Talk:Leonard Leo

CREW: a RS? Let's be consistent!

Hi Tchouppy (talk · contribs), I'm really very intrigued to see you claim just now that CREW is not a reliable source! It is the single most cited source (by number of articles cited) on the page of Arabella Advisors, where I observe you have been very active indeed. (In fact, I see that the precise question of removing a CREW-cited claim was raised there, and you passed it over as apparently unmeritorious.)

So, let's decide and then we can both behave consistently: is CREW a reliable source, in which case it should stay here, or an unreliable source, in which case I am sure a fair, diligent, and vigilant editor such as yourself would also consent to having it removed on the Arabella Advisors page and elsewhere. For my part, I find it exceedingly reliable and am very happy to keep it on both pages, but I was curious to hear what you thought, and how you'd make your case in terms of the RS criteria. Thanks for your time! --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Publius In The 21st Century Are you talking about Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) (CRP) as the same thing? I don't see CREW as a source on Arabella at all. Tchouppy (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Tchouppy How preposterously foolish of me! But now that we are both here and I have your attention, and with apologies for my slow response, I'd be most grateful to get you on record in specifying what makes CREW (or the Daily Beast) unreliable and the CRP (or The Washington Free Beacon) reliable? Perhaps your chum Marquardtika might also care to comment? While we are at it, is 'dark money' a legitimate phrase (Arabella) or not (Leonard Leo/Judicial Crisis Network)? I don't have clear preferences here and am happy to go either way on this - the important thing seems to be clear about principles and consistent in applying them. With best wishesPublius In The 21st Century (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't determine what makes something an RS or not. But CRP/Opensecrets is pretty widely regarded as reliable. As for 'dark money,' I detest the phrase and would gladly remove it from all articles, but that's not my call. If the RS uses the term 'dark money' then it gets to stay. Is it possible I removed it from an article when it was backed by a RS, maybe. I am human after all and not perfect.Tchouppy (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Opus Dei

Has Leo ever been affiliated with Opus Dei? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not a question and answer page, it's for the purpose of improving the article. Feel free to do the research, and if you find reliable sources saying that he was, then you can add that to the article. -- Jibal (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The Catholic Information Center, operated by Opus Dei since 1993, currently reports him to be a board member. Jetpower (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

See the long edit summary I added when taking out Jetpower's edit to the introduction about Leo being a member of Opus Dei. For all I know, he is. It seems to be pretty certain that he is on the board of the Catholic Information Center. Is that operated by Opus Dei? I tried to figure that one out, to no avail. But even if it is operated by Opus Dei, that doesn't establish that because someone sits on the board of the CIC that means they are necessarily from Opus Dei. Beyond this, there are notability questions/undue questions about putting all of this in the intro, even it it all plans out. Novellasyes (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this doesn't look reliably sourced to me. Marquardtika (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Answer:  Yes; Opus Dei operates the Catholic Information Center (CIC), and has done so since 1993.

1) The CIC site reports that Mr. Leo is a board member. It makes no reference to membership in Opus Dei (a worldwide organization which does not publish names of supernumeraries), nor does any other part of the entry.

2) The google map reports CIC's location by address.

3) The opusdeitoday.org site corroborates the address as the CIC's location and includes a note about 1993 as the year that Opus Dei, a worldwide hub for some 95,000 Catholics and non-Catholics alike, took over operations of the CIC.

Q.E.D, the entry is reliably sourced and appropriate for inclusion in the intro.

I hope this clarifies the issues for you. Please feel free to request further clarification, or to suggest including additional reliable sources. I'll wait 24 hours or so for your response before reverting the excision. Jetpower (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe that opusdeitoday.org is a reliable source. See WP:RS. See also: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources. Opusdeitoday.org looks like something resembling a self-published blog. I don't see what the address has to do with anything. If you find a reliable source that established that the CIC is operated by Opus Dei, that still doesn't establish that board members of the CIC are members of Opus Dei. So I don't think you have made any progress here toward a convincing argument that you have established using reliable sources that the subject of the article is a member of Opus Dei. If you were to come up with those reliable sources, there would then be another conversation about whether that information would belong in the WP:LEDE. The place on Wikipedia that people go to discuss whether a source is adequately reliable is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you read through a variety of the conversations over there, you'll see the types of reasoning and evidence that editors would typically bring to bear on a disagreement over whether X is or isn't a reliable source. And, you can also open up a section over there to discuss this very matter, which will bring additional editors into the conversation who have a lot of experience around determining whether X is a reliable source. Novellasyes (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

opusdeitoday.org is not WP:RS. It would fall under WP:SPS. This also appears to be original research. We should be able to find coverage in reliable independent sources if this is noteworthy. Marquardtika (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Honest Elections Project

This content was in the article and I have temporarily removed it:

"Leo established the Honest Elections Project (a legal alias for the Judicial Education Project). In 2020, the non-profit filed briefs in favor of voting restrictions in at least five states, represented at times by the same attorneys who have worked to defend Donald Trump. According to The Guardian, the Honest Elections Project is part of a "web of interlinked groups funded with dark money, including from the libertarian Koch brothers" and with this financial backing, Leonard Leo has worked to push "a contentious legal theory that the US constitution gives state legislatures the power to decide how to run elections without intervention from the courts. The Honest Elections Project has made multiple legal submissions on the issue with the aim of removing the power of state courts to block gerrymandering and voter suppression measures."

Here is my thinking:

• The two cited articles don't say that Leo established the HEP. One of the articles says "Despite appearing to be a free-standing new operation, the Honest Elections Project is just a legal alias for the Judicial Education Project, a well-financed nonprofit connected to a powerful network of dark money conservative groups, according to business records reviewed by the Guardian and OpenSecrets." The other article says, "Honest Elections, which began its work earlier this year, is part of a network established by Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo and the conservative allies who have helped Trump advance the appointment of conservative judges to the federal bench, public records analyzed by nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics and The Guardian show." These comments make me think that Leo was involved (with others in this network) in starting HEP. It doesn't seem like it would be right to say straight out that he established it.

• In fact, later on even in the cited paragraph above, it gets into the Kochs etc. There are (many?) dozens of groups surely that a number of the big conservative donors get behind and HEP seems to be one of them.

• Clearly Leo has some involvement with this group and getting it started. I'd like to see better work done on capturing the nub of what it does without going into overstatement or overdrive. Novellasyes (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Novellasyes (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

First off, take a look at this: The 85 Fund

Leo is listed as a key player, in the lede of that article, and in the infobox. I know we can't cite other Wikipedia articles as reliable sources, but I do think it's important that Leo is the only person named here.

The Washington Post says: "Among the most outspoken advocates of the independent state legislature theory is the Honest Elections Project, an alias of the 85 Fund, a conservative nonprofit linked to Leonard Leo, the former longtime head of the Federalist Society. The 85 Fund reported revenue of more than $65 million in 2020, according to a tax filing, and its relationship with the Honest Elections Project is made clear in corporate records in Virginia."

The WaPo article goes into greater detail about John Eastman's recent use of the "independent legislature theory" (a literalist interpretation of the Constitution, according to The Washington Post article), which is a major part of the strategy being implemented by the Honest Elections Project, as pointed out by the sources from the text that was removed.

I will continue to look at other sources, but I am curious what specific wording is preferred? I just straight up quoted The Guardian, because their explanation was pretty clear and succinct. The other cited article from The Guardian also clearly states that with the help of the Honest Elections Project, "Leo is pushing a contentious legal theory ..." here is the full quote:

"Now Leo has turned his attention to pushing conservative moves to manipulate elections in favour of Republicans through the Honest Elections Project, a recent addition to a web of interlinked groups with dark money, including from the libertarian Koch brothers. Among other things, Leo is pushing a contentious legal theory that the US constitution gives state legislatures the power to decide how to run elections without intervention from the courts."

• After reading the comments above, from Novellasyes, and based on this brief article from Axios, I agree that it is more correct to say that "Leo helped establish" or "Leo worked to further develop the Honest Elections Project. What other changes should be made?
• Will continue looking for better sources, etc. Other proposals for changes to the language of this section are appreciated!

Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

References

As an aside, here is another significant piece of text related to the Honest Elections Project here on Wikipedia:

• Democratic backsliding in the United States#Elections

Also, it is rather confusing that HEP seems synonymous with both Donors Trust and The 85 Fund (along with the Judicial Education Project/Judicial Crisis Network which both share staff, and seem interlinked). Has the name changed over time or is this due to multiple & overlapping legal aliases, etc.? It's difficult for me to wrap my mind around. Whatever the case, it's unclear from reading the various Wikipedia articles. Seems like this obfuscation should be clarified across several articles. My initial take on this is that Donors Trust is separate from and provides cash to The 85 Fund/Honest Election Project (which are linked to JEP & JCN).

Any other perspectives on this from other editors? What is your read on the situation here?

• Question: Should the redirect for HEP go to Donors Trust or The 85 Fund?

Thanks and cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Honest Elections Project should have its own page rather than redirecting. I think it has enough coverage by now. What stood out to me from this Guardian article is the claim that the HEP is trying to "manipulate elections". That's a contentious and seemingly subjective claim. In the era of many on the right embracing The Big Lie, it certainly seems notable that HEP did not embrace it ("We looked very carefully at all the allegations that were coming out after the election...We concluded, as did a lot of other folks, that there was no evidence of widespread fraud.") I think including the Guardian quote that's included without contextualizing it does not tell the whole story. Marquardtika (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, it seems like the Honest Elections Project = The 85 Fund ?? Checkout that page.

I hear you about the election manipulation claim. I think there's a more balanced way to say that they are working to reshape the landscape, by various means, including getting more conservative justices into the courts, and by promoting specific state laws that emphasize the independent legislature theory over the traditional elections processes (with federal oversight) that we have seen to date. Like I said, I will keep digging and read through more sources. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It's quite confusing to separate out all these groups. I am in favor of the Honest Elections Project having its own page. Even though there are reliable sources that indicate that the 85 Fund is the SAME AS Honest Elections Project, I wonder if that is correct, even though we do have to go with whatever the RSes say. I wonder about it because the 85 Fund (if only because of its name) sounds more like a group that would dish out money to this and that other group, while the Honest Elections Project seems like it would be ONE OF those projects. But I am definitely confused on that. It will be easier to say what the Honest Elections Project does and believes, if that article is constructed. Novellasyes (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's confusing because could they technically be separate entities on paper, but still be self-referencing "legal aliases" to one another? I don't really understand this at all. Haha. I think that's possibly the point, to some degree. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to avoid believing that they don't do things like that on purpose! Agree. Novellasyes (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Leonard Leo & the Honest Elections Project

Building on the conversation above. Collecting recent articles here, to try and determine Leo's relationship to HEP.

The Conservative Stalwart Challenging the Far-Right Legal Theory That Could Subvert American Democracy - The New Yorker, Oct. 19, 2022
... the Honest Elections Project, which has been linked to Leonard Leo, of the Federalist Society ...

Election Lie Supporters Ask Supreme Court To Bless Radical Election Changes - HuffPost, Oct. 9, 2022
And then there is the brief filed by the Honest Elections Project, a nonprofit led by Leonard Leo, a co-chair of the conservative Federalist Society and the director of Trump’s Supreme Court selection process ... "Here's what's going on in the Supreme Court: The right-wing dark money 'fictitious name' front group 'Honest Elections Project' is boosting a MAGA theory giving state legislatures virtually unchecked power over federal elections," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) tweeted on Wednesday. "Remember that the Honest Elections Project is run by Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society Court-packer behind Alito, Roberts and all three of Trump's Supreme Court picks. Now, he's trotting out fringe legal theories before the justices he placed." This isn't the first time Leo's Honest Elections Project has called on the court to endorse the independent state legislature theory.

So is Leo just "linked to" HEP or is the organization actually led and run by him, as HuffPost suggests? I think we still need more sources. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

BLP concerns

There's a dispute about whether the Campaign for Accountability accusations mentioned in the Guardian article[1] should be included. As with any BLP, we need to be very cautious including pejorative material, especially when the article subject has not responded. Anyone can "call for an investigation" but that doesn't mean a crime has been committed or even that the authorities think the accusations merit an investigation. BBQboffin (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This newly launched investigation may become noteworthy if it gains traction, but it's too early to say. We need to wait for sustained coverage in independent sources. And we need to make sure any content is neutral ("lavish" is a subjective assessment and we shouldn't say it in wiki voice). Marquardtika (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with not having the material in the article as this stage of the game. Campaign for Accountability has an article on WP. I read far enough into Campaign for Accountability#Activities to see instances of the group filing lawsuits, and not getting very far with them. It's pretty easy to file a complaint or make an allegation. I don't think that WP should be littered up with "so-and-so filed a complaint against Person X" especially when the entity filing the complaint is on the opposite side of the political aisle from the person or group they filed the complaint against. I'd think that when an official government entity starts to take a side (for example, opens an investigation, convenes a grand jury, or similar) then it might be time to add that to the person's article. (Although even then, you might want to wait until a judge weighs in, because they might dismiss it right off the bat.) Until an official government agency does something though, it's just someone filing a complaint. Novellasyes (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Dark money and special deals: How Leonard Leo and his friends benefited from his judicial activism

"The Federalist Society co-chairman’s lifestyle took a lavish turn after he became Donald Trump’s adviser on judicial nominations."

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/01/dark-money-leonard-leo-judicial-activism-00084864

Source to be included for Politico investigation. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Birth date?

Can't find a birth record for him. Did he change his name or something during his lifetime? toobigtokale (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

November 7 1965 is what I'm seeing on a low quality website, but nothing reliable Edit: darn, nothing. I even got the dumb ancestry trial but still nothing. toobigtokale (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

ok apparently I can't use ancestry.com as a source

my findings though: I'm nearly certain he changed his name. In a newspaper article about his wedding from October 15, 1989, it lists his name as "Leonard Anthony Leo" and his father's name as "Bernard D. DeMarinis". I've already spent enough time researching this, so if someone wants to pick up the thread be my guest. toobigtokale (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, ancestry.com isn't RS but it provides wonderful bread crumbs for research to find the elusive RS's. Thanks, I'll look for that wedding announcement with Newspapers Extended when I get a chance. Good work, Toobigtokale! BBQboffin (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks :) TIL about ancestry, my bad toobigtokale (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I added the article. In the New Yorker article, it says his mother remarried when Leo was 5. The wedding announcement says he is the "son of Mr. and Mrs. Bernard D. DeMarinis". It's not unusual to see children keep their birth name when their mother remarries and changes hers. BBQboffin (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh true, that's a possibility. Still weird that it's so tough to find any info about his early life. toobigtokale (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Toobigtokale@BBQboffin He was born in November 1965, according to the Washington Post. Can't find a birth day, though. Bremps... 11:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Nice find; maybe if we find his mother's maiden name we can verify if he changed his name or not toobigtokale (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

How Trump adviser manipulates free speech to advance his causes and ‘hurt his adversaries’

That's the title of this article. Might be of use. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Podcast on Leo

On the Media and ProPublica are producing a podcast series on Leonard, the first episode of which is now available - lots of info. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Would there be any reason not to add that series of "On the Media" programs under "External links? (I wonder this for other subjects of long-form radio stories, podcasts, interviews. Not sure best how to archive them, either. Thanks for the advice.) Johannes der Taucher (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Just added this text version to 'External Links' - probably easier in this text-based medium than linking to the podcasts directly? Superb Owl (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Thank you so much. Johannes der Taucher (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)