Stephen Colbert exposing/exploiting superPAC's by using one and educating on how they work. Actuall

Comedein/Pundit Stephen Colbert is using his to fund a Super PAC which he is using to sway the elections. His ads and support are in jest (over the top ads and supporting candidates no longer in the race), but he did get Cain more votes than Huntsman, Bachmann, and Perry in one primary. He also handed off control of the PAC to John Stewart to illustrate how these independent super PACs and can change hands.

There are a lot of ethical questions brought up in his doing this, but what is more important is that it shines a light on these things which should be completely illegal in my opinion.

All of the following text is from boingboing.net which I source at the bottom of this thread. There is a video there and some informative/funny commentors so it is worth checking out.

In Slate, Dahlia Lithwick examines the impact that Stephen Colbert's SuperPAC is having on public perception of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, which establishes that "corporate personhood" means that corporations can make unlimited contributions to political campaigns. Dahlia implies that the Court, which has always maintained an aloofness from public life (no cameras, no press office) is smarting under Colbert's withering sarcasm, and that people are responding as well. For example, Colbert's SuperPAC backed Herman Cain (not a candidate) in the South Carolina race, and the voters put him ahead of Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann.

Then last June, like a winking, eyebrow-wagging Mr. Smith, Colbert went to Washington and testified before the FEC, which granted him permission to launch his super PAC (over the objections of his parent company Viacom) and accept unlimited contributions from his fans so he might sway elections. (He tweeted before his FEC appearance that PAC stands for "Plastic And/Or Cash.") In recent weeks, Colbert has run several truly insane attack ads (including one accusing Mitt Romney of being a serial killer). Then, with perfect comedic pitch, Colbert handed off control of his super PAC to Jon Stewart (lampooning the FEC rules about coordination between “independent PACS” and candidates with a one-page legal document and a Vulcan mind meld). Colbert then managed to throw his support to non-candidate Herman Cain in the South Carolina primary, placing higher on the ballot than Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann.

The line between entertainment and the court blurred even further late last month when Colbert had former Justice John Paul Stevens on his show to discuss his dissent in Citizens United. When a 91-year-old former justice is patiently explaining to a comedian that corporations are not people, it’s clear that everything about the majority opinion has been reduced to a punch line.

boingboing.net
Stephen Colbert's superPAC hurts the supreme courts feelings?

and from slate.com
Stephen Colbert is winning a war against the Supreme Court


This is very interesting stuff. It is just a taste of the future too. In my personal opinion donations to candidates should be limited to individual citizens. That is it. Only the people the candidates intend to serve should be allowed to fund them. I think they should put an end to contributions from PACs, Unions, corporations, lobbyists. etc etc. All of it. Only citizens not corporations or groups that could benefit.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

In my personal opinion donations to candidates should be limited to individual citizens. That is it. Only the people the candidates intend to serve should be allowed to fund them. I think they should put an end to contributions from PACs, Unions, corporations, lobbyists. etc etc. All of it. Only citizens not corporations or groups that could benefit.

Ha we can all wish. But wouldn't that mean that candidates would actually have to be worth the support of the people? Politicians like that come by once in a blue moon. And when they do, who's interest do they satisfy but that of the people? No, we can't let lack of funding to get in the way of traditional political bulls***, sorry.

S&F

This is hilarious.! The supreme court allows elections to be bought and run by people like Mitt Romney. Now I see why Ron paul isn't winning, he has no money.!

That was a funny interview

reply to post by CaptainNemo


Yep.. would you believe that Romney has more billionaires backing him than Obama? That probably means he will be the next president. Don't count Obama out though, he has a couple dozen of his own billionaires.
So many strings attached I am surprised these guys can walk.

reply to post by PhysicsAdept


Yeah it really is the dream. It would make America great again.
It was proposed also by Ted Deutch. At least an amendment that is very similar. Definitely worth taking a look at. Of course it will never go anywhere because it costs to many money worm politicians their vote-pay.

The OCCUPIED amendment probably deserves a thread of it's own (well there probably is one somewhere), but I will just post some info. I would say the fact that it is named for a movement people are indifferent about was a terrible idea. It really is a good amendment all around and has nothing to do with Occupy. It's actually, probably the greatest piece of legislation put on the table in my lifetime (at least outwardly it seems good, haven't gotten into the meat of it and politicians are sneaky and tack a rider on that requires everyone's first born child in exchange).

The Constitutional Amendment introduced by Rep. Ted Deutch and Senator Bernie Sanders will end corporate influence in our elections by:

- Overturning Citizens United and outright banning the ability of corporations to use their profits to influence our elections.

-Making clear that corporations, as well as entities formed to represent corporations — are not real, living people with rights protected by our Constitution. They are entities established under our laws and thus subject to our laws.

-Reasserting the authority of Congress and the States to crack down on anonymous third party groups flooding our elections with malicious attack ads and to limit campaign contributions and expenditures by individuals, candidates, and all types of private entities.

www.theoccupiedamendment.org...

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Colbert then managed to throw his support to non-candidate Herman Cain in the South Carolina primary...

I'm not sure they were entirely accurate on this point.
Colbert didn't so much support Cain as usurp his spot on the ballot. He was quite clear that a vote for Cain was actually a vote him, as a way to assess potential support. Any increase shown for Cain was incidental.

That's how he worded it, anyway, as I recall. It certainly could have been Colbert's tounge-in-cheek way of supporting Cain, although such support would have been pretty pointless at that point.

Not that it's an important point, especially since it's just comedy. I'm just sayin'.

He is doing a great job illustrating how slimy all those superpac guys are, though, and how easily the rules can be, and most certainly are, circumvented.

reply to post by subject x


I'm aware it's satire. However if he just got a couple dozen votes for Cain, and if he legitimately used his PAC, as you said, it is a great example of how the nation is run and elections are rigged by just a few people. Imagine Colbert is a billionaire and all of his audience are his greedy millionaire disciples and his support for Cain was really support for Romney (i know you already get it, but I replied to you, just saying for everyone else.)

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
it is a great example of how the nation is run and elections are rigged by just a few people.

In this context, I wouldn't neccessarily say "rigged". I'd go with "influenced", though.

Otherwise, yeah, I agree, and say good for Colbert for doing what he's doing.

I do think that the above article should have clarified that point, though, just for the sake of accuracy.

reply to post by subject x


Yeah poor choice of words. Should have said bought.
Then again tomato tomato whenever you are allowing people to think they have a ground up choice. Pretty much rigged, but your right, technically they are (i'll toss in a heavily) heavily influenced.

Its a shame we've replaced our ability to confront wrong doers with comedic impulsion to laugh at our insanity, and accept it.

how can a legal document incorporating a business and building made of bricks and mortar be a person. which is all a corporation is. sometimes even the building isn't necessary.

it's only common sense.

but the founding fathers dropped the ball on lifetime appointments to supreme court justices.

i understand their position, so they won't be influenced by threats of removal, but i think they underestimated the fact that they are appointed by political parties not based on ability, but fierce fanatical loyalty to their parties.

It seems to me that Colbert could set himself up as an independent candidate.

I can think of a few one liners.

"As President I will help you all when things get tough. At least I will make you laugh"

"The rest of the field are all jokes. Don't vote for the joke, vote for the comedian."

P)

reply to post by Myendica


The whole point of Colbert is to point out how crazy it is. Not to accept it, guess you missed the point of the interview.

reply to post by Myendica


Eh.. I don't think that is the case. It's just a way to get out the info that young people will grab on to.
The people still call out "the wrongdoers" everyday. When they do though people start slamming them and siding with the evil MSM just like when Occupy made a real effort (and will continue to) most people here sold them out a heartbeat after they started.

Occupy was people seriously taking on the wrongdoers you spoke of.