether-want-overturn-citizens-united.htm
- Common Cause Georgia's calls for investigation into potential violations of election day laws:
http://www.wtoc.com/story/30484827/ga-secretary-of-states-office-to-investigate-illegal-election-day-campaigning-in-chatham-county
- Common Cause Massachusetts's successful campaign for public record reforms:
http://baystatebanner.com/news/2015/nov/12/mas-broken-public-records-laws-targeted-pending-re/ and
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/gov_charlie_baker_signs_public.html
The "Activities" section could be expanded with more thorough description of our work, including:
- Redistricting reform (commoncause.org/redistricting -- note that this page contains a unique resource that descriptions how each state draws congressional districts -- a dataset I believe no one else has). This includes the "Gerrymander Standard" writing competition: http://www.commoncause.org/issues/voting-and-elections/redistricting/first-amendment-gerrymander-standard-writing-competition.html and urging the Census Bureau to count prisoners in home localities, not prisons
- Transparency and accountability of elected officials, including calling on President Obama to shut down Organizing for Action ( https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2013/02/28/common-cause-calls-on-obama-to-pull-plug-on-nonprofit/)
- Ending gridlock in congress, including holds on public service nominees:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/23/public-service-nominees-become-pawns-in-political-squabbles
- Support of Net Neutrality:
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Michael-Copps-former-FCC-commissioner-on-net-5626535.php
Other: Good background on early days of CC from this NYT obit of David Cohen, 2nd CC President http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/politics/david-cohen-pioneer-of-public-interest-lobbying-dies-at-79.html
Please let me know what else would be helpful.
[edited 8/8/16 with requested edit tag]
Jlittlew ( talk) 20:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
OK this has been updated an added to the Conflict of Interest Request Board. I encourage anyone following this page to please either:
1) look at, and implement some of these suggested edits
and / or
2) give me feedback on what will make requesting edits easier for other editors
Thank you! Jesse Jlittlew ( talk) 21:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Redistricting
The organization has sought to end the practice of gerrymandering [1]. In 2016 they filed a lawsuit in North Carolina challenging the constitutionality of district maps. [2] The organization's North Carolina chapter has led a campaign to create a nonpartisan redistricting process which has bipartisan support in the state [3]. Jlittlew ( talk) 17:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Coh848en ( talk) 02:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)== Requesting the addition of new section under activities: "Ethics" ==
![]() | This
edit request by an editor with a
conflict of interest was declined. The edit request was not written from a neutral point of view. |
The organization seeks to hold elected officials as well as judges to high ethical standards and reduce conflicts of interest. [1] During the 2016 presidential elections, Common Cause suggested that the Clinton Foundation would create ethics and conflict of interest challenges for Hillary Clinton should she become president. [2] [3] They criticized Hillary Clinton's plan to give Chelsea Clinton control of the Foundation [4] and called for an independent audit and full disclosure of the Foundation's donors. [5] [6]
The public interest group also criticized Donald Trump on his refusal to release his tax returns during the 2016 presidential elections. [7] [8] The organization has been outspoken about the potential conflicts of interest from Mr. Trump's businesses [9] [10] and called for Mr. Trump to put his assets into a blind trust [11] [12] instead of handing over control of his businesses to his children. [13] [14]
Jlittlew ( talk) 18:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Dear St170e, Thank you for your reply -- it is *very* helpful to get this kind of feedback, and your concerns make sense. I'll work to re-draft this, format the references correctly (I'm still new at this) and post it again here. Should I overwrite the original entry or post a new one? Thanks again, Jlittlew ( talk) 17:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I reedited the section based on suggestions and fixed references.
I'd like to raise the issue of whether three recent edits removing content set forth below should be reinstated:
Coh848en ( talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Let's start from the beginning here. My only purpose is to develop an objective page that summarizes what Common Cause actually does, not what it doesn’t do. I don’t know why the other editor's content was added, but at best it's irrelevant and, along with the other attempts to label Common Cause as liberal, it appears to be a deliberate attempt to tarnish CC's reputation for political or ideological reasons.
Coh848en ( talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Why was the section added to begin with? The reason for removing it is that the “Partners” section is outdated, which is why it’s not on the CC website. There is no rule that outdated or irrelevant information should be used, whether those pages are retrievable from or not.
From other similar organizations, "coalition partners" isn't a common item to have on the page. As I understand it, Wikipedia strives to list only important matters on the page. Why would it be important in this case but not in others? It appeared to be an unnecessary dated addition that offered no benefit, wasn't important, and should be removed to keep the page clean and readable. I see history here on the talk page as well on the edits that items have been removed or edits rejected because they weren't notable enough. I'm trying to follow Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight. Coh848en ( talk) 23:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Coh848en ( talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)This is not about removing minimum wage content. The full section removed was “Common Cause has sought to address climate change, gun control, student debt, and the minimum wage. Common Cause has also targeted the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative group, partially on the grounds that ALEC opposes climate change legislation.”
The only source for that claim is made in a National Review (clearly not a bastion of liberal thinking) article ( http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418021/common-causes-georgia-purge-ian-tuttle) The source for the quote was one of two members (a Republican and a Democrat) who were replaced on the Georgia Common Cause Board. The lead sentence in that National Review article is this: "Common Cause — “the original citizens’ lobby” — is “committed to . . . encouraging citizen participation in democracy.” Well, maybe not all citizens. Down in Georgia, where the nonpartisan, if generally left-leaning, Common Cause has been led by a balance of Left and Right, the national organization has just carried out a purge."
Even if CC addressed the issues one ousted Georgia CC board member claims, how does a change in leadership in Georgia rise to a regular activity of a national organization in 35 states? it doesn't.
According to Common Cause http://www.commoncause.org/about "Common Cause is a nonpartisan grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process." And one National Review article mostly agrees.
Again, I think to the standard of what is 'due weight.'
As far as a reliable source, in the National Review article you can find evidence of Common Cause advocating against ALEC but no evidence, beyond reporting in that article about the organization firing people in Georgia that they have involved in advocacy in these other issues. (Here's the removed citation again: “Common Cause has sought to address climate change, gun control, student debt, and the minimum wage. Common Cause has also targeted the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative group, partially on the grounds that ALEC opposes climate change legislation.”) There is/was no citation of this 'agenda' and I haven't been able to find something that corroborates that. Given the ample evidence in the media and on their own website of what Common Cause DOES do, it seems quite strange to include activities that aren't listed in the news or on their website, and seem to come from someone disgruntled (who knows, justifiably) about their treatment by the organization. Does seem to pass the verifiability test to me, but I'm new here, and would welcome additional help from other edits. I'll repeat what I wrote in the preface once again: My only purpose is to develop an objective page that summarizes what Common Cause actually DOES, not what it doesn’t do. Coh848en ( talk) 23:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Coh848en ( talk) 23:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)You're right, it may be newsworthy because the media loves conflict. This is in the Ethics section of the page, something that Common Cause does work on. So whether reported or not, one small rally, where a few protestors who may or may not have been affiliated with Common Cause, is not representative of a public interest organization or good government group that has been working in the policy arena ethics for 47 years. Furthermore, Common Cause condemned it. The source states "Common Cause Condemns Hate Remarks at SoCal Rally" : “A political watchdog group that organized a rally at a weekend meeting of conservative political donors near Palm Springs apologized Thursday for hateful comments made by some attendees that were videotaped by a conservative activist and circulated online… ‘We condemn bigotry and hate speech in every form," Common Cause said in a statement.’ ”
It'sAllinthePhrasing ( talk) 04:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Nope I know their work and I am interested in objective coverage of it. Coh848en ( talk) 23:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
As multiple reliable sources - NYT and Politico to name two - describe Common Cause as liberal, anyone seeking to remove this descriptor should first participate on this talk page and provide their justification. The most recent edit (which I just reverted) citing CC as "non-partisan" is sourced from CC's own website, and that is a self-published source so it's not as reliable as the NYT or Politico. Please seek WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page before re-adding any material. It'sAllinthePhrasing ( talk) 16:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I find that to be factually incorrect. It certainly appears that AllinthePhrasing selected two articles from NYT and Politico because they labeled Common Cause "liberal" and then called that "multiple reliable sources." In fact, most of the articles cited in the References (and probably elsewhere), including at least five other NY Times articles and the one other Politico one, refrain from labelling Common Cause with any political label. That's because — as stated in the page edits below — "a group may be both liberal/conservative and nonpartisan. "Nonpartisan" means having no political party, not having no political view." In addition there is general agreement about Common Cause issue areas: voting and elections, money in politics and ethics, transparency, etc. These are mainstream, democratic small d values rooted in our Constitution. IMHO, it's only in the extreme partisan times we're living in that someone would portray those issues or the group that promotes them as left or right.
Secondly, I find the suggestion that from now on editors "participate in the talk page and provide justification,” interesting since it looks like they have already and the issue remains unresolved. See, for example, "liberal" vs "nonpartisan" and IS PROCESS LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE? or the justification for the last two page edits that AllinthePhrasing undid:
03:41, 13 April 2017 Neutrality (talk | contribs) m . . (25,649 bytes) (-6) . . ("while" is not appropriate because there is no inconsistency with the two clauses; a group may be both liberal/conservative and nonpartisan. "Nonpartisan" means having no political party, not having no political view.)
05:15, 7 April 2017 Alittlew (talk | contribs) m . . (20,008 bytes) (-7) . . (I deleted the word "liberal" in the description. Common Cause is non-partisan and indeed is currently being attacked by the far left for its position on a Constitutional convention.)
The latest it's AllinthePhrasing undos to these are somewhat contradictory any way: "Liberal advocacy group" in the opening sentence and "Sometimes identified as liberal[5] or liberal-leaning, Common Cause is nonpartisan... " in the first sentence in the second paragraph.
If this isn't enough "justification" then I suggest we get a moderator or whatever the procedure is to resolve this so we don't have to keep going back and forth. Coh848en ( talk) 00:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the response I got for a moderated dispute resolution: "General close due to lack of response. If there are any remaining issues, discuss them on the article talk page. A request for moderated dispute resolution can be filed here, but only after extended inconclusive discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)" But I've been waiting a month to play by those rules so If I don't hear back then I guess I'll just have to make the edit the page again so it's at least consistent. Coh848en ( talk) 18:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I tried to come up with a compromise solution for all the reasons above, but especially to avoid the conflict that CC was described as a "liberal advocacy group" in the opening sentence and then "Sometimes identified as liberal[5] or liberal-leaning, Common Cause is nonpartisan... " in the first sentence of the second paragraph. So I lost the first liberal — also because it says nothing about what they do — and kept the second as "Sometimes identified as liberal-leaning, Common Cause has also been identified as nonpartisan..." Even though I don't love it I think it's a reasonable compromise since most footnotes refrain from labelling Common Cause with any political label, but liberal or liberal leaning is at least sourced to two footnotes there. I hope this puts the labeling issue to rest. Coh848en ( talk) 22:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)