Talk:National Citizens Coalition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] old comments
Is there a better word for "hypocritical" (spelled wrong in article) in the following snippet:
"It has campaigned in the courts against any attempt at electoral financing legislation that would limit third-party advertising spending during elections. Critics call this action hippocritical because such financing has been done by the NCC itself by funding campaigns aimed at impacting the outcome of elections."
Clearly they have a stake in that court case, but I don't see that as "hypocritical". They are openly fighting to be able to continue to fund 3rd party advertising. What they say and do are in alignment: They desire 3rd party advertising to be legal.
If they were doing 3rd party advertising, and fightinig to STOP others from doing 3rd party adversting, then we'd have obvious hypocrisy.
"Self serving" might be a better term, but I wonder if we should just drop the sentence: "Critics call this action hippocritical because such financing has been done by the NCC itself by funding campaigns aimed at impacting the outcome of elections."?
The point is well made in the rest of the article that the NCC is a partisan organization which attempts to influence the public during elections, and is willing to go to court to continue to do so.
I just reverted a massively-POV rewrite. I'm not familiar with the organization, but I can spot a partisan editing job when it is that blatant. To the anonymous editor, thanks for your contributions, but in the future please build on other's work in a NPOV fashion. -Willmcw 00:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] budget
I'm not a big fan of the NCC, but the following sentence seemed inappropriate: "As few as four people control the organization and its self-reported $2.8-million annual budget." It might be true, but there's no reference or backing information or even a statement of who the people are. So I moved the statement about the $2.8million further up in the article. If someone actually has some evidence or further details on the "4 people" claim, it's appropriate by all means, but it needs a little more work. Tim Bray 01:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about the NCC at all, but that seems inappropriate. There's no explanaiton for the NCC's budgeting procedures or how this is significant. -Willmcw 02:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Lobby Group? Conservative? Vietnamese Refugees? Unions?
I intend to attempt a significant rewrite of the article shortly based on the following thoughts and comments. I've a number of problems with this article as it stands.
First, while the NCC definitely does seek to influence public opinion, it is not remotely a "lobby group" in any rational meaning of the term. It does not lobby politicians or bureaucrats. It does conduct court cases and ad campaigns.
Second, the term conservative is slightly misleading. The group's generally for a limited government, including on social conservative matters. All I've seen them say on the gay marriage issue, for example, is that they disagree with the CPC's plan to reopen the issue; it's not worth fighting over, it should be accepted and we move on. I would characterize them as closer to capitalist/libertarian/pro-individual freedom in most of their concerns, with conservative more as a background factor.
Third, the heavy prominence of the group's past concerns over Vietnamese refugees (incorrectly characterized as "anti-immigration") is odd; this happened nearly 30 years ago, as one of dozens (if not hundreds) of campaigns the group has conducted over the years and I've not seen the group take a stance on refugees since. I agree it merits inclusion, but it's a surprisingly heavy given what I've seen from the group since.
Fourth, I think some of their anti-union (or to spin it another way pro-individual worker rights) stance deserves some attention (from an NPOV of course).
Other miscellaneous comments: I don't buy the "enigmatic neither grassroots nor coalition" line. The people who are members (I'm not, but I know a couple) would obviously feel differently. Many left-wing coalitions are not all that grass-roots either, taking most of their membership from a relatively narrow stratum of society. Do we disparage the "Save the Rain-Forest Coalition" simply because 80% of its membership is idealistic middle-class university educated young people in their 20's?
Like the refugees issue, many of the listed campaigns are from over 30 years ago concerning matters of little historical significance. (e.g. mid 1970's Trudeau wage and price controls) I don't intend to remove them, but I think the list needs to be brought up to date.
Staunch free trade support probably merits inclusion as well.
Their stance on an expanded military budget is at odds with their general push for less government; hypocrisy or an evolution in thinking ("more freedom through BETTER government" instead of "less". It may also be an indication of a strong conservative tilt. Holmwood 18:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
