Talk:McConnell v. FEC

This article should be titled McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission, as that's the cite on the case. McConnell v. FEC should redirect to the article with the correct cite as the title, not the other way around, as it is now. David Hoag 06:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

lower court result

The history section says "In June 2003, the D.C. Court of Appeals issued a ruling on whether the law was constitutional. That ruling never took effect...". Oddly, this doesn't say how the lower court ruled. Does anyone know? --Sommerfeld 16:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

The opening paragraph applies good use of context, explaining the parties involved, where they were from, aliases, and the purpose of each party. There is even brief mention to how later hearings affected this one. The history section gives a brief, but descriptive account of the preceding events. Overall, it does a decent job of covering the main points and minimizing jargon for the reader. Personally, I think this section was well put together, but it could be broken up more and tied back to previous major finance regulation movements of the preceding century. Additionally, more context to the current events of the time could be given. This would help show the significance of this particular case. The oral arguments section mentions the oral arguments but does little to further elaborate on what was said in them specifically. The opinions section and the reception section seem like they could become one larger reception section. The reception section is rather short and doesn’t talk about how things were received, rather just the difficulty of understanding the ruling and the length of the response by the District of Columbia. The links seem to be in good working order. All-in-all, this is a good article, though, it could be expanded. It is vague and broad in some areas. Zdp3 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)