This article was nominated for deletion on 7 December 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 17 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmurphy109.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
-Orphan status noted. Added link on page money trail Pbmaise ( talk) 11:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
As it stands, the article has a lot of examples, cited and uncited. And we have the "Theory" section. But, more importantly, it lends to NPOV by its' very title. Dark (as in The Dark Side sounds so ominous. Once it stands as an independent article (e.g., with WP legitimacy/notability), it is getting linked as if it gives legitimacy to those sources which use the term. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Roccodrift: deleted some unsourced content, but also deleted some sourced content that I would consider relevant to the article. I invite this editor to discuss these edits here so we can reach consensus. - Mr X 20:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Known shadow contributions now evenly split between C and L.
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2014&chrt=V&disp=O&type=U
So I think we should report this evenly, not as a tactic restricted to one side. Hcobb ( talk) 15:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This ("Recent content deletion" section above) is not resolved. There's still quite a bit where the connection to "dark money" is synthesized. However, I'm willing to leave the global tags off. For the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the tags from 2013 don't necessarily seem supported in the present article, except for a few minor points. However, the {{ synthesis}} problem doesn't seem to have been discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
There are many properly sourced statements about campaign contribution reporting, where the relationship of the statement to "dark money" is not at all clear. Per WP:SYNTHESIS, the relationship not only has to be clear, it has to be in the same source as the statement (whether or not the term "dark money" is used). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I have removed some of the synthesis. Still, why do we have a definition from About.com? I have never seen such a thing at Wikipedia. Really? The inclusion of reporting from CBS belongs in the body (such as it is). Capitalismojo ( talk) 22:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The image at this article is not encyclopedic. It designed to advanced a point of view. It is explicitly created advertisement to advance that POV. This is unsuitable advertising at a wikipedia article. Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Capitalismojo: on the whole bunch of content you removed sourced to a New York Times editorial from November 2014 and to two other sources (a Huffington Post speech, an article from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law) - It seems like your objection is that NYT material is from an editorial. But the information cited is purely statistical information ($X million), and the editorial at issue links directly to the source of the information (it cites to the Center for Responsive Politics' opensecrets.org, which collects the data). It seems no different to me than citing each of the sources cited by the NYT individually, except that the NYT conveniently summarizes the material.
Nevertheless, in the interests of general harmony, I have found alternative sources for the information. Neutrality talk 18:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel qualified to write about this myself, but this article may need updating in light of a federal court ruling in August 2018. See NYT article Sept 18: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/supreme-court-dark-money.html and the ruling in question: https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/04161001/Crossroads-opinion.pdf . Thank you, fellow contributors! Cjdaniel ( talk) 19:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I feel compelled to note that a text search of the Article shows zero results for the word "China", despite a 550 Billion dollar trade deficit between China and United States. I'm going to try to look for reliable sources. Tym Whittier ( talk) 18:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC) (What does this have to do with anything?)
The very first sentence says:
In the politics of the United States, dark money refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations—for example, 501(c)(4) (social welfare) 501(c)(5) (unions) and 501(c)(6) (trade association) groups—that are not required to disclose their donors.[3][4]
While not in error, that is not right. By that definition the dark money is created solely by nonprofit organizations—for example, in the act of spending, — while the neutral, or sanitized donors have had zero responsibility in the process and any future outcomes.
"Dark Money Definition | Investopedia
Dark money refers to the funds donated to nonprofit organizations that in turn spend it in order to influence elections. These nonprofit organizations can receive an unlimited amount of donations, and they're not required to disclose their donors. The opacity of this.... https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dark-money.asp "
A quick google quickly confirms that is also common usage/meaning. And the "bias" mentioned (feared?) elsewhere? Is calling a murderer; "a murderer," biased? What about a traitor? What about inferring or calling murder itself; wrong? Pretending like this topic is ethically or morally pure or neutral? —The assumption of moral-neutrality would indeed be any possible wrong-doer's wish, —as well as fly in face of common understanding and usage. It would be in error. Misleading. Bribery even if legalized would be ethically questionable.
This is no place for sloppy, illogical, or sanitized terms. For example, in certain contexts "the funds donated to stop smoking" can be identical to; "the funds spent to stop smoking."
However, that does not allow random swapping of those terms, and in fact that could inflict severe misunderstanding or misdirection. This is a controversial Big-Money/Politics topic that according to basic economic theory will invite biased investments. Thus extra vigilance is required of us here.
--
2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3963:C38C:4FD5:440C (
talk) 20:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)--Doug
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emraeah ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mo&pocap, Tuk28507.
— Assignment last updated by Tuk28507 ( talk) 18:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Possible addition to make to this article:
501(c) nonprofits are able to spend money on campaign advertising without having to disclose donor information. It has been found that dark money expenditures are associated with negative ads.
This study also found Conservatives have a higher likelihood of purchasing negative ads with dark money than disclosed expenditures as compared to Liberals. Liberals and Conservatives are equally as likely to attack candidates, but Liberals are less likely to do so through dark money.
When negative ads are perceived as truthful, they increase positive outlook on the sponsor while producing unfavorable attitudes toward the candidate in the ad. For-profit corporations are able to donate to 501(c) nonprofits which hides their donations. The Republican Governors Public Policy Committee mistakenly revealed that Coca-Cola, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Pfizer, and Walmart funded their 501(c)(4) nonprofit trying to elect Republican governors.
References
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 December 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 17 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmurphy109.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 19:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
-Orphan status noted. Added link on page money trail Pbmaise ( talk) 11:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
As it stands, the article has a lot of examples, cited and uncited. And we have the "Theory" section. But, more importantly, it lends to NPOV by its' very title. Dark (as in The Dark Side sounds so ominous. Once it stands as an independent article (e.g., with WP legitimacy/notability), it is getting linked as if it gives legitimacy to those sources which use the term. – S. Rich ( talk) 19:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Roccodrift: deleted some unsourced content, but also deleted some sourced content that I would consider relevant to the article. I invite this editor to discuss these edits here so we can reach consensus. - Mr X 20:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Known shadow contributions now evenly split between C and L.
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2014&chrt=V&disp=O&type=U
So I think we should report this evenly, not as a tactic restricted to one side. Hcobb ( talk) 15:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This ("Recent content deletion" section above) is not resolved. There's still quite a bit where the connection to "dark money" is synthesized. However, I'm willing to leave the global tags off. For the moment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the tags from 2013 don't necessarily seem supported in the present article, except for a few minor points. However, the {{ synthesis}} problem doesn't seem to have been discussed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
There are many properly sourced statements about campaign contribution reporting, where the relationship of the statement to "dark money" is not at all clear. Per WP:SYNTHESIS, the relationship not only has to be clear, it has to be in the same source as the statement (whether or not the term "dark money" is used). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I have removed some of the synthesis. Still, why do we have a definition from About.com? I have never seen such a thing at Wikipedia. Really? The inclusion of reporting from CBS belongs in the body (such as it is). Capitalismojo ( talk) 22:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The image at this article is not encyclopedic. It designed to advanced a point of view. It is explicitly created advertisement to advance that POV. This is unsuitable advertising at a wikipedia article. Capitalismojo ( talk) 03:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Capitalismojo: on the whole bunch of content you removed sourced to a New York Times editorial from November 2014 and to two other sources (a Huffington Post speech, an article from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law) - It seems like your objection is that NYT material is from an editorial. But the information cited is purely statistical information ($X million), and the editorial at issue links directly to the source of the information (it cites to the Center for Responsive Politics' opensecrets.org, which collects the data). It seems no different to me than citing each of the sources cited by the NYT individually, except that the NYT conveniently summarizes the material.
Nevertheless, in the interests of general harmony, I have found alternative sources for the information. Neutrality talk 18:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel qualified to write about this myself, but this article may need updating in light of a federal court ruling in August 2018. See NYT article Sept 18: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/supreme-court-dark-money.html and the ruling in question: https://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/04161001/Crossroads-opinion.pdf . Thank you, fellow contributors! Cjdaniel ( talk) 19:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I feel compelled to note that a text search of the Article shows zero results for the word "China", despite a 550 Billion dollar trade deficit between China and United States. I'm going to try to look for reliable sources. Tym Whittier ( talk) 18:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC) (What does this have to do with anything?)
The very first sentence says:
In the politics of the United States, dark money refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations—for example, 501(c)(4) (social welfare) 501(c)(5) (unions) and 501(c)(6) (trade association) groups—that are not required to disclose their donors.[3][4]
While not in error, that is not right. By that definition the dark money is created solely by nonprofit organizations—for example, in the act of spending, — while the neutral, or sanitized donors have had zero responsibility in the process and any future outcomes.
"Dark Money Definition | Investopedia
Dark money refers to the funds donated to nonprofit organizations that in turn spend it in order to influence elections. These nonprofit organizations can receive an unlimited amount of donations, and they're not required to disclose their donors. The opacity of this.... https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dark-money.asp "
A quick google quickly confirms that is also common usage/meaning. And the "bias" mentioned (feared?) elsewhere? Is calling a murderer; "a murderer," biased? What about a traitor? What about inferring or calling murder itself; wrong? Pretending like this topic is ethically or morally pure or neutral? —The assumption of moral-neutrality would indeed be any possible wrong-doer's wish, —as well as fly in face of common understanding and usage. It would be in error. Misleading. Bribery even if legalized would be ethically questionable.
This is no place for sloppy, illogical, or sanitized terms. For example, in certain contexts "the funds donated to stop smoking" can be identical to; "the funds spent to stop smoking."
However, that does not allow random swapping of those terms, and in fact that could inflict severe misunderstanding or misdirection. This is a controversial Big-Money/Politics topic that according to basic economic theory will invite biased investments. Thus extra vigilance is required of us here.
--
2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3963:C38C:4FD5:440C (
talk) 20:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)--Doug
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emraeah ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mo&pocap, Tuk28507.
— Assignment last updated by Tuk28507 ( talk) 18:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Possible addition to make to this article:
501(c) nonprofits are able to spend money on campaign advertising without having to disclose donor information. It has been found that dark money expenditures are associated with negative ads.
This study also found Conservatives have a higher likelihood of purchasing negative ads with dark money than disclosed expenditures as compared to Liberals. Liberals and Conservatives are equally as likely to attack candidates, but Liberals are less likely to do so through dark money.
When negative ads are perceived as truthful, they increase positive outlook on the sponsor while producing unfavorable attitudes toward the candidate in the ad. For-profit corporations are able to donate to 501(c) nonprofits which hides their donations. The Republican Governors Public Policy Committee mistakenly revealed that Coca-Cola, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Pfizer, and Walmart funded their 501(c)(4) nonprofit trying to elect Republican governors.
References