REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Stephen Colbert strikes again

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Sunday, July 3, 2011 12:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1007
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, July 1, 2011 10:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

It was no joke Thursday at the Federal Election Commission hearing as Comedian Stephen Colbert gained approval to start his "superPAC" by a 5-1 "media exemption vote."

But in the crowd outside the FEC's headquarters following the vote it was clear the host of "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central had a straight-faced delivery and this matter of election fundraising regulation had some laughing - and throwing money.

"Moments ago the Federal Election Committee made their ruling," Colbert said to cheers, "And ladies and gentlemen I'm sorry to say, we won!"

The FEC ruling specified that all Colbert superPAC activity would need to be reported and any ads run on Colbert's television program can be funded by Viacom –who owns Comedy Central– without reporting. But if shown on other shows or networks, all Viacom-funded Colbert ads must disclose all financial involvement.

In some ways, while the ruling allows Colbert to found his PAC, raise money and produce and buy television time for political advertisements-it raises a host of questions for what implications there will be for other PACs.

The satirist announced plans months ago to form his superPAC, which makes light of Citizens United, the conservative political advocacy group that won a landmark Supreme Court ruling rolling back campaign finance regulation.

"Sixty days ago today on this very spot a young man petitioned the FEC for permission to form a superPAC to raise unlimited monies and used the monies to determine the winner of the 2012 elections," Colbert said, "It was me."

"Thank you for standing with me for freedom," he said, "It has been said freedom isn't free, today we have placed a sizeable down payment, today we have put liberty on layaway."

Another question was the content of the ads themselves, in which Colbert, in his only statement from the witness table, answered, "We don't know what we're going to do with the ads, where we would place them, because we don't have the PAC yet."

Adding to that, Potter said Colbert "did intend some of the advertising to include, express advocacy, mention candidates."

Outside, in a sea of supporters, Colbert wasted no time soliciting donations and said he'd start airing ads as soon as he gets enough money.

"I don't know about you but I do not accept limits on my free speech, I don't know about you but I do not accept the status quo. But I do accept Visa, MasterCard and American Express," he said.

At the conclusion of his speech, Colbert's staff emerged with iPads equipped with credit card swipers.

Colbert himself started personally accepting donations, chatting with fans and collecting small contributions for 15 minutes.

As he departed, Colbert was showered by dollar bills. When asked what corporate America has to done to the election process, Colbert said, "Made it free-er! Money equals speech."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/30/colbert-laughing-all-t
he-way-to-the-pac/#more-165937


While I admire his standing up personally to make a point, I feared he'd unleashed the very tiger he was trying to bring attention to:
Quote:

The request comes down to one essential issue: whether Viacom can legally donate production costs, airtime and use of Colbert's staff to create ads for the so-called super PAC, to be played both on "The Colbert Report" and as paid advertisements other networks and shows.

If the FEC grants Colbert a press exemption, the decision could have a drastic effect on media involvement in federal elections, potentially opening the door for media outlets that employ politicians as commentators to aid favored candidates through undisclosed contributions. Those figures include Fox News contributor Karl Rove, who founded American Crossroads, and former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) who heads "Huck PAC" and hosts a show on Fox News.

Several campaign finance reform advocates are expressing concern over three proposed changes the FEC will consider on Thursday. Granting Colbert's request in full, they argue, would allow media companies to anonymously fund the political activities of their employees, under the protection of the FEC's press exemption.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/colberts-superpac-
has-big-implications-for-campaign-finance/241274
/

Luckily they didn't grant the exemption, or can you imagine how FauxNews would be drooling? I don't know whether he actually wanted that exemption to pass or felt sure they would deny it...if they hadn't, his aim of bringing some of what Citizens United did to light would have had far-reaching negative consequences.
Quote:

The normally fractious FEC, the agency charged with enforcing campaign finance laws, gave Colbert most of what he'd asked for. Then, with more than 100 fans in front of the commission's building, he told a campaign-finance law joke.

Colbert: Knock knock.
Crowd: Who's there?
Colbert: Unlimited union and corporate campaign contributions.
Crowd: Unlimited union and corporate campaign contributions, who?
Colbert: That's the thing — I don't think I should have to tell you.

But there's actual substance behind the punch line: Colbert is setting up a superPAC to run campaign ads. The FEC got involved when he asked for an opinion on how to finance the superPAC. His query suggested the possibility of a new loophole — a way for media companies to underwrite commentators with political ambitions.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/30/137527309/theres-nothing-funny-about-col
berts-superpac?ft=1&f=1001


I love that he's willing to take this stuff on. Will be interesting to see where he goes from here. A lot can be done with humor that would otherwise pass unnoticed; not that Citizens United has passed unnoticed (far from it), but I hope he can find a way to use his superPAC to make some valid points.

Myself, I'm of two minds about it. I know it's not a joke per se, any more than his "Presidentail run" was, but I hope he can use it to good effect without negative implications.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 1, 2011 2:21 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I concur - it's worriesome, but calling attention to it allows him to ridicule it.
And public ridicule, is, IMHO, the very BEST of political weapons.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 2, 2011 2:49 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER


Also agreed.

I think it was Mark Twain who said "Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 2, 2011 9:47 PM

DREAMTROVE


I think it's a dumb move. He's giving credibility, first, to the totally bogus FEC, an organization which exists solely to keep out third party candidates, and more importantly, to the SuperPAC.

He will raise $40 million or so in corporate infinite money and use it to support democrats, and republicans will tap their mega-trillions and raise $40 billion to fund republicans, and when some democrat attacks it as unconstitutional, which it is, the republicans will make a mountain out of a molehill which you know they're *very* good at, and use Colbert as an example, and the supreme court will side with the GOP because if it's at all possible that they have a point, the court will do this, and you know they will.

Now, I'll confess I'm wrong if he does something absurd with the money, like successfully elect some corporate criminal governor of a state... someone with lots of money and 0% popular support. It would really help if they had no earthly allies, like a real nazi or something, that would make people take notice and repeal the gorram corrupt law.

But I suspect Colbert cares more about Colbert than the affects of his actions, and electing a corrupt idiot to prove the law is wrong would hurt his image.

(No, I don't think electing a corrupt idiot would do actual damage: Think how many corrupt idiots we manage to elect each election cycle.)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 3, 2011 11:01 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

the supreme court will side with the GOP because if it's at all possible that they have a point, the court will do this, and you know they will.
Sigh...sad but true!

You obviously don't know much about Colbert, from what you write. He wouldn't back some "corporate criminal" to anything. Check him out; he's done more good for the nation and the world than you or I will ever even contemplate. He's got the soapbox and COULD use it for his own self-agrandizement like so many others, but he devotes a LOT of his show to causes. If anyone cared, I'd suggest they watch him for a while, because about half of his show is usually devoted to showing up the idiocy of this or that in politics or else giving a platform to one or another cause. Despite enjoying Stewart far more, I respect Colbert the most, unquestionably. People who diss him just haven't watched his show, or else they just "don't get it".

The thing I find MOST amusing is that there are actually Republicans who think he's SERIOUS! Mind boggling...


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 3, 2011 12:24 PM

DREAMTROVE


I've watched Colbert for years, since he was on the daily show. He's assembled a narcissistic cult of personality and is hell bent on a no holds barred liberal agenda without compromise. He's dangerous. This is a gollum approach to corruption. He thinks he'll use this for good. Sure, his running for president was a stunt, but he means to help liberal causes. He thinks he's mocking the system by using it backwards, but he's not. He's giving it credibility. I get from people who know him personally that his ego is actually out of control, it's not all an act. In that, he does not think that he could be doing something wrong. You underestimate the degree to which he believes in his cause. He is fanatically liberal, and you may love that about him, but fanatics are a liability to everyone's cause.

Personally? I'd like to see SuperPACs gone. I know that almost all corporations are not just republican, but the ones with the most money to throw around would support people like we've been having, which is why they passed this, so Goldman Sachs could single-handedly elect an entire government.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 3, 2011 12:36 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I have little doubt his ego is big; most media types and actors, etc., have big egos. I disagree that he's giving any credibility to the system, however, and not thinking he's doing anything wrong (with which I agree) doesn't make him all the horrible things you're saying.

The reason he's doing this whole thing is he wasn't to bring the facts about SuperPACs to light; HE wants them gone too. I don't care what his ego is, I care about what he DOES, and he does tons and tons of good for many worthwhile causes which have nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

Just out of curiosity, do you ever have any kind of moderate opinions about anything? It seems like, for you, everything is very dramatic and there's no middle grouns. Just an impression I'm starting to get.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Wed, November 6, 2024 22:13 - 644 posts
That didn't take long...
Wed, November 6, 2024 22:08 - 36 posts
Electoral College, ReSteal 2024 Edition
Wed, November 6, 2024 21:59 - 43 posts
Trump wins 2024. Republicans control Senate.
Wed, November 6, 2024 21:54 - 11 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 6, 2024 21:46 - 4613 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:54 - 111 posts
Get Woke, Go Broke
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:36 - 66 posts
Suspect arrested after attack on Paul Pelosi, American businessman, married to Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:22 - 62 posts
Where are the Libertarians?
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:16 - 91 posts
Multiculturalism
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:07 - 54 posts
For the record.
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:00 - 224 posts
India
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:52 - 140 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL