785:
something completely new. I am willing to write a new article, but I want some consensus on what to write first. I propose we summarize the history of campaign fundraising (including scandals), give legal limits for various countries (I can do the USA but a Brit write legal limits for the UK), and then we shoould discuss fundraising techniques. THEN, at the end we can give the various viewpoints on the matter. However, the current article is POV and not of
Knowledge (XXG) quality. Any comments/questions? -
842:"It is commonly alleged that campaign finance contributions in exchange for promises of votes may lead to de facto corruption in democratic systems, even though such promises may be legal. Political analysts who value civic participation have observed that the main problem of tax money in politics is its use to purchase votes as demonstrated by the growth of government spending in most western democracies and the increases in the role of government in social programs."
811:
345:
243:
327:
222:
423:
405:
888:"In disciplines such as economics and public policy, public choice theory and collective action theory attempt to understand the effects of this kind of abuse of public power on the outcomes of political processes. The problems are compounded by seniority systems in legislatures which give more power to re-elected representatives than to new ones that may not be able to deliver on their promises of more government largess."
433:
253:
191:
816:
549:
Not mentioning any of that is very biased on your part, JHMM13. Im sorry you dont know anything about the campaign finance system besides what the people who benefit from it have told you, sir, but its a very valid criticism of the system, you should leave it in. Or modify in a way you think is fair,
1829:
That's an interesting point. But at the moment, the article (and most discussion of seen of the topic) seems to not touch on that aspect. Perhaps because reliable information cannot be known about it, and the best anyone can do is provide conjecture? In reality, though, are the two not intimately
1283:
I was not thinking of opposing viewpoints. However, looking at the subject matter from different sides of the
Atlantic Ocean may result in different views and terms, especially as far as the role of parties is concerned. In Europe various party organizations (headquarters, branches and chapters) are
1232:
My counterpropositon would be to put a lot of effort into crossreferences and redirects, so that each individual user can choose among the information provided from different viewpoints. If anyone can make an effort to merge, please go ahead. I do not want to be part of it because as a
European I am
579:
I would appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about my level of intellect, but my goal in this matter is simply to put forth the information that exists in an unbiased fashion. Clearly from your statement above, you are coming at this from a biased viewpoint, and your writing tends to reflect
1459:
I don't know what your sources are for this very general statement. It may be true for the US, Australia, South Africa, India and
Pakistan. However, my own research about data for the UK, Canada and various countries in Western Europe (among them Sweden, Germany and Austria) indicates that the bulk
1427:
Sorry, it's not "some theoretical distinction" but a different way of life: U.S. politics is centered around "campaigns", politics in most other countries are centered around "parties". Is anybody able to bridge that gap? I have tried very hard more than two years ago and I had to give up, finally.
1228:
Before starting the article on "political finance" I have tried to improve "campaign finance" and give it a more worldwide view (as was proposed by some wiki editor in the banner flying on top of the article). Unfortunately the whole article on "campaign finance" has a heavy U.S. bias (perspective,
986:
Depsite agreeing with the argument the author appears to present (campaign fiancing corrupts democracy) this article is very poorly written and actually hurts the case about campaign financing. I have currently no interest in the subject, although I have read some books on the subject before. I am
1443:
Most political spending occurs in the run-up to announced elections, whether it is called an election campaign or not. Even in
Denmark where they have minimal political ads, the character of media interviews in the run-up to elections is very different and campaign-like than at other times. But in
1177:
The first reference, to a web.mit.edu hosted article, is no longer available at the specified URL. The statement for which it is cited implies an analytic consensus that donors are not attempting to influence candidates, a proposition that seems dubious. If the contention is indeed unsupported, it
1490:
If so, it would not make much sense to make a difference between routine and campaign spending. However, platforms don't just exist, they must be prepared (sometimes in endless rounds of discussion and meetings before they finally are adopted by a convention) and all other policy development that
1028:
Good luck. May I suggest you ensure the article is actually about political funding. The issues of poltical funding in
America is worth mentioning within the article, as a section, it should not be the focus of the article. A section or reference to political dontations in Australia might include
1318:
You are right there is no consensus. Before I withdraw the merge notice, let's ask the community once again, this time through an RFC, which should give this issue some wider visibility. If no consensus will appear in a month or so, then I will withdraw this proposal. PS. I am sorry, I read your
784:
This whole article is an opinion piece. I happen to agree with most of it, but thaty does not make is encyclopedic. It was irresponsible of the author(s) to write that editorial in the first place. Therefore, we need to blank the page and make it a stub, or we need to blank the page and write
853:
because it sounds like it's saying that even if the government actually helps people, it's bad because it's bribery. That's a stupid anti-government statement, there's no reference to who the "political analysts" are or exactly what they said and where they said it, and there's no opposing view
720:
Please do not remove the neutrality tag unless you've got a consensus opinion on your side, I think that is fair. I have not made any changes to the article because I don't believe I am the best person to write this article. However, I can recognize POV statements when I see them. For instance:
694:
I removed it because you have made no attempt to change it in the last 2 days and try to balance it as you say you care about. If you think its not neutral, which I think it is, then try to change it. There is no need to put that up there unless you want to make it neutral. Otherwise I could go
1302:
After waiting for about 18 months I would want to get a decision on the merger proposal, which I have opposed right from the start. In the meantime nobody responded affirmatively to the idea to merge an article on a wider subject (i.e. political finance) into one on a smaller subject, which is
899:
because it assumes there's abuse of power, otherwise the first sentence it ok. The second sentence isn't even clearly about campaign finance. Is the implication that legislatures allow re-elected representatives more campaign financing? Then say so and give a reference. I changed the paragraph
1287:
There are various country-specific pages on the subject. I have tried to enter cross-references to all of them with all other pages that are related to the subject. Thus a general page on "raising and spending political funds" (maybe "campaign and party finance" or "costs of democracy" - with
1621:. To the extent it deserves a topic at all, it is a sub-sub-topic of Campaign finance regulation by way of Campaign finance disclosure requirements to "Dark money" (bypassing campaign finance disclosure requirements). Campaign finance regulation or campaign finance disclosure requirements
987:
going to add a cleanup tag. Maybe I can add some content later. EDITORS PLEASE DON'T SEE MY CLEAN UP TAG AS A "DIS"--I am only trying to help present the idea of
Campaign finance reform, which I support, in a clearer, more encyclopedic, and more convincing way.
1001:
In this edit I attempted to eliminate much redundant material, add balance, and improve organization. I hope to come back to it and add some more source links later. As many above have noted, this article was poorly written and highly charged with personal POV.
731:
That is a highly weighted charge, my friend. What you have submitted sounds less like an article and more like a paper on the subject. I have read through this and I agree with your opinion at certain times, but this is not a balanced weighing of the issue.
1774:
stands on its own, but it would merge well into a general article on campaign finance disclosure regulations, to the extent that it doesn't become an anti-Koch rant, which is probably want V would like. What can legitimately be said (which is much
1697:
a personal attack. As you have said nothing coherent that I have seen which isn't a personal attack, it seems appropriate.) Still, perhaps it could be merged into a spin-out article on campaign finance disclosure regulations. That would give it
1236:
In the section on "the study of political finance" I have provided information on the scholarly process from
Pollock and Overacker to A.J. Heidenheimer, H.E. Alexander und A.B. Gunlicks (by the way three U.S. citizens who have been around).
1284:
the units that raise and spend political funds. An (individual) "campaign" (as mentioned in the current article) will not be seen as a fundraising and spending unit. Thus a "neutral" approach would have to avoid such language.
580:
that. I am not saying that your opinion is wrong, since I do agree with it in some sense, but please try to understand the purpose of
Knowledge (XXG) and try to realize that there is more than one point of view on the subject.
1815:- The subject is a stand-alone topic, because it is not confined to campaigning, but has more to do with lobbying. Politicians are susceptible to lobbyists' influences regardless of how their election campaigns were funded.
1117:. There are a few specific country articles in there. Maybe this article should merely be a definition of Campaign finance, followed by a link to the articles for each country. That would give it more of a world view.--
1850:- It could be presented in a more comprehensive and globalized way in the context of campaign finance in general. As a standalone, there is too little context and continuity between the main topic and this subtopic.
153:
1797:- because of its top heavy U.S. bias this article (campaign finance) is no good to international readers anyway. However, this should not be a reason to produce more separate articles on other U.S. ideosyncracies.
937:"...and the campaigns of most prominent American politicians are funded by a variety of sources. Other countries take a more restricted view, and may for instance make all contributions from corporations illegal."
1547:
Ah, I see now what you meant, somehow I missed it the first time around. This is certainly a valid point to be made; you and
Iselilja have convinced me that this merge may not be necessary after all. Thanks,
795:
I agree with blanking and stubbing until we can write a new article over keeping this on Knowledge (XXG), but that's just my opinion. I think we should find some others before we take that drastic measure.
1751:
623:
I'll see what I can do in that way. I have added the "neutrality" tag onto this page so this doesn't turn into an edit war. Furthermore, you should sign your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~.
1491:
takes place is not just campaigning. And what about party meetings, conferences and committees. Are they just campaigning? If voters knew what is going on there they would never bother to vote.
598:
In that case, feel free to edit to make it sound less biased and use less strong language. But its clearly a facet of the discussion that cannot be left out by any reasonable analysis. -K2Dart
1288:
cross-references and redirects - would be good titles) should supplement these country-specific pages. I see no point in using individual countries as sub-headings for the general article.
1097:
The article should not state a proposition as fact (amount of time spent fundraising) which is not backed up by any serious information. An anecdotal newspaper article doesn't cut it.
1412:
there is some theoretical distinction but none that can't be covered in a combined article, so for any practical purposes the vast majority of readers would be well-served by a merge.
1931:
1926:
1721:
1509:
merging. Per the point made by Khnassmacher about the expenses for routine operations and paying full-time staff that is not conncted particulary to election campaigns. Regards,
147:
1444:
the major English speaking countries US, UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and even India and Pakistan, most political spending is centered around election campaigns.
370:
352:
332:
1131:
This contribution offers a really great idea: Define the subject and link to the country articles that are available already. I absolutely agree to this proposal!
79:
1779:
than is presently there) would combine well with an article on (US) campaign finance disclosure regulations, or "campaign reporting and how to avoid it". —
725:"Ultimately, the practice of political advertising should be abolished if we want all money out of political campaigns. This would be a democratic solution."
309:
507:
which appeared to be very biased. If anybody would like to reintroduce some of the information in an impartial manner, it would be greatly appreciated.
1916:
299:
1460:
of political spending originates with parties (not campaigns or candidates) and is spent on the routine operation of a full-time party organization.
1941:
475:
44:
85:
1869:
Because the title of the book is the message, I do not feel that a specific page should be given. If anybody disagrees, I will try and find one.
1655:
comment, not the unadorned statement that disclosure is good and bypassing disclosure is bad. But that's not relevant to the merge request. —
1070:. I don't see a good reason to do so, and putting them together would create a very long article which would be prone to editorial shortening. ~
481:
1921:
1911:
1693:
As opposed to your policy, that if Koch Don't Like It, it must be said on Knowledge (XXG), regardless of the gossip-column source. (Yes, that
275:
1265:
1158:
30:
951:"...and the campaigns of many American politicians are funded by a variety of sources. Some other countries take a more restricted view."
1111:
This article should take a worldwide view, and link more prominently to the other political funding articles particular to each country.
504:
1185:
1253:
99:
1946:
1936:
266:
227:
104:
20:
1632:
There is an editor who states that I have inappropriate ideas as to the meaning of "freedom", "democracy", and some other terms.
646:
It's true though. U.S. politicians sell votes for money. They've ruined the economy and now they are selling away our liberty.
74:
1537:
653:
168:
202:
135:
65:
1855:
1835:
1732:
1046:
675:
Has just removed the neutrality tag from the article despite the fact that the article's neutrality is still in dispute.
1718:
805:
767:
741:
710:
684:
632:
613:
589:
568:
537:
516:
446:
410:
1264:
with a worldwide view in the lead and then country specific (or perhaps continent specific) subsections. We also have
1260:
for some more information about this. The way forward seems to me to merge both articles into a single article titled
1252:
Having multiple articles with opposing viewpoints is not allowed, as our core policy is that all articles must have a
1017:
1676:
129:
109:
1851:
1831:
1728:
1162:
208:
190:
125:
1233:
not willing to look at the whole world from somewhere between the California coast and the Cumberland Gap.
1189:
1085:
1067:
450:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
1181:
1154:
1034:
1005:
755:
698:
649:
601:
556:
1888:
I plan to make the introduction shorter, add citations to existing text, and get rid of any subjectivity.
1874:
1802:
1783:
1724:
1709:
1659:
1573:
1496:
1465:
1433:
1428:
So, the disagreement is not about theory, it's about the very practical task to produce a joint article.
1342:
1308:
1293:
1242:
1136:
55:
1398:
1303:
campaign finance. So, I find it's about time to remove the banner/ template with the merger proposition.
274:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
175:
70:
1672:
763:
706:
609:
564:
1893:
918:
869:
863:"It's been alleged that campaign finance contributions in exchange for promises of votes may lead to
1257:
1098:
1684:
1532:
657:
161:
1820:
1514:
759:
702:
672:
605:
560:
1009:
988:
1636:
discussion has no place on Knowledge (XXG), except as to a discussion as to whether he or I is
1211:
may be a larger term, I wonder if at this point it wouldn't be better just to merge it here? --
356:, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to
1870:
1798:
1780:
1706:
1656:
1596:
1585:
1569:
1554:
1492:
1480:
1461:
1449:
1429:
1417:
1390:
1370:
1357:
1338:
1325:
1304:
1289:
1261:
1238:
1217:
1208:
1201:
1132:
1042:
922:
141:
51:
1652:
1385:
You know I don’t think so, because for example, if in a country as an example, there were no
1618:
1394:
1386:
1361:
1273:
801:
752:
I might change it sometime, but then you'll probably keep the tag. So you should change it.
737:
680:
628:
585:
533:
528:
I have, once again, reverted a bunch of edits by this same user. This is clear POV editing.
512:
364:
24:
1166:
810:
1889:
1013:
258:
854:
given. I changed the paragraph to the following, less extreme unsubstantiated statement:
1680:
1527:
344:
326:
252:
242:
221:
1905:
1816:
1762:
1510:
914:
1229:
terms and phrasing, problems, examples). Thus I gave up and started my own article.
1592:
1550:
1476:
1445:
1413:
1366:
1321:
1213:
1071:
1038:
970:
422:
404:
1119:
1114:
797:
733:
676:
624:
581:
529:
508:
432:
1268:, which is closely related to this article and could be used to merge content.
1626:
1614:
815:
438:
428:
248:
368:
and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit
910:
873:
786:
1897:
1878:
1859:
1839:
1824:
1806:
1786:
1765:
1736:
1712:
1688:
1662:
1602:
1577:
1560:
1542:
1518:
1500:
1484:
1469:
1453:
1437:
1421:
1402:
1376:
1346:
1331:
1312:
1297:
1277:
1246:
1223:
1193:
1140:
1125:
1101:
1074:
1050:
1030:
1021:
991:
973:
819:
789:
771:
745:
714:
688:
661:
636:
617:
593:
572:
541:
520:
1759:
865:
358:
271:
1590:
I agree there's no consensus to merge; please go ahead and remove it. --
1647:
wrong, and, as does the US Supreme Court, some of the US requirements
1475:
Is ordinary party spending not a long-term campaign for its platform?
1088:. I also don't see a good reason to do so ~jrg7891 20:07, 2 April 2007
960:
That takes care of the top part, for now. The rest needs work too.
925:
attempt to understand the dynamics of the political processes."
451:
184:
15:
1629:
is too specialized a term to deserve a separate article.
1319:
argument above (from 2011) but I am not following you. --
1643:
Although I believe some of the disclosure requirements
160:
380:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Elections and Referendums
270:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1830:tied together, whether the money is "dark" or not?
174:
1526:Parties are financed away from election-time too.
969:I also added a link to my webpage at the bottom.
550:but to delete it all is very biased on your part.
480:This article has not yet received a rating on the
1727:may like it even less than your 'Kochtopus', V.
876:systems, even though such promises may be legal."
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1058:Proposed subsumption of Campaign finance reform
1932:WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
1927:Start-Class Elections and Referendums articles
1705:I read the AfD. A merge was not discussed. —
383:Template:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
695:around slapping that tag on anything really.
8:
188:
1032:
1003:
753:
696:
599:
554:
399:
321:
216:
1568:If so, how about removing the template?
1625:be spun off to a separate article, but
1151:TV Advertising in Britain is free...?
401:
323:
218:
1758:. It makes no sense to bury it here.-
503:I recently reverted the edits made by
1593:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1551:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1389:then we cannot tell there is also no
1367:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1322:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1266:Campaign finance in the United States
1214:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
353:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
7:
499:"By the Wealthy, For the Wealthy"...
444:This article is within the scope of
350:This article is within the scope of
284:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Politics
264:This article is within the scope of
454:and the subjects encompassed by it.
207:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1651:wrong, they do exist, and deserve
386:Elections and Referendums articles
14:
1673:evidence provided at the last AfD
50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1917:Mid-importance politics articles
814:
809:
431:
421:
403:
343:
325:
251:
241:
220:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1942:Unknown-importance law articles
1640:improperly on Knowledge (XXG).
460:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Law
304:This article has been rated as
1298:08:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1278:08:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
1247:06:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
1224:19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
1194:15:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
1146:
1:
1922:WikiProject Politics articles
1912:Start-Class politics articles
1898:19:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
1879:17:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
1807:09:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
1787:09:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
1766:00:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
1713:09:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
1689:00:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
1663:23:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
1337:o.k., so let's wait and see.
992:12:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
974:06:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
820:05:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
790:02:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
772:17:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
746:05:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
715:07:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
689:03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
637:07:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
618:07:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
594:07:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
573:07:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
542:07:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
521:07:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
287:Template:WikiProject Politics
278:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1603:09:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
1126:21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
1075:06:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
1051:06:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1022:16:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
662:07:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
1619:Campaign finance#Regulation
1617:be merged into the section
1613:I propose that the article
982:Very poorly written article
1963:
1825:14:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
1578:05:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
1561:04:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
1543:21:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
1519:10:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
1501:14:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
1485:09:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
1470:05:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
1313:08:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
1115:Category:Political_funding
1102:01:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
482:project's importance scale
310:project's importance scale
1454:22:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
1438:06:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
1422:02:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
1403:09:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
1377:06:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
1347:15:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
1332:06:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
1167:11:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
1141:06:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
1029:this link I found today:
479:
416:
377:Elections and Referendums
338:
333:Elections and Referendums
303:
236:
215:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1947:WikiProject Law articles
1937:Start-Class law articles
1860:20:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
1840:20:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
1737:20:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
923:collective action theory
463:Template:WikiProject Law
1086:Campaign finance reform
1068:Campaign finance reform
197:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1254:Neutral point of view
909:"Disciplines such as
201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
100:Neutral point of view
1884:Edits I plan to make
1178:should be removed.
919:public choice theory
267:WikiProject Politics
105:No original research
1852:AdventurousSquirrel
1832:AdventurousSquirrel
1729:AdventurousSquirrel
1717:I dunno...it seems
1107:Non-Worldwide view
997:Major Edit 1/15/07
203:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1756:stands on its own
1677:WP:KOCHDONTLIKEIT
1391:political finance
1387:campaign finances
1358:political finance
1262:political finance
1209:Political finance
1202:Political finance
1184:comment added by
1157:comment added by
1147:'such as Britain'
1053:
1037:comment added by
1024:
1008:comment added by
774:
758:comment added by
717:
701:comment added by
652:comment added by
620:
604:comment added by
575:
559:comment added by
496:
495:
492:
491:
488:
487:
398:
397:
394:
393:
320:
319:
316:
315:
290:politics articles
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1954:
1599:
1589:
1557:
1540:
1535:
1530:
1373:
1362:campaign finance
1328:
1220:
1196:
1173:Broken Reference
1169:
1122:
818:
813:
664:
468:
467:
464:
461:
458:
441:
436:
435:
425:
418:
417:
407:
400:
388:
387:
384:
381:
378:
371:our project page
365:electoral reform
347:
340:
339:
329:
322:
292:
291:
288:
285:
282:
261:
256:
255:
245:
238:
237:
232:
224:
217:
200:
194:
193:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
25:Campaign finance
16:
1962:
1961:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1902:
1901:
1886:
1867:
1865:Alexander Heard
1611:
1601:
1597:
1583:
1559:
1555:
1538:
1533:
1528:
1375:
1371:
1354:
1330:
1326:
1222:
1218:
1205:
1179:
1175:
1152:
1149:
1120:
1109:
1095:
1060:
999:
984:
670:
647:
501:
465:
462:
459:
456:
455:
447:WikiProject Law
437:
430:
385:
382:
379:
376:
375:
289:
286:
283:
280:
279:
259:Politics portal
257:
250:
230:
198:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1960:
1958:
1950:
1949:
1944:
1939:
1934:
1929:
1924:
1919:
1914:
1904:
1903:
1885:
1882:
1866:
1863:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1703:
1671:merge per the
1610:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1591:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1549:
1521:
1488:
1487:
1457:
1456:
1425:
1424:
1406:
1405:
1365:
1353:
1350:
1335:
1334:
1320:
1281:
1280:
1212:
1204:
1198:
1174:
1171:
1159:217.43.153.184
1148:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1078:
1077:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1054:
998:
995:
983:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
964:
963:
962:
961:
955:
954:
953:
952:
949:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
929:
928:
927:
926:
904:
903:
902:
901:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
880:
879:
878:
877:
858:
857:
856:
855:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
835:
834:
833:
832:
825:
823:
822:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
729:
728:
727:
669:
668:Neutrality tag
666:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
547:
546:
545:
544:
500:
497:
494:
493:
490:
489:
486:
485:
478:
472:
471:
469:
443:
442:
426:
414:
413:
408:
396:
395:
392:
391:
389:
348:
336:
335:
330:
318:
317:
314:
313:
306:Mid-importance
302:
296:
295:
293:
276:the discussion
263:
262:
246:
234:
233:
231:Mid‑importance
225:
213:
212:
206:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1959:
1948:
1945:
1943:
1940:
1938:
1935:
1933:
1930:
1928:
1925:
1923:
1920:
1918:
1915:
1913:
1910:
1909:
1907:
1900:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1883:
1881:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1864:
1862:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1788:
1785:
1782:
1778:
1773:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1764:
1761:
1757:
1755:
1749:
1746:
1745:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1723:
1720:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1711:
1708:
1704:
1701:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1661:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1641:
1639:
1635:
1630:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1594:
1587:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1562:
1558:
1552:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1541:
1536:
1531:
1525:
1522:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1408:
1407:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1374:
1368:
1363:
1360:be merged to
1359:
1351:
1349:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1333:
1329:
1323:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1285:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1221:
1215:
1210:
1203:
1199:
1197:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1172:
1170:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1124:
1123:
1116:
1106:
1104:
1103:
1100:
1092:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
996:
994:
993:
990:
981:
975:
972:
968:
967:
966:
965:
959:
958:
957:
956:
950:
947:
946:
945:
944:
936:
935:
933:
932:
931:
930:
924:
920:
916:
915:public policy
912:
908:
907:
906:
905:
898:
897:
896:
895:
887:
886:
884:
883:
882:
881:
875:
871:
868:
867:
862:
861:
860:
859:
852:
851:
850:
849:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
821:
817:
812:
807:
803:
799:
794:
793:
792:
791:
788:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
743:
739:
735:
730:
726:
723:
722:
719:
718:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
693:
692:
691:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
667:
665:
663:
659:
655:
651:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
621:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
597:
596:
595:
591:
587:
583:
578:
577:
576:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
551:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:71.194.166.77
498:
483:
477:
474:
473:
470:
453:
449:
448:
440:
434:
429:
427:
424:
420:
419:
415:
412:
409:
406:
402:
390:
373:
372:
367:
366:
361:
360:
355:
354:
349:
346:
342:
341:
337:
334:
331:
328:
324:
311:
307:
301:
298:
297:
294:
277:
273:
269:
268:
260:
254:
249:
247:
244:
240:
239:
235:
229:
226:
223:
219:
214:
210:
204:
196:
192:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1887:
1871:Khnassmacher
1868:
1847:
1846:
1812:
1799:Khnassmacher
1794:
1793:
1781:Arthur Rubin
1776:
1771:
1770:The subject
1753:
1752:The subject
1747:
1707:Arthur Rubin
1699:
1694:
1668:
1657:Arthur Rubin
1648:
1644:
1642:
1637:
1633:
1631:
1622:
1612:
1586:Khnassmacher
1570:Khnassmacher
1567:
1523:
1506:
1493:Khnassmacher
1489:
1462:Khnassmacher
1458:
1430:Khnassmacher
1426:
1409:
1382:
1355:
1339:Khnassmacher
1336:
1305:Khnassmacher
1301:
1290:Khnassmacher
1286:
1282:
1269:
1239:Khnassmacher
1235:
1231:
1227:
1206:
1186:66.31.40.234
1180:— Preceding
1176:
1150:
1133:Khnassmacher
1118:
1110:
1096:
1084:merger from
1081:
1066:merger from
1063:
1033:— Preceding
1004:— Preceding
1000:
985:
864:
824:
783:
754:— Preceding
724:
697:— Preceding
671:
648:— Preceding
645:
600:— Preceding
555:— Preceding
552:
548:
502:
466:law articles
445:
369:
363:
357:
351:
305:
265:
209:WikiProjects
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1702:prominence.
1395:KhabarNegar
1256:. See also
1200:Merge from
1153:—Preceding
934:I changed:
885:I changed:
452:legal field
199:Start-class
148:free images
31:not a forum
1906:Categories
1890:Nmohnatkin
1627:Dark money
1615:Dark money
1609:Dark money
1598:reply here
1556:reply here
1372:reply here
1327:reply here
1258:wp:POVFORK
1219:talk to me
1093:Time issue
874:democratic
870:corruption
831:I changed:
439:Law portal
1772:generally
1681:Viriditas
1099:Overacker
911:economics
654:68.4.5.98
359:elections
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1817:JGabbard
1675:and per
1511:Iselilja
1182:unsigned
1155:unsigned
1113:Look at
1047:contribs
1035:unsigned
1018:contribs
1006:unsigned
866:de facto
768:contribs
756:unsigned
711:contribs
699:unsigned
650:unsigned
614:contribs
602:unsigned
569:contribs
557:unsigned
553:-K2Dart
281:Politics
272:politics
228:Politics
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1653:WP:NPOV
1649:legally
1645:morally
1477:EllenCT
1446:EllenCT
1414:EllenCT
1356:Should
1072:Rollo44
1039:MrsPlum
971:-Barry-
308:on the
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1813:Oppose
1784:(talk)
1754:easily
1748:Oppose
1710:(talk)
1669:Oppose
1660:(talk)
1638:acting
1529:Number
1524:Oppose
1507:Oppose
1383:Oppose
1270:Yoenit
1207:While
1121:Lester
1082:Oppose
1064:Oppose
798:JHMM13
760:K2Dart
734:JHMM13
703:K2Dart
677:JHMM13
673:K2Dart
625:JHMM13
606:K2Dart
582:JHMM13
561:K2Dart
530:JHMM13
509:JHMM13
205:scale.
126:Google
1848:Agree
1795:Agree
1722:other
1623:might
1410:Merge
1010:EABSE
989:Travb
948:into:
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1894:talk
1875:talk
1856:talk
1836:talk
1821:talk
1803:talk
1777:less
1733:talk
1725:guys
1700:more
1685:talk
1634:That
1574:talk
1515:talk
1497:talk
1481:talk
1466:talk
1450:talk
1434:talk
1418:talk
1399:talk
1364:? --
1343:talk
1309:talk
1294:talk
1274:talk
1243:talk
1190:talk
1163:talk
1137:talk
1043:talk
1014:talk
921:and
913:and
787:Tjss
764:talk
707:talk
658:talk
610:talk
565:talk
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1719:the
1352:RFC
900:to:
872:in
476:???
457:Law
411:Law
300:Mid
176:TWL
1908::
1896:)
1877:)
1858:)
1838:)
1823:)
1805:)
1760:Mr
1750:-
1735:)
1695:is
1687:)
1679:.
1576:)
1548:--
1517:)
1499:)
1483:)
1468:)
1452:)
1436:)
1420:)
1401:)
1345:)
1311:)
1296:)
1276:)
1245:)
1192:)
1165:)
1139:)
1049:)
1045:•
1020:)
1016:•
917:,
808:)
804:|
770:)
766:•
744:)
740:|
713:)
709:•
687:)
683:|
660:)
635:)
631:|
616:)
612:•
592:)
588:|
571:)
567:•
540:)
536:|
519:)
515:|
362:,
156:)
54:;
1892:(
1873:(
1854:(
1834:(
1819:(
1801:(
1763:X
1731:(
1683:(
1595:|
1588::
1584:@
1572:(
1553:|
1539:7
1534:5
1513:(
1495:(
1479:(
1464:(
1448:(
1432:(
1416:(
1397:(
1393:.
1369:|
1341:(
1324:|
1307:(
1292:(
1272:(
1241:(
1216:|
1188:(
1161:(
1135:(
1041:(
1012:(
806:C
802:T
800:(
762:(
742:C
738:T
736:(
705:(
685:C
681:T
679:(
656:(
633:C
629:T
627:(
608:(
590:C
586:T
584:(
563:(
538:C
534:T
532:(
517:C
513:T
511:(
484:.
374:.
312:.
211::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
