Talk:314 Action

Untitled 2024

I just made an edit to document information from a fund raising email I received to an email address only ever given to the 314 Action group. The email requested donations to the "Biden Victory Fund" and claimed to be paid for by the "Biden Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee authorized by Biden for President, the Democratic National Committee and the State Democratic Parties in..." a list of 51 states. (They included DC.) I'm not sure how to archive the email itself, but am open to suggestions. All quotes are directly from that email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.255.157 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Repeated negative dishonest posts

The edits that are made about apaic aren’t true that 314 is a front group. They have elected and trained over 500 leaders

314 partnered with them for one race and because progressive lost, they have added lots of violations of the BLP because they are using biased reporting and repeated edits and some unsourced facts 2600:1700:9831:1ACF:A941:FA78:E900:2020 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Noticed several places where there was clearly language that wasn't neutral and was designed to attack 314 Action. Secretdancer123 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Please be specific. What words or phrases are non-neutral? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

"allege that 314 Action is a front for Republican and pro-Israel interests attempting to conceal their involvement in the election"

Allegations aren't facts.

And this is irrelevant to the article unless you are looking to apply a political belief

AIPAC's involvement was confirmed on June 20, with $1.3 million disbursed by UDP to the anti-Susheela Jayapal PAC Voters for Responsive Government, $1 million to 314 Action, and $100,000 to EDW Action Fund.

This is about 314 and not about how APAIC was involved. Would like to keep it on topic Secretdancer123 (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Someone also tagged this a zionest organization - which it's not. It seemingly worked with a lot of groups and they were one of them for one race? It shouldn't define their organization. Secretdancer123 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

They did not "tag it as a Zionist organization." They put it in a category of articles that talk about "Zionism in the United States." That includes article that talk about campaign contributions by pro-Israel lobbies and individuals. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree and I would add that it is biased to categorize an article based off of the spending a different organization did in one race. Secretdancer123 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It is not non-neutral to report that an allegation was made. If you want to add information that proves the allegation fault, go right ahead. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes but it was against a different organization - 314 Action Fund according to these links. https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00633248/?tab=spending&cycle=2024 and https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00799031/1791484/sb/ALL - this is in the article but it shouldn't be because it shows it was transfered to a different organization.

It is totally irrelevant to this article Secretdancer123 (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

314 Action and 314 Action Fund are the same entity. https://314action.org/about-us/#:~:text=PAID%20FOR%20BY%20314%20ACTION%20FUND Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Here are the separate FEC entities I only refer to the FEC when talking about campaign spending or else it gets messy.

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00633248/?tab=about-committee

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C90017781/?tab=about-committee Secretdancer123 (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You could understand why I sense some bias on the articles content given that the organization it talked about weren't referenced in the citations in the article Secretdancer123 (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

to be clear

314 Action Fund is a Political Action Committee based off of this filing.

It looks like 314 Action is an IE. That could mean they are a 527 or c4 Jc124!1 (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

why are you undoing the edits to remove the focus on APAIC and tagging this with irrelevant tags are you using neutral language? Secretdancer123 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

2024 Content

The content was alleging that 314 Action spent money in a primary. The Documents that were sited show 314 Action Fund NOT 314 Action.https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00799031/1791484/sb/ALL and this is the FEC's report of 314 Action Fund's spending for Rep Dexter. Secretdancer123 (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Where did 324 action get that money? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

What money? Both of these reports show it went to 314 Action Fund? Secretdancer123 (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I want to ensure the right content is in the right articles Secretdancer123 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we agree it was a different organization? Secretdancer123 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

No, 314 Action and 314 Action Fund are the same org. See their web site. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

But they are separate legal entities? My paperwork from the FEC proves that no? If not what does it prove? Secretdancer123 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Especially to the FEC separate entities like that don't talk to each other or coordinate spending decisions etc so there is no reason to link them together like this. Secretdancer123 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Isaac Rabinovitch I am happy to provide examples of political orgs that are named similar but do different things. More than happy to share those resources, but otherwise I will report you for biased editing because the facts are so clear and words that get added seem to have a bias to them. Secretdancer123 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

By all means, report me. I think you'll find it an education. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

But you are refusing to understand facts and editing with a clear anti-Israel POV since you are citing FEC documents that aren't even about this article? There was a cite about Ryan Grimm who has a strong record of biased reporting over the years.

They are separate organizations - why else am I supposed to think these edits aren't written with biased? Secretdancer123 (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

"FEC Disclosure Form 3X for 314 Action Fund". Federal Election Commission. Retrieved May 20, 2024.

This isn't even for 314 Action as noted by the citation Secretdancer123 (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal insult as well. That I "need an education" Secretdancer123 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out that the process doesn't work the way you think it does. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

In a way that is meant to be an insult because I don't agree

Back to the facts. According to the FEC these are different organizations and since the FEC decides spending this should be how we decide? Secretdancer123 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Chiming in - @Secretdancer123is correct the way campaign finance works there are totally different legal organizations in terms of spending which is what the focus of the article is. (I am a former FEC analysis) Jc124!1 (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The sources cited in the article quote 314A as saying "We spent this money." Which specific legal entity did the spending might be useful if we were arguing in front of a judge. But this is just an encyclopedia article that says "this is how 314A spent the money and this is where they got it." Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Right but could it have been short hand? Why does it have to go here if its in such dispute? Jc124!1 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the other organizations FEC reports are used as a citation was confusing when I was reviewing this. Jc124!1 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It is not disputed. 314 Action itself reported all the crucial information. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

No they reported 314 Action Fund a different entity that can spend in different ways than 314 Action Jc124!1 (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Happy to provide documents. But 314 Action is a non profit and 314 Action Fund is the political action committee. Jc124!1 (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Please just go and report me already. This is not a productive conversation. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I just want to get the facts right. This isn't personal. Jc124!1 (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry is not a great idea. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

? Jc124!1 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I do think that there is a connection here. Jc124!1 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Dude this isn't personal - but given all the slant I just want to get it correct based off of fact. 0 cares about the other person but the documents in the article are cited as from 314 Action Fund? If they are cited as the other organization I don't understand where your concern is and why this is so hard to adjust? Jc124!1 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard

I'd like to get the NPOV issues resolved, and it's obviously not going to happen here. Basically we have @Secretdancer123 arguing that 314 Action#2024 election is "biased" and me finding all their arguments unconvincing. I'd suggest they take it to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard where detached outsiders can comment on the issue. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

As a former FEC Analyst I can tell you that you are wrong @Isaac Rabinovitch Two entities can have totally separate spending patterns. They provided you their registration documents and said that you were citing the wrong organizations documents as "source"

And I also think that include irrelevant details like the other groups that were given money or the specific donors that gave is irrelevant and shows bias. It is clear that the user posting this isn't supportive of israel and because of 314 Action Fund supporting one candidate in one race he added incorrect details to 314 Action and is refusing to take them down despite the documents that show he is wrong and using documents attributed to another organization

He is also citing Ryan Grimm who has a history in written articles of reporting from an anti Israeli point of view and its clear that the edits were made with that same logic.

Not my fight but its real clear which way the facts fall on this Jc124!1 (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Will just add the FEC document cited to show how APAIC spent also cites another organizaztion. Jc124!1 (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Please stop pretending you're not @Secretdancer123. Both accounts were created at about the same time and they both make the same bizarre argument that "314 Action and 314 Action Fund are different legal entities!" Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I dont know what you're talking about but your anti semantic views are crystal clear. I was speaking as someone who spent 30 years analyzing FEC reports so I know what I am talking about.

Where is your experience in this? Please stop commenting on things you dont know about Jc124!1 (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I find it frustrating that you think your experience editing WikiPedia matters more than mine at the Federal Election Commission. Jc124!1 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the personal insult @Isaac Rabinovitch but the facts speak for themselves and your bias in this is crystal clear Secretdancer123 (talk) 00:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

If you're so sure about my "bias" than take it to a third party already. I'm not going to argue with you further. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

So my experience at the FEC doesn't matter? you just get to pick and choose facts? Jc124!1 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Judging by your profile your pretty progressive. I don't think the 314 candidate was the progressive candidate in the race and in Oregon so I think your bias is clear Jc124!1 (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

To editor Jc124!1:, to answer your question, the alleged personal expertise of anonymous editors counts for exactly nothing around here. Also, calling another editor "anti semantic" (cute mispelling but the way) is a severe WP:NPA violation that is likely to get you blocked. Zero^talk 02:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok apologies as a former FEC analyst the fact that its so clear yet the debate is still here is quite frustrating.

Based off of the reluctance to understand basic facts I am at a loss how to correctly edit this to display the correct facts? Jc124!1 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Or is it just you all decide what facts are and can cite documents for incorrect organizations? Jc124!1 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Many US political groups have separate funding arms, for legal and taxation purposes amongst other things. Using that as an excuse like you are doing is highly unconvincing. Click "donate" on the 314 Action web site — it takes you directly to a 314 Action Fund donation form. Zero^talk 03:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Noticed this paragraph - how is this neutral language and specific and relevant.

More than a third of its [disputed (for: FEC Report that is used as a citation cites spending to a different entity.) – discuss]$1.4 million in receipts reported in April 2024 came from a single donation from Michael Bloomberg. During the 2024 election cycle, EMILY's List has also been a prominent recipient of AIPAC funds through its affiliated PAC United Democracy Project and faces allegations of acting on behalf of anti-abortion Republican interests due to fundraising issues. Both of Dexter's main primary opponents, Susheela Jayapal and Eddy Morales, allege that 314 Action is a front for Republican and pro-Israel interests attempting to conceal their involvement in the election. Bloomberg and Granieri are both strongly supportive of Israel and 314 Action's[disputed – discuss] top three donors in April collectively contributed two-thirds of the group's funds. AIPAC's involvement was confirmed on June 20, with $1.3 million disbursed by UDP to the anti-Susheela Jayapal PAC Voters for Responsive Government, $1 million to 314 Action [disputed (for: conflicts with the report from the Federal Election Commission for another legal organization) – discuss], and $100,000 to EDW Action Fund. 185.98.168.67 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Dude, enough with the VPN sockpuppets. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 185.98.168.67 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Isaac Rabinovitch why are you accusing me of something you have no proof of. It seems like you're hyper fixated on 314 Action? Why are you removing everyone's edits but your own. This seems like your inserting your personal views into this article because they did something bad.

Please stay on topic! Seems like your very anti-APAIC for writing 3 paragraphs about one race and deleting the other edits people add that you dont agree with.

How does it make sense you are the deciding factor? 185.98.168.47 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

2022 election

Hi I was a candidate that 314 supported in AZ-1 last cycle? Why is there nothing about that? 2600:1700:9831:1ACF:EDE7:576D:BFC1:B94E (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

specifically I see the sections for past cycles in the edit history, but it seems it was removed? 2600:1700:9831:1ACF:EDE7:576D:BFC1:B94E (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Zionism in the United States

This is such a loose connection as a category its clear that it's irrelevant to 314 Action can we take this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard 2600:1700:9831:1ACF:EDE7:576D:BFC1:B94E (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)