Talk:Club for Growth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CFG is a propaganda organization[edit]

It takes little bits and pieces of things said by the people it targets, thereby misleading citizens into believing what CFG wants them to believe. Brian Pearson (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a source for this statement? If you can, then the statement belongs in the article, not in the discussion. Chip Unicorn (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/14/corporate-cash-john-doe-files-scott-walker-wisconsin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:1432:1B00:89DB:EAA:80FF:2E59 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've confused the Club for Growth (this article) with the Wisconsin Club for Growth. They appear to be separate entities with confusingly similar names. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a 501(c)(4) political organization and associated political action committee (PAC), which is basically the neutral way of saying "propaganda organization", so the article already covers this. --Delirium (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this concern the reason for all the tags? I read over the article, and while I think it could have been better written as far as wording ("the club boasts..."), I don't feel that it reads like an adverstisement. If anything, it appears to paint the group in a rather unflattering light (though fairly so). I think perhaps at least a few of the tags should be removed, as they seem a little misleading. Kings english (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funding[edit]

Where do they get their funding?

I'd imagine it is the Koch Foundation, Castle Rock, etc., but need some sources. It would be nice to have a section about this since CFG has been accused of being a front organization for movement conservatism by Paul Krugman and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.175.90.190 (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They state on their website that they refuse all corporate funds and only take individual donations. MaxMercy (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a crucial discussion that is completely missing from the article as it stands. Is someone in a position to fill this gap in an informed way? They may reject "corporate" contributions, but that leaves it open for some very rich individuals to give them large donations! Nandt1 (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade of the Month[edit]

I've reverted User:TheCondor24 (again) for a number of reasons. His version consists of statements that are unsourced (the references provided do not support the claims for which they are cited) and blatantly POV and have been reverted by at least 2 other editors apart from myself. The description of the award in the current version is quoted directly from the Club's web site (i.e., it lets the facts speak for themselves), whereas TheCondor24 keeps trying to characterize the award according to his own political persuasions. Additionally, his edits attribute to the Club claims it did not make ("in effect labeling him a Communist"); utilize POV hyperbole ("...to the sitting president of the United States"; "This award placed the United States' highest democratically elected official into the "Comrade Hall of Shame"); mischaracterize the award (there is no physical award, and what he describes as the award -- "the flag of the Communist-ruled former Soviet Union" -- is merely a banner on the site linking to the article on the "award"); include incendiary and irrelevant information in an attempt to inflame passions ("...a party said to have been responsible for the death of as many as 60 million people"); and do not adhere to proper citation format. The version he has continually reverted in his POV-pushing quest is neutral and properly source, and, consquently, I've restored it.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in question[edit]

I don't see any glaring examples of non-neutrality in the article. Are there still unresolved issues? 66.57.186.100 (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks OK to me. I also think the tone is appropriate for Wikipedia. - Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a random person dropping by, my main concern with neutrality is with the "elections won and lost" section, which might give undue credit to the organization (which I've never heard of, but then again I live in Oregon). 40,000 members isn't a tiny organization by US standards, but it's not exactly what I'd call a major player.

Why are there these huge lists of "success" rates when the organization's link to that success is not demonstrated? Unless some evidence can be shown, the concern is that Wikipedia is making the organization look more influential than it actually is, which is a problem. SDY (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page brought to you by the Club for the Growth of the Club for Growth. Seriously. The tone of this article is rather sickeningly UN neutral in every conceivable way. Manticore55 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give proof? Reading the article, the Club's track record is rather mixed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Specifics. Compare this article to say...the National Rifle Association article. This article is about 10% actual article, and about 90% wonderbread that looks like it was largely contributed by someone working for the Club for Growth. The NRA, which has a significantly higher budget and membership, is roughly equal in size to this article but discusses the philosophy and actions of the group in detail. Quite frankly, I think 75% of the content of the article should be utterly slashed, and then redone from scratch. There is essentially no mention of their ideological leanings, and almost all of it are the campaigns that they have funded and the people that they have endorsed.
Wikipedia can do a *LOT* better and if it can't the scope of this article should be greatly reduced. As to why *I'm* not doing so? Because of recent experience on the Palin article, I'm not in the mood to haggle over two sentences when the entire article is flawed. And this article makes me feel *MUCH* better about the stuff on the Palin page. Manticore55 (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to bring into question the use of the term "death tax" to refer to the estate tax. This terminology is recognized as a neologism elsewhere on Wikipedia, and has a clear ideological bent. Jonowles (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with concerns here; the article is overly dependent on quotes by PAC leaders, and other statements from the Club website. It's puffery. The article needs material from third-party RS that comment on political action groups, not repeated quotes by its leaders telling their positions and praising themselves. Otherwise, just cut it down. Have deleted a number of quotes about actions in past years. Just because some newspaper quoted them, doesn't mean we have to include it in this article. Try to find some facts, not their opinions.Parkwells (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging "fiscally conservative" description[edit]

This article described CfG as "fiscally conservative". This strikes me as potentially misleading. What do we mean by fiscally conservative? It would seem to me that such a description should inter alia include concern over the running of large sustained fiscal deficits -- I think fiscal conservatism implies governments not living perpetually on more and more borrowed money. But, to the extent that Stephen Moore still embodies the values of the group he founded (a point I am not 100% sure about), this is certainly not at all his position (I heard him speak to these isues just a few months ago). Moore, instead, espouses a "supply side" type argument that deficits per se don't matter all that much. Lowering taxes, he argues, will so increase growth that we will be able to live with deficits (as the GDP will rise so fast that the debt to GDP ratio will be fine). One may agree or disagree with this position, but it is not what I understand as a fiscally conservative position. Nandt1 (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not from the United States, I can see where you might be confused - as American "Fiscal Conservatism" is very similar to what the rest of the world considers "Classical Liberalism." A core belief of contemporary "fiscal conservatism" is that public funds should only be required for the public good - and if taxation, or an item in a government budget does not really meet that test - then that budget item should be removed. It becomes more complex from there in the US, as one partisan political party is more dependent on taxation, public spending, centralized control - whereas the opposition party is more dependent and benefits more from private investment, less market regulation and less taxation....so on this particular philosophy what the rest of the world considers "liberal" is actually more akin to conservatism in the US! Patriot1010 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The CFG has also perpetually targeted public education and social programs like social security, medicare, welfare, food stamps, etc. Will you argue these programs are not for the "public good"? If we're to accept your definition of "Fiscal Conservatism", then it is clear that the CFG does not fit that mold. A more accurate description would be "right-wing" or "far right-wing". 98.16.131.184 (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Paul[reply]

Club for Growth[edit]

I believe was a group led by Dick Gilder and Dusty Rhodes in Manhatten BEFORE 1999. I remember attending some meetings at Gilder's offices in 1995/96. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.36.33 (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Club For Growth vs. South Carolina Club For Growth[edit]

I removed this material [1] because that endorsement was made by the South Carolina Club For Growth. This appears to be a separate organization from the Club For Growth:

South Carolina Club For Growth may be an affiliate of the national group (though I can't find a source for that at present), but in any event, the sources only say this was the first time the SC Club For Growth endorsed a Democrat. We don't know if that means the national CFG or other state groups have ever endorsed a Democrat before. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Club for Growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extortion[edit]

Donald Trump says that a representative from "Club for Growth" met with him and requested a 1 million dollar donation, and when Trump refused, they ran attack ads against him in retaliation.

https://youtu(dot)be/DzpbgNXIRcE?t=14m54s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.171.16 (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump says a lot of things. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name origin[edit]

Any one have a published resource explaining the name of this group, and why it would denominate itself a "Club"? It doesn't seem to be in the British tradition of political clubs, so that makes me wonder if it is an attempt to satirize the various prestigious "clubs" for intellectuals/thought leaders/opinion makers such as the Club of Rome or the Club of Madrid. This seems likely especially in light of the Club of Rome's promulgation of the envrionmentalist Limits to Growth. 2600:1004:B15E:718B:A8F1:82B3:DECF:D8DD (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, interesting question. I'm not sure about the origin of the name. I did some Googling and couldn't turn anything up. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Club for Growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Club for Growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Club for Growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Fulcher[edit]

Should be added to endorsements for 2018 cycle-Russ Fulcher of Idaho. Will add it myself when I have time but putting this message here to remind myself and in case anyone else gets to it in the meantime. Marquardtika (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done checkY Marquardtika (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we list candidates they endorse?[edit]

Are these lists comprehensive? Organizations like these have an incentive to make it appear as if they're more successful than they are. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would be an issue unless only the winning candidates were listed, rather than the winning and losing candidates, as is the case now. Interest groups tend to stop advertising their endorsements after their chosen candidates lose, but if you document the endorsements as they happen and as noted by media (not by the group itself), then you should have a comprehensive list. Marquardtika (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know for sure that the media will cover every single CfG endorsement? If the media only covers endorsements of major candidates in competitive races, that could skew the success rate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we'd find sources that indicate aggregate endorsement records. For example, FiveThirtyEight wrote that they identified 21 Club for Growth endorsed candidates in 2018 and that 13 won, for a 61% success rate. We have 26 endorsements listed for 2018 (not sure what accounts for the discrepancy in number of endorsements?) with 16 wins, so interestingly the same success rate found by FiveThirtyEight--61%. So based on what RS say, it doesn't look like we are over reporting their success rate. In general I think it is useful for readers to see which candidates are supported by which groups, and it seems to be a standard feature of similar pages like EMILY's List, Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress, etc. Marquardtika (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chiderahanaebue (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Tuk28507.

— Assignment last updated by Tuk28507 (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Club_for_Growth&oldid=1206726370"