Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-09-24 09:32:53 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 2D623A5868EDA5059EDBDDF947A3463A1CBCA34B462F690B68FF765BCD3FE4EB
Participant Details

Original Note:

Misleading. Court ruled FEC erred in dismissing a complaint against a PAC's claim its expenses aren't contributions. The court did NOT rule on the $6 Million, leaving that to FEC: "We have not been asked to decide.. which expenses can be exempt from regulation.." Pg 30 Para 2: https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/uscoadcc-opinion-07-09-2024.pdf

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1838504635847618900
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 2D623A5868EDA5059EDBDDF947A3463A1CBCA34B462F690B68FF765BCD3FE4EB
  • createdAtMillis - 1727170373398
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 1
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 1
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
  • ratingsId - 18385046358476189002D623A5868EDA5059EDBDDF947A3463A1CBCA34B462F690B68FF765BCD3FE4EB