Colbert Punk Self & Citizens united.

[Menelik_I]

The Wall Street Journal explains how Colbert started off trying to skewer the Supreme Court over the Citizens United v FEC ruling, and ended up getting a lesson in its necessity:

Comedy Central funnyman Stephen Colbert, like most of his friends and allies on the left, thinks that last year’s Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC is, literally, ridiculous. To make his case that the ruling invites “unlimited corporate money” to dominate politics, Mr. Colbert decided to set up a political action committee (PAC) of his own. So far, though, the joke’s been on him.

The hilarity began last month, when Mr. Colbert began to have difficulty setting up his PAC, which is a group that can raise money to run political ads or make contributions to candidates. So he called in Trevor Potter, a former Federal Elections Commission (FEC) chairman who is now a high-powered Washington lawyer.

Mr. Potter delivered some unfunny news: Mr. Colbert couldn’t set up his PAC because his show airs on Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom, and corporations like Viacom cannot make contributions to PACs that give money to candidates. As Mr. Potter pointed out, Mr. Colbert’s on-air discussions of the candidates he supports might count as an illegal “in-kind” contribution from Viacom to Mr. Colbert’s PAC.

On May 11, Mr. Potter returned with more bad news: Viacom didn’t like Mr. Colbert’s plan because his on-air commentary might still amount to a contribution from Viacom to his Super PAC. It’s difficult to place a dollar value on airtime, so a reporting mistake could put both Viacom and Mr. Colbert in legal hot water. Isn’t campaign-finance law funny?

“Why does it get so complicated to do this? I mean, this is page after page of legalese,” Mr. Colbert lamented. “All I’m trying to do is affect the 2012 election. It’s not like I’m trying to install iTunes.”

Well, that’s pretty much what the nonprofit group Citizens United said to the Supreme Court in the case that Mr. Colbert is trying so hard to lampoon.

So Mr funny tried to make fun of the Supreme court and smear them over the Citizen United ruling. In fact Obama himself and lots of other politicians purposely demagogued the issue, lied and distorted it, drew false accusation all for political gains.

What was even more disturbing was Obama himself making stuff up against the chamber of Commerce or lying prime-time on tv during the state of the Union, he that has a law professor is supposed to be able to read a court case ... for short he is a liar scum-bag demagogue and if he is the so called messhia of new politics, then politics is a mental brothel full of dishonesty.

So now that Colbert as made a moron out of himself, could people at least have the good sense that the whole thing was blown out of proportion and that too much emotions kill rational reasoning ?

So is the Citizens united still corporations stealing Democracy ?

Can we all agree that Obama was an idiotic opportunist on this one ?

In any case, lol demagogues.

[Admiral Piett]

Should have elected Ross Perot I guess.

[Seether]

You do realize that Colbert does satire, right?

[Menelik_I]

You do realize that Colbert does satire, right?

Which makes it even funnier. He tried to piss the SCOTUS over Citizen United by setting up a PAC and pissing ads to denounce the ''corporations stealing democracy'' ... just to find out He was ing wrong

[k995]

Which makes it even funnier. He tried to piss the SCOTUS over Citizen United by setting up a PAC and pissing ads to denounce the ''corporations stealing democracy'' ... just to find out He was ing wrong

You fail to grasp what he is doing. (wich doesnt suprise me seeing your comments on "the left")

He is spoofing the o reilly factor show and the fact that plenty of republican candidates seem to have shows on Fox . All of them have these pac or superpacs and he is doing satire to show how redicules the whole system is.

Wether or not he actually suceeds is not important. You do realise he ISNT a candidate he isnt even in politics?

[Seether]

He wasn't actually going to do ads about anything. He does satire on Comedy Central and purposely makes himself look like an ass in just about every episode, so I fail to see what is 'news-worthy' about this. He's an entertainer, not a political activist.

[Menelik_I]

He wasn't actually going to do ads about anything. He does satire on Comedy Central and purposely makes himself look like an ass in just about every episode, so I fail to see what is 'news-worthy' about this. He's an entertainer, not a political activist.

I know he is an entertainer, seems like you didn't read the article, Colbert actually wanted to mount a Political Action Commitee and even hired a lawyer to do it, to make a point about Citizen united.

Just to find out that He couldn't do it and that He could lose his job because His mother company could be held accountable for ''undue contributions'' due to Colbert show ie it negated all the Doom and gloom about citizen united.

The newsworthiness about it is that people demaghoged the issue to death, including Obama.

Also never understimate the power of comedy, entertainement define politics more than you think

[Seether]

No, I read the article and watch just about every episode of his

The main issue with this is his show and the possibility of using it directly to promote candidates, which is completely understandable. Being that is the case, how can you draw a parallel between Colbert and a corporation (like Wal-Mart, GE, or Viacom) that has a PAC and can toss money around as they please? In either scenario Viacom is ultimately responsible, but in one Colbert is used as a proxy and the other Viacom uses direct support. Isn't it apples and oranges?

[Menelik_I]

No, I read the article and watch just about every episode of his

The main issue with this is his show and the possibility of using it directly to promote candidates, which is completely understandable. Being that is the case, how can you draw a parallel between Colbert and a corporation (like Wal-Mart or GE) that has a PAC and can toss money around as they please? Isn't it apples and oranges?

Well he wanted to set up a pack but was turned down under ground that his show would constitute Donations in kind of his corporate employer ... which would force them to disclose and go jumping hoops.

Parallel ? Colbert was just trying to troll the SCOTUS

It was just fun to see his attempt to ridicule Citizen United backfire when the Citizen United crew legal problems knocked his door.

[Carpathian Wolf]

No, I read the article and watch just about every episode of his

The main issue with this is his show and the possibility of using it directly to promote candidates, which is completely understandable. Being that is the case, how can you draw a parallel between Colbert and a corporation (like Wal-Mart, GE, or Viacom) that has a PAC and can toss money around as they please? In either scenario Viacom is ultimately responsible, but in one Colbert is used as a proxy and the other Viacom uses direct support. Isn't it apples and oranges?

You aren't getting it...

[Seether]

You aren't getting it...

You could always explain why as opposed to being entirely vague...

Well he wanted to set up a pack but was turned down under ground that his show would constitute Donations in kind of his corporate employer ... which would force them to disclose and go jumping hoops.

Parallel ? Colbert was just trying to troll the SCOTUS

It was just fun to see his attempt to ridicule Citizen United backfire when the Citizen United crew legal problems knocked his door.

I dunno, I just think there is a difference between a corporation using 'unlimited funds' towards a political candidate or party and a corporation using a media entity (such as Colbert) for that same purpose. Personally I don't think corporations should be able to donate to political candidates or parties at all, as such donations (especially millions or billions of dollars) would and have undoubtedly affected the politics of the candidates that have assumed office. But it is what it is

[Carpathian Wolf]

You could always explain why as opposed to being entirely vague...

Colbert makes fun of the Republican/conservative agenda. Obama and the left's argument is that corporations should not be able to donate to nominees running for political office. Colbert tried to set up his own PAC but his lawyer told him that this would be considered a breech of law because he would be funded by viacom. Further more under this law any nominee he would endorse could be seen as problematic for his parent company as it would again be breaking this law.

Point is the left and liberals being all about down with the censorship have screwed themselves and Colbert was a nice example of exactly just that. That is why it is teh lulz.

[Seether]

Colbert makes fun of the Republican/conservative agenda. Obama and the left's argument is that corporations should not be able to donate to nominees running for political office. Colbert tried to set up his own PAC but his lawyer told him that this would be considered a breech of law because he would be funded by viacom. Further more under this law any nominee he would endorse could be seen as problematic for his parent company as it would again be breaking this law.

Point is the left and liberals being all about down with the censorship have screwed themselves and Colbert was a nice example of exactly just that. That is why it is teh lulz.

I was under the impression, as Matthias stated above, that there are no laws being breached or illegality to this issue on Colbert's part. It only has to do with Viacom 'accounting for' Colbert's online time in regard to contributions, which is something that could become complicated and cause them issues if done incorrectly.

[Maverick]

I stopped reading at "like most of his friends and allies on the left".

This liberal media myth is so weak. Take gays, guns and god off the table and Colbert and his comedy allies Stewart and Maher are pretty conservative guys. The expert guests they have on to talk about the economy, foreign policy etc. are like all CFR.

And these whiny lawyers are gloating when Colbert's just going to do a funny bit about losing and move on with his popular show...

[Rolling Thunder]

So Mr funny tried to make fun of the Supreme court and smear them over the Citizen United ruling. In fact Obama himself and lots of other politicians purposely demagogued the issue, lied and distorted it, drew false accusation all for political gains.

What was even more disturbing was Obama himself making stuff up against the chamber of Commerce or lying prime-time on tv during the state of the Union, he that has a law professor is supposed to be able to read a court case ... for short he is a liar scum-bag demagogue and if he is the so called messhia of new politics, then politics is a mental brothel full of dishonesty.

So now that Colbert as made a moron out of himself, could people at least have the good sense that the whole thing was blown out of proportion and that too much emotions kill rational reasoning ?

So is the Citizens united still corporations stealing Democracy ?

Can we all agree that Obama was an idiotic opportunist on this one ?

Can we all agree that if this post were to be any more biased it would have to be published in the Mail?

[Menelik_I]

Can we all agree that if this post were to be any more biased it would have to be published in the Mail?

At least I am not one part of the club of self-supported biased clowns who pretend they are objective.

[JP226]

Can we all agree that if this post were to be any more biased it would have to be published in the Mail?

I've got a better thing most of us can agree on, you being wrong.

Anyhow, Colbert's problem is he listened to the media. Anybody in the actual physical know has some semblence of how rediculous corporate campaign financing law actually is and why lawyers make mucho dollars in deciphering it.

[Matthias]

The only funny thing is the WSJ trying to make it look like Colbert is somehow not making a point. Colbert can definitely set up a PAC, the issue comes to Viacom being afraid that there would be a reporting error in contributions as it is hard to quantify on-air time, not because it is illegal to do so.

I don't know what the point of the WSJ article is? Cobert is punked because he points out how easy it is to set up a SuperPAC and contribute unlimited money? I know that has to make WSJ mad.

Really, any restrictions Colbert does run into will be in spite of the Citizens United ruling, not because of it. This article is hilariously pointless and stupid, as WSJ articles that bend over for big biz usually are.

Citizens United is still and will continue to be a giant dumbass move by the SC, and they will continue to be roundly criticized and made fun of for it, and not even the WSJ pissants can make any sort of logical defense of the ruling.

On edit, the guys who wrote this piece are lawyers working for Institute for Justice, a libertarian organization whose sole job is to suck up to businesses. Hilarious stuff.

[Lord Zhang Ku]

So why do you think Colbert was still not making a good point? I mean, can you even name a positive result of the Citizen's United case?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Who wants to tell Menelik that Colbert is a comedian?

Awkward...