IPOD
RADIO
I Am a Violation of Federal Election Laws (And So Can You!)
TUESDAY OCTOBER 23 2007 12:00 PM
Submitted by Subrosa. Edited By erin_broadley.
TAGS: Colbert, Brownback, 2 U.S.C. Section 441b, Lincolnish
I will admit it without hesitation: I am a huge Stephen Colbert fan. It’s almost impossible not to be, but I understand how fickle the tastes of today’s public are. I know it was uber-hip to be a member of Colbert Nation in 2006, which means lots of you probably think he’s “all played out” and/or has “jumped the shark” by now. That’s cool. I don’t really give a rat’s ass. I think the man’s a genius.
Sitting on my bookshelf as I type this article are a copy of America: The Book, written by (among others) Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert back before they were officially the yin to the other’s comedic yang. Also featured prominently is a cellophane-encased copy of Tek Jansen: Alpha Squad Seven, the first comic I’ve owned since I was about 7. If I don’t break down and buy them for myself before the holiday, my Christmas list will consist of long-sleeved sweaters, iTunes gift certificates, a Saginaw Spirit home hockey jersey and a copy of Colbert’s newest deliciously-titled book: I Am America (And So Can You!) Like I said, I’m a fan. As someone who has spent more of his life arguing about politics than is reasonably healthy, I think his entire persona is both hysterically refreshing and exactly the type of thing that this country needs. In short, he’s the best satirist in the world.
So when he embarked on his publicity tour for the new book, I tracked his progress with great affection. How would he manage to make the talk-show rounds and promote his book while savaging talk-show punditry at the same time? By capitalizing on the media’s un-natural obsession with the Presidential primaries, of course, and deftly creating his own pre-candidacy buzz. Those of us who were forwarded his guest Op-Ed column in the New York Times (thanks Necia) were treated to it firsthand.
While my hat is not presently in the ring, I should also point out that it is not on my head. So where's that hat? (Hint: John McCain was seen passing one at a gas station to fuel up the Straight Talk Express.)
Others point to my new bestseller, ''I Am America (And So Can You!)'' noting that many candidates test the waters with a book first. Just look at Barack Obama, John Edwards or O. J. Simpson.
[…]
Our nation is at a Fork in the Road. Some say we should go Left; some say go Right. I say, ''Doesn't this thing have a reverse gear?'' Let's back this country up to a time before there were forks in the road -- or even roads. Or forks, for that matter. I want to return to a simpler America where we ate our meat off the end of a sharpened stick.
Let me regurgitate: I know why you want me to run, and I hear your clamor. I share Americans' nostalgia for an era when you not only could tell a man by the cut of his jib, but the jib industry hadn't yet fled to Guangdong. And I don't intend to tease you for weeks the way Newt Gingrich did, saying that if his supporters raised $30 million, he would run for president. I would run for 15 million. Cash.
Now, was anyone seriously pressing him to run? Of course not. But when you live in the No Fact Zone these things don’t matter. It continued not to matter when last week he “officially” declared his candidacy for the President of the United States. There were some caveats, of course, mainly that he was only running in his home state of South Carolina (“I defy any other candidate to pander more to South Carolinians, those beautiful people that they are!”) and that he was running as both a Democrat and a Republican. But was he serious or is this just another beautifully executed publicity stunt?
As with everything that Colbert does, there appears to be some truthiness behind his announcement.
Comedian Stephen Colbert insisted on Sunday that his ambition to run for president was no joke -- then joked he would consider disgraced Republican Sen. Larry Craig as a vice presidential running mate.
"I don't want to be president. I want to run for president. There's a difference," the host of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" said in a television interview.
Man, if there is a better encapsulation of the sheer absurdity of the presidential nomination process than the above quotation, I’d love to see it. Regardless, Colbert’s people have gone about the process of filing papers to run in South Carolina as both a Dem and a Republican, so he’s clearly at least sort-of serious. That leaves fans and political observers alike drooling in anticipation of the havoc and hilarity that could ensue. Is there any better satire possible than exposing the presidential election process from the inside? Nope. It’s pretty much the best thing ever. Even political proposition betting websites are joining in the fun.
There’s just one problem: What he’s doing could very well be illegal.
Hopefully there’s a good campaign finance lawyer out there in Colbert Nation, because its leader could be headed for a showdown with the Federal Election Commission.
Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert may have been joking this week when he announced he’s running for president. But his declaration and subsequent celebration of his candidacy — heavy on the affected bloviation that has made him a pop culture phenomenon — are raising some potentially serious legal issues.
If he continues moving toward a presidential campaign, particularly if he, or Comedy Central, keeps spending money exploring and promoting by hyping it on his nightly half-hour news parody show, he could get himself and his network in trouble for violating election laws, including those barring corporate campaign contributions.
“You don’t get a different set of rules because you’re running as a joke,” said Marc Elias, a leading Washington election lawyer who represents Democratic candidates.
“You may get a different set of rules because it’s a joke and you’re not really running,” said Elias, who stressed he was not speaking for any client. “But if it isn’t a joke, then there may be any number of issues.”
[…]
The costs of producing and airing Colbert’s show this week, dedicated largely to hyping his candidacy, could be construed as so-called “in-kind” contributions from Comedy Central, Dawson suggested.
It’s illegal for corporations to contribute money, labor or anything of value to federal candidates, thanks to a century-old provision intended to prevent corporate fat cats from bankrolling candidates.
That century-old provision is2 U.S.C. § 441b, which would prohibit a corporation (in this case, Comedy Central) from donating time or money in the form of salary to his campaign.
Colbert himself addressed the issue, but only in his trademarked sarcastic way.
On his show Tuesday, Colbert made it official — or at least as official as it gets on his show.
“Nation,” he told his audience, as he is wont to call it, “I shall seek the office of the president of the United States.” He blew kisses, stood from behind his anchor desk and bowed, as red, white and blue balloons fell from the studio rafters and the words “I’m doing it!” flashed on the screen.
On the next night’s show, he signed the paperwork, but only after announcing he was crossing out part of an oath pledging not to “knowingly violate any election law.”
Again, brilliant, but again it (intentionally) doesn’t answer the question of whether or not he’s serious. For his sake it might be best if he isn’t.
His best defense, though, according to an election lawyer who requested anonymity because he did not want to risk incurring Colbert’s wrath, would be admitting that his “campaign” is for entertainment only and that he’s not spending money to influence an election — the trigger for federal campaign laws.
If he fesses up to that, the lawyer said, he could argue that any effort to limit his spending on his candidacy would violate “his rights of expression as a satirist.”
The story is obviously still developing, but if he is serious (and I dearly, dearly hope he is), it will be fascinating to see how and if he can navigate the election law minefield laying before him while still getting his point across.
What the point is that he’s getting across is, as always, up for (factiless) debate.
1131 Comments
PAGE:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
JunkyardAngel
San Gabriel, CA
February 2006
OCT 23, 2007 12:18 PM
Mockingbird
Chicago, IL
January 2006
OCT 23, 2007 12:19 PM
LexyLou
Los Angeles, CA
January 2006
OCT 23, 2007 12:25 PM
Stereoisomer
West Lafayette, IN
September 2006
OCT 23, 2007 12:25 PM
JunkyardAngel
San Gabriel, CA
February 2006
OCT 23, 2007 12:25 PM
Clairific
Los Angeles, CA
August 2005
OCT 23, 2007 12:38 PM
BDeyeD
Ottawa, ON
January 2007
OCT 23, 2007 12:46 PM
Ofelia
Pittsburgh, PA
July 2005
OCT 23, 2007 12:46 PM
freshprncebelair
Ellicott City, MD
June 2004
OCT 23, 2007 12:55 PM
Mr_Matt_
Hollywood, FL
July 2005
OCT 23, 2007 01:23 PM
SnowgodCCR
Derry, NH
November 2006
OCT 23, 2007 01:42 PM
TheWriter
Fort Worth, TX
June 2006
OCT 23, 2007 01:43 PM
TheWriter
Fort Worth, TX
June 2006
OCT 23, 2007 01:44 PM
Subrosa
San Francisco, CA
July 2004
OCT 23, 2007 01:45 PM
FunkyPhantom
Chapel Hill, NC
June 2007
OCT 23, 2007 01:59 PM
PAGE:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4