Talk:Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site. |
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus. I have strong concerns with the procedurally validity of this RM. It was started by a WP:SPA IP, which is always a red flag at a behind-the-scenes process like RM, before receiving a supportive unsigned comment, literally the only comment from another SPA. In the meantime, we have a redirect at the proposed title (with "dumb" quotes per WP:QUOTEMARKS), so readers will find the article at either title. No prejudice against a new RM. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
McComish v. Bennett → Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett – As the link to the ruling indicates (note 10), this case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court under the name Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. The Supreme Court caption should be preferred over the caption used in the court of appeals. 69.255.76.181 (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Survey
edit- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
- Support Cases change names all the time between trial and eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Unless one is referring specifically to proceedings in the lower court, the standard practice in the legal community is to refer to them by the reported case name before the Supreme Court, in this case, Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.
69.255.76.181 (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
editThat makes sense. Someone should update the article to include information about how the cases were consolidated, so that readers understand why the name changed when the Court took it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mroche106 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 1 May 2013
- Question: What do secondary sources call it? Who else has reported on this case - did they use the longer or the shorter form? bobrayner (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Response: Some newspapers will shorten it to Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett or Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett for length, but the literature among campaign-finance scholars and advocacy groups (of all perspectives) universally calls it by the reported name, Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, and not by McComish v. Bennett.
- Here's an article by Joel Gora, a campaign-finance scholar at Brooklyn Law: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1931623 ("This is an analysis of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club Pac v. Bennet, 131 S. Ct. 2806 (2011), which struck down the Arizona program for providing government 'triggered' matching funds in political campaigns.")
- Here's an paper by the Congressional research service: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41542.pdf ("[I]n June 2011, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC et al. v. Bennett.")
- Here's a post by the pro-campaign-finance group, Common Cause: http://www.commonblog.com/2011/06/27/death-of-public-financing-greatly-exaggerated-2/ ("Surprising no one, the Supreme Court today struck down matching funds provisions in the Arizona public financing case Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (consolidated with McComish v. Bennett).")
- Here's a post by the anti-campaign-finance Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/blog/court-says-punishing-political-speech-violates-first-amendment ("Here’s Cato’s brief in the case, Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett.")
69.255.76.181 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Consolidation with Arizona Free Enterprise Club Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett
editWikipedia redirects searches for Arizona Free Enterprise Club Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett to this article, however, the article itself does not explain that the two cases were consolidated. I have added this information in the "Lawsuit" section. James Cage (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Requested Move
editFor reason unclear, the previous requested move was unilaterally denied, despite multiple examples identifying that McComish v. Bennett was consolidated with, and is now properly known under Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. Move re-requested to conform with the standard accepted name of the case.