Talk:Issue One

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removed inaccuracies

Removed factually inaccurate and biased information, including the inaccurate claims that Issue One does not disclose its donors (see https://www.issueone.org/get-involved/donate-2/), that it engaged in the defeat of a political candidate in violation of its 501(c)(3) tax status, or that it is a 'liberal' organization. Lbroberts3 (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Lbroberts3[reply]

I have reverted your edits because they deleted reliably sourced information from the article. Sources in the article, including this Mother Jones piece [1] report that Issue One is a liberal group, that it does not disclose its donors, and that it targeted McConnell for defeat. The link you provided as evidence of Issue One disclosing its donors does not verify that statement, it goes to the group's donation page. If you'd like to change the information here, please add
reliable secondary sources. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
On the donor page linked above: "All donations made to Issue One are tax-deductible as provided by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Please know that, consistent with our commitment to full transparency in giving, Issue One discloses upon request the names of our donors." The Mother Jones article does not say Issue One is a liberal group, but that the Democracy Alliance which co-hosted an event is. Please re-read and restore edits. The About Page of Issue One's website explicitly describes its nonpartisan bent. Additionally, the Mother Jones article does not include any supporting evidence that Jonathan Soros is a donor, and excluding other funders such as The Hewlett Foundation (http://www.hewlett.org/grants/14523/issue-one), or the Democracy Fund (http://www.democracyfund.org/portfolio/entry/issue-one) is deliberately misleading and biased. Finally, the Mother Jones article states that c4 arm of Fund for the Republic (aka not the same group as Issue One) "plans" to spend money targeting politicians, not that it actually did, making such a claim false.
From the MJ article: "A little-known liberal group backed by the Democracy Alliance, the exclusive club of several hundred wealthy donors that funds an array of progressive causes, has adopted an unusual strategy to achieve its mission of ridding US politics of the corrupting influence of big money..." The "About Us" page is not a reliable source for making the claim that the group is nonpartisan, please see
WP:SPS. Feel free to add other donors to the article along with reliable secondary sources. Good distinction on the McConnell spending being planned (not necessarily executed) by the c4 arm, I will make that distinction in the article. Finally, the source that says Jonathan Soros is a funder is the New York Times: [2]. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The MJ portrayal is inaccurate. Here are 2 separate sources describing it as nonpartisan (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-roberts-court-strike-another-campaign-finance-law) and (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/09/iowa-pays-the-price-pushes-campaign-finance-reform/28749841/). And once again, as it states CLEARLY on its website and the Vogel Politico piece, Issue One DOES disclose its donors: "The group, which launched in late 2012, has raised $5.5 million, according to Penniman. Both Fund for the Republic and Action for the Republic are registered under sections of the Tax Code that don’t require the disclosure of donors, but Penniman said the groups would voluntarily disclose the names of donors who gave after Jan. 1 http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/fundraising-campaign-contributions-money-in-politics-103350.html#ixzz3dCAZMkpm). Finally, the linked NY Times article makes no mention of Soros funding Issue One; the only reference is to a former Soros-funded super PAC called Friends of Democracy. Removing clear and obvious inaccuracies AGAIN. Lbroberts3 (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)lbroberts3[reply]
Right in the Politico article you link to it says "Penniman said the groups would voluntarily disclose the names of donors who gave after Jan. 1, including finance heir Jonathan Soros and children’s shoe mogul Arnold Hiatt..." It says the group planned to disclose its donors on Jan. 1, but do we have a source that says it did disclose them? Safehaven86 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Once again, it says so on its Donate page. Anyone who asks can receive a list of donors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbroberts3 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The organization's own website saying that it will disclose donors upon request is different than a reliable secondary source saying "the organization discloses it donors." Please see
WP:ABOUTSELF. I don't know if you saw the message I posted on your talk page, but please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Request for infobox update

Hello Wikipedia editors. I'm part of the comms team at Issue One and I'd like to propose a few updates to this article, beginning with the infobox.

Right now the infobox includes a category for Membership, with a corresponding data point of "100+". This information is misleading, as Issue One is not a membership-based organization, and thus does not have "members" as that term is generally understood.

The cited source (archived here) is actually referencing the ReFormers Caucus, which was a program launched by Issue One in 2015 that brought together over 100 former members of Congress.

So while the Reformers Caucus does indeed have members (200+ now), it is misleading to say that Issue One as an organization does—or at least not in the sense that other organizations with that Infobox category do (e.g. AARP has 38 million members, AAA has 61 million members, et cetera).

I will not be making any changes to the page myself due to my conflict of interest, so I'm hoping that editors are able to review and hopefully implement this request. Thanks! EOttenfeld (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the content in the infobox field. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for updates to History

Hi Wikipedia editors. Like my former colleague, above, I am from the comms team at Issue One and I'm now stepping into his shoes to make some requests here. I was working with him on putting together some draft updates for the page, which is not as clear as it could be about the organization's founding and its activities. As well, some of Issue One's major activities aren't mentioned and I'd like to suggest adding them.

In case it is helpful or someone wants to see all my changes together in one place, I have put a draft of everything (minus the infobox) into my user space here: User:AR at Issue One/Full Issue One Updates

This first request, however, is for the History. I have two main suggestions for this part of the article:

  • Retitling it to "Formation" since this really covers just the forming of the organization and other updates fit better under the Activities heading
  • Simplifying the details down to the basic points that Issue One formed from the two predecessor organizations. Since Issue One was a new organization formed from these two, the details about their previous goals and funding are too in the weeds and given too much weight, especially with there being no other details in the History

Is someone willing to make these two updates? Here is the draft for quick reference:

Formation draft
I've retitled the History section. I see no reason to suppress the pre-merger history. Maybe you have reason to want to suppress that information. But it's competently written and relevant, and it's about parts of what is now Issue One. Maproom (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maproom, thank you for retitling the History section! I completely understand your concerns; we were just thinking that information about these two previous organizations' goals and funding were too detailed for a page about Issue One. But absolutely no problem at all if you don't feel those changes are necessary, and I really appreciate you taking the time to review them. If you have some time, we'd greatly appreciate you taking a look at the edits to the Organization section as well. So far, a couple of our suggested changes to the section have been made (adding an "Activities" section and putting some information about the ReFormers Caucus under a new heading, "Campaign Finance Reform"). There's now duplicate information under "Campaign Finance Reform" and "ReFormers Caucus", so the "ReFormers Caucus" section should be removed, and there are still several other suggestions that haven't been reviewed (mostly adding new subsections about Issue One's major activities and correcting some information about key personnel). Again, thank you for your work on the History section! And thank you in advance for any time you're able to spend on the Organization section. AR at Issue One (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formation

Issue One was formed in October 2014 through the merger of two campaign finance reform organizations: Americans for Campaign Reform and Fund for the Republic.[1][2]

Americans for Campaign Reform, which was formed in 2003, had been focused on issues related to campaigns and elections, including pushing for public funding for federal and state elections.[3][4] Fund for the Republic, which was formed in 2012, aimed to remove the use of big money and dark money in American politics.[5][6] Issue One combined these initiatives.[7]

References

  1. ^ The Internal Revenue Services's Processing of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) applications for tax-exempt status submitted by "political advocacy" organizations from 2010-2013. United States Senate Committee on Finance. Retrieved August 15, 2022. Americans for Campaign Reform has joined forces with Fund for the Republic to become Issue One.
  2. ^ "Barbara Lawton". Iowa State University. Retrieved August 15, 2022.
  3. ^ Leuders, Bill (January 21, 2014). "Lawton takes aim at campaign cash". Wisconsin Watch. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  4. ^ Weeks, Dan (March 12, 2020). "My Turn: Be like Granny D". Concord Monitor. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  5. ^ Vogel, Kenneth (February 11, 2014). "Fighting big donors with big dollars". Politico. Retrieved 13 May 2015.
  6. ^ Kroll, Andy (September 27, 2013). "Liberal Group to Fight Dark Money…by Raising $40 Million of It". Mother Jones. Retrieved 13 May 2015.
  7. ^ Sharnak, Debbie (February 26, 2015). "Report: 2014 Elections Officially Most Expensive Midterm in U.S. History". Independent Voter Network. Newstex LLC – via Nexis. Issue One believes that money has gained overwhelming influence over the U.S. political system. The organization is attempting to create a bipartisan coalition to limit this trend. The group was created after two of the most prominent campaign finance organizations, Fund for the Republic and Americans for Campaign Reform, joined forces to increase their impact.

Appreciate the help from Wikipedia editors to review this. Thanks. AR at Issue One (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for updates to Organization

Hi Wikipedia editors. I'm from the comms team at Issue One. I previously made a request for edits to the History section of the Issue One page. That request remains outstanding, but I'd like to also make a request here regarding edits to the Organization section of the page. Generally, these edits reorganize the section to make it clearer as well as update the page to reflect more of Issue One's major activities.

In case it is helpful or someone wants to see all my changes together in one place, I have put a draft of everything (minus the infobox) into my user space here: User:AR at Issue One/Full Issue One Updates

Here's a bit more detail about the suggested edits:

  1. Placing the "Activities" and "Key Personnel" sections under the "Organization" heading, because these are the major components of the organization.
  2. Making a few changes to the key personnel listed:
    • To reflect that Nick Penniman is Issue One's CEO, not its executive director.
    • Adding additional information about the organization's board. Issue One has a board as well as a separate advisory board, and the current article includes only information about the advisory board. The new draft clarifies this, adds that Whitney Hatch is chair of the board, adds the names of a few key board members, and amends that the advisory board has two co-chairs (Bill Bradley and Alan Simpson), not three.
  3. Reorganizing the "Activities" section into five subsections, which better reflect Issue One's core areas of work. These core areas have expanded since the organization's founding. The proposed new subsections are: "Campaign Finance Reform," "Congressional Reform," "Election Protection and Voting Rights," "Social Media," and "Research". Each new subsection contains relevant information about Issue One's activities in these topic areas.
  4. Moving information about the ReFormers Caucus under the Campaign Finance Reform subheading, because most work from the ReFormers Caucus centers around campaign finance reform.
  5. Removing "Blueprints for Democracy" from the page, as it's a report from 2015, and other reports do not have their own sections. The proposed "Research" section now includes an overview of major research reports published by Issue One.
  6. Removing the "Trump Administration" section, which reflects just one mention of Issue One in the media from several years ago, and other similar mentions do not have their own sections.
  7. Placing information about the Council for Social Media under the new proposed "Social Media" section, which contains the same information with just a bit more detail.

Is someone willing to make any/all of these updates? Here is the draft for quick reference:

Organization draft

Organization

Activities

Issue One's stated mission is "fighting to protect U.S. elections, lessen political polarization, limit the influence of big money over politics, and improve the ability of Congress to solve problems."[1] The organization raises awareness about these issues,[2] advocates for legislation and federal action,[3][4] and produces research and analysis related to key issues.[5]

Campaign finance reform

In 2015, Issue One launched the ReFormers Caucus, a bipartisan group of former lawmakers advocating for campaign finance reform.[3][4] The caucus initially included more than 100 former officeholders, including former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.[3] By 2019, that number had expanded to more than 200 members.[6]

The ReFormers Caucus has proposed boosting small donations to campaigns, restricting political contributions from lobbyists, increasing transparency and disclosure in political spending, improving enforcement of relevant laws, and overturning Citizens United.[3][4]

Congressional reform

In 2017, Issue One proposed a ban on lawmakers and their aids tradings stocks other than mutual funds.[7] This would eliminate individual stock transactions in which staffers have a conflict of interest due to Congressional work involving these companies.[7] In April 2022, a coalition of 37 former federal lawmakers operating under the auspices of Issue One called on Congress to ban lawmakers and their family members from trading individual stocks while in office.[8]

A January 2022 report from Issue One titled "Fair Pay: Why Congress Needs to Invest in Junior Staff" found that one in eight congressional staffers in Washington, DC, were not paid a living wage.[9][10][11] The report showed that entry-level staff, in particular, were earning 30 percent less than the national average salary, and recommended a salary floor for all Hill staffers.[12][9] In April 2022, the Congressional Hispanic Staff Association published an open letter to both chambers of Congress asking for immediate salary increases for staff, citing Issue One's report on the issue.[13]

Election protection and voting rights

In 2020, Issue One launched the National Council on Election Integrity to counter disinformation about the 2020 United States presidential election and ensure a peaceful transfer of power.[14][15] The council was bipartisan,[2] with members including former Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former Senator and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and two former Defense Secretaries, Republican Chuck Hagel and Democrat Leon Panetta.[15][16] Ahead of the election, the council launched a campaign called "Count Every Vote" which supported election integrity and countered disinformation.[17] The council also spent $6 million on an advocacy campaign that ran after the election and focused on ensuring all remaining ballots were tallied.[16]

In December 2020, the council spent $2 million on an ad urging a peaceful transition of power after President Trump refused to concede the election.[18] In 2021, the council launched a digital ad campaign inside the Beltway to advocate for the establishment of a 9/11 Commission-style body to investigate the January 6 United States Capitol attack.[19] That same year, Issue One launched Truthtellers, an outgrowth of the group's Swamp Stories podcast featuring short video clips debunking false claims about the 2020 election.[15][20][21]

In 2022, Issue One launched a "Faces of Democracy" campaign highlighting concerns from election administrators and poll workers from across the country, and requesting increased funding for election infrastructure and election-related threat monitoring, along with increased election privacy protections.[22] Issue One also supported the work of the January 6 Committee to advocate for an update to the Electoral Count Act.[23]

Social media

In October 2022, Issue One established the Council for Responsible Social Media to address bipartisan concerns with social media, including the impact for national security, and social media's effects on children and democratic discourse.[24] The council includes former lawmakers such as former House majority leader Dick Gephardt and former lieutenant governor of Massachusetts Kerry Healey, the former Facebook employee and whistleblower Frances Haugen, and tech advocates including Tristan Harris.[25]

Research

In 2018, Issue One released a report titled "Dark Money Illuminated" that detailed political spending by nonprofit organizations that are not required to disclose their donors.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce.[26][28] Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit corporation that works in conjunction with American Crossroads, was the next highest spender.[29] The report received coverage in USA Today,[26] Roll Call,[29] MarketWatch,[27] and other media outlets.[30][31]

Issue One's subsequent analysis of dark money spending during the 2018 midterms found that liberal nonprofits had outspent conservative ones for the first time since 2010.[32] “It’s no surprise that both Democrats and Republicans utilize whatever political vehicles are at hand,” Issue One CEO Nick Penniman told The Wall Street Journal. “Both parties view it as an arms race.”[32]

In 2020, analysis from Issue One and the Center for Responsive Politics showed that dark money groups had spent $996 million since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.[33]

In June 2020, Issue One released a report on potential foreign interference in U.S. elections, an issue the report described as a "national emergency" that Congress was not doing enough to prevent.[34] Issue One also set up a website to study foreign threats.[34]

In 2021, Issue One released a joint report with the Campaign Legal Center detailing the misuse of leadership PAC funds by both parties.[35][36] That same year, it identified the political donors who had spent the most in the six election cycles since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.[37][38]

Key personnel

Alan K. Simpson and Bill Bradley.[41][42]

References

  1. ^ "About Us". Issue One. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  2. ^ a b Ball, Molly (November 2, 2020). "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election". Time. Retrieved October 19, 2022.
  3. ^ a b c d Schouten, Fredreka. "Former lawmakers join campaign-finance fight". USA Today. Retrieved August 17, 2022 – via Wayback Machine.
  4. ^ a b c Wheeler, Lydia (February 15, 2016). "Where the 2016 candidates stand on money in politics". The Hill. Nexstar Inc. Retrieved August 17, 2022.
  5. ^ Montellaro, Zach (September 14, 2020). "A looming milestone: $1B in dark money spending". Politico. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  6. ^ Vines, Georgiana. "Chattanooga Republican Zach Wamp on Issue One Reformers Caucus". Knoxville News Sentinel. Knoxville News Sentinel. Retrieved August 17, 2022.
  7. ^ a b Severns, Maggie (September 25, 2017). "Congressional aides risk conflicts with stock trades". Politico. Retrieved August 30, 2022.
  8. ^ Levinthal, Dave (April 6, 2022). "Ban federal lawmakers and their family members from trading stocks, 37 former lawmakers tell Congress". Insider. Retrieved August 30, 2022.
  9. ^ a b Lesniewski, Niels (January 25, 2022). "Thirteen percent of congressional staffers make less than a living wage, report shows". Roll Call. CQ Roll Call. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  10. ^ Grayer, Annie (January 26, 2022). "New report finds 1 in 8 congressional staffers are not making a DC living wage". CNN. Cable News Network. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  11. ^ "Fair Pay: Why Congress Needs to Invest in Junior Staff" (PDF). Issue One. 2022. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  12. ^ Sotomayor, Marianna (February 4, 2021). "'Dear White Staffers': Anonymous testimonials about workplace culture grip Capitol Hill". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 18, 2022.
  13. ^ Rai, Sarakshi (April 15, 2022). "Congressional Hispanic staffers ask for pay hike in open letter". The Hill. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  14. ^ Newhauser, Daniel (October 23, 2020). "US election night scenarios: Early winner or 'doomsday'?". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  15. ^ a b c Halpern, Sue (February 4, 2022). "The Pro-Trump Case For Rejecting The Big Lie". The New Yorker. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  16. ^ a b Lovelace, Ryan (November 2, 2020). "Election integrity group to spend $6 mil. on post-election campaign focused on vote-counting". The Washington Times. Retrieved February 4, 2022.
  17. ^ Rojc, Philip (November 13, 2020). "Election 2020: Democracy Funders React to a Historic Contest". Inside Philanthropy. Retrieved August 17, 2022.
  18. ^ Sherman, Jake; Palmer, Anna (November 20, 2020). "They can't agree what they're talking about". Politico. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  19. ^ Marquette, Chris (May 10, 2021). "Group that includes 9/11 commissioners urges Congress to create similar Jan. 6 panel". Roll Call. CQ Roll Call. Retrieved August 17, 2022.
  20. ^ Hullinger, Logan (February 8, 2022). "Weston Wamp is featured in The New Yorker trying to convince Republican colleagues to trust election process". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Retrieved August 16, 2022 – via Yahoo.
  21. ^ Combs, Corry (September 22, 2021). "Issue One launches new "Truthtellers" video series with millennial conservative Weston Wamp exposing massive election disinformation campaign". Issue One. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  22. ^ Montellaro, Zach; Bland, Scott (June 21, 2021). "Election administrators go to Washington". Politico. Retrieved August 17, 2022.
  23. ^ Broadwater, Luke; Corasaniti, Nick (December 4, 2021). "Fearing a Repeat of Jan. 6, Congress Eyes Changes to Electoral Count Law". Politico. Retrieved October 4, 2022.
  24. ^ Lima, Cristiano; Schaffer, Aaron (October 12, 2022). "'Responsible social media' council looks to bridge divides on tech". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 20, 2022.
  25. ^ Feiner, Lauren (October 12, 2022). "Facebook whistleblower, former defense and intel officials form group to fix social media". CNBC. Retrieved October 20, 2022.
  26. ^ a b c Schouten, Fredreka (September 12, 2018). "Exclusive: Three-quarters of the secret money in recent elections came from 15 groups". USA Today. Gannett. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  27. ^ a b Reklaitis, Victor (November 26, 2018). "Secret political spending on track to reach $1 billion milestone". MarketWatch. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  28. ^ a b Beckel, Michael (September 11, 2018). "Dark Money Illuminated". Issue One. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  29. ^ a b Ackley, Kate (September 18, 2018). "Court Bucks Chief Justice, Sheds Light on Dark Money Donors". Roll Call. CQ Roll Call. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  30. ^ "Dark Money Illuminated". KGNU. Boulder Community Broadcast Association, Inc. October 2, 2018. Retrieved September 12, 2022.
  31. ^ Stepleton, J.T. (November 2, 2018). "How Issue One uncovered the top 15 "dark money groups" in politics". Storybench. Northwestern University. Retrieved September 12, 2022.
  32. ^ a b Bykowicz, Julie (January 23, 2019). "Liberals Outpaced Conservatives in 'Dark Money' Midterm Spending". Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  33. ^ Montellaro, Zach (September 14, 2020). "A looming milestone: $1B in dark money spending". Politico. Retrieved August 17, 2022.
  34. ^ a b Shawn, Eric (June 17, 2020). "North Korea likely to attack US presidential election in November, analysts warn". Fox News. Retrieved August 17, 2022.
  35. ^ Kim, Soo Rin (October 1, 2021). "Many lawmakers' 'leadership PACs' spend more on fundraising than political contributions, report finds". ABC News. Retrieved September 12, 2022.
  36. ^ Schwartz, Brian; Pramuk, Jacob (December 21, 2021). "Corporate donations to Sen. Joe Manchin's PAC surged as he fought President Biden's agenda". CNBC. Retrieved September 12, 2022.
  37. ^ Schouten, Fredreka (April 20, 2021). "Meet the people who write the biggest checks in federal elections". CNN. Cable News Network. Retrieved September 12, 2022.
  38. ^ Allison, Bill (April 20, 2021). "Top 12 Political Donors Give $1 of Every $13, Watchdog Says". Bloomberg. Retrieved September 12, 2022.
  39. ^ "Team". Issue One. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  40. ^ "Board of Trustees Elects Nicholas Penniman". St. Lawrence University. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  41. ^ a b c "Board & Advisors". Issue One. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  42. ^ "At the RSA Conference, Europe Takes Center Stage". Congressional Quarterly News. CQ-Roll Call, Inc. April 17, 2018 – via Nexis. Issue One, a bipartisan group that lobbies to change campaign finance laws and is chaired by former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, a Democrat, and Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, touted the study as evidence supporting the so-called "honest ads" bill (S 1989) sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn, and co-sponsored by Sen. John McCain, the lone Republican, and 20 other Senate Democrats.

Appreciate the help from Wikipedia editors to review this. Thanks. AR at Issue One (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one has responded to this in 2 and a half months, so I'm going to assume that there are no regular contributors to gain consensus with.  Reviewing... Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
compare pages Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed changes seem reasonable to me and the sources are all reliable (although I haven't fact-checked them individually). I don't have any objections. --Tserton (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to mission:  Done
  • Change title to CEO:  Already done
  • Change subsection from ReFormers Caucus to Campaign Finance Reform:  Not done Readers looking for information specifically on the ReFormers Caucus will be able to find it much easier with the current name. The subsection names don't need to be general, the first sentence can explain that. I also find the proposed subsection title not quite neutral. I would consider it if you had more than one "initiative" of this type.
  • Change to second paragraph of above subsection:  Not done That sentence is a copyright violation in its current state. It is within quotes in the current version of the article.
  • Congressional reform section
    • Stock trading ban:  Not done Politico is the only site to have covered this proposal, which was not really a full proposal and more of just a communication to the press, and Issue One's presence in the Politico article is trivial. This is therefore
      undue
      .
    • Fair Pay report:  Done
Will continue this later. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Election protection and voting rights:
  • National Council on Election integrity:  Done That sentence looks somewhat promotional at first glance, but considering how the press seems to only give this council glowing praise, it's fine.
  • Count Every Vote:  Not done This Inside Philanthropy source is at best an
    opinion piece
    and at worst a conflict of interest (and that's assuming the site is reliable in the first place, which I'm not sure of either). It also makes a mere passing mention of this movement, and doesn't directly state the movement is fighting disinformation.
  • Election concession ad:  Done The top of the article says it's presented by the National Association of Realtors. I'm reasonably sure they didn't have control over the article content. ...right...?
  • Jan 6th commission:  Done
Will continue shortly. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that this article is now almost entirely written by people at Issue One (although all following the correct processes). I haven't done a deep dive for omissions yet. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Election disinformation and voting rights:
  • Truthtellers:  Done
  • Faces of Democracy:  Done
  • Electoral Count Act:  Not done I don't see why Issue One merely expressing support for something – and getting one passing mention about it in one article – is worth including.
  • Council for Responsible Social Media:  Done
Guess what. I'll be continuing this review later! Wow, right? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been recent progress, thus, I will finish this:
  • Research:  Done
  • Key personell:  Done
Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I had forgotten about this. Thank you. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to the Issue One page

 – Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 12:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowmanonahoe, thank you so much for your edits to the Issue One article! I really appreciate your help and your close look at each of our proposed edits. I have just a few other things I’m wondering if you might have the time to take a look at. First, there are a few minor edits:

1. The formation date in the Issue One box should say October 2014, not September 2014. This matches the formation date in the “Formation” section.

2. The title for “Key Personnel” is spelled wrong (personell).

Second, a few more substantive concerns:

1. The Blueprints for Democracy section, which we previously recommended deleting, is still on the page. It’s a fairly short report from eight years ago, so it just doesn’t seem particularly necessary for it to have its own section. If you’d rather not delete it, perhaps it could fall under the “Research” section.

2. Similarly, we recommended deleting the “Trump Administration” section, which points to a mention of Issue One in one article that highlights the work of more than 20 organizations, most of which were in existence before Trump was elected and which merely continued doing the same good government/“watchdog” work during the Trump administration. Other organizations mentioned in the article do not have similar mentions on their Wikipedia pages. I’d really appreciate if you’d take a look at the article and see if you think it merits the inclusion.

Thank you so much! AR at Issue One (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at this when I have time. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! AR at Issue One (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minor edits  Done. Feel free to make something very minor like a typo fix yourself in the future. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 12:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I've moved the bit on Blueprints for Democracy to the research section. It's gotten some news coverage so seems worth keeping to me. If someone wants to restore the NPR list somewhere without its own subsection, I wouldn't be opposed, but it's just one random list so I agree it's not worth including. We don't put subjects on every top ten list published by a reliable source.
By the way, from the research I've done, you guys seem pretty cool. Keep up the good work. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 12:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Snowmanonahoe, thank you so much for all of your help! I really appreciate it. I was just taking a look at your previous notes, and wanted to address a couple of sentences you expressed concern about: “Ahead of the election, the council launched a campaign called 'Count Every Vote' which supported election integrity and countered disinformation. The council also spent $6 million on an advocacy campaign that ran after the election and focused on ensuring all remaining ballots were tallied.” You noted that Inside Philanthropy isn't a good source, and that the article makes just a passing mention of the campaign. Here are a couple of additional sources in case you'd be willing to take another look at that section: a Washington Post op-ed from NCEI members announcing the Count Every Vote Campaign, an Axios article with bit more detail about the campaign, and more coverage from the Wall Street Journal. I assume the source for the second sentence wasn't an issue, but happy to send over more sources if you have concerns about that as well. Thank you again! AR at Issue One (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, @Snowmanonahoe. I just want to make one final request. I'm wondering if you could look into adding one more sentence to the final paragraph under the Election Disinformation and Voting Rights section (which might be more aptly named Election Protection and Voting Rights if you include this additional sentence): "Issue One also advocated for an update to the Electoral Count Act." There was a similar sentence in our draft, which you chose not to include because there was only a passing mention of our support in the article we linked to. I wanted to share another article that shows that Issue One actually launched an ad campaign to update the Electoral Count Act. Of course, feel free to include whatever you think is appropriate, I just wanted to share this additional context. Thank you again for all the help! AR at Issue One (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Issue_One&oldid=1206915965"