If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   Confused? Heres's what Stephen Colbert's new SuperPAC means   (theweek.com) divider line 73
    More: Cool, corporate campaign, campaign contributions, disclosure requirements, Federal Election Commission, Comedy Central, fragrances, The Colbert Report, supreme court ruling  
•       •       •

6574 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2011 at 5:24 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-01 03:08:53 PM
Regarding the last paragraph, I don't think Stephen unintentionally does anything in a public forum. But then, I think he's great.
 
2011-07-01 03:17:36 PM
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."
 
2011-07-01 03:24:51 PM
I don't see the point of donating money if the ads can't run outside of the show.
Why is it he has these limitations but Huckabee and Palin don't?
they run ads in local elections, on local channels and afaik Newscorp doesn't have to make any "in kind disclosures"
 
2011-07-01 03:30:15 PM

Hobodeluxe: I don't see the point of donating money if the ads can't run outside of the show.
Why is it he has these limitations but Huckabee and Palin don't?
they run ads in local elections, on local channels and afaik Newscorp doesn't have to make any "in kind disclosures"


Stephen has his own corporation. His super PAC can donate to his corporation, which can run ads, unless done on Viacom's tab.
 
2011-07-01 03:30:36 PM

Hobodeluxe: I don't see the point of donating money if the ads can't run outside of the show.


They can but if he runs them outside the show, he has to disclose the funding source.
 
2011-07-01 04:01:39 PM

lennavan: Hobodeluxe: I don't see the point of donating money if the ads can't run outside of the show.

They can but if he runs them outside the show, he has to disclose the funding source.


Actually he can run them anytime on Comedy Central.
 
2011-07-01 04:04:50 PM
You won't be after this weeks Soap
 
2011-07-01 04:09:53 PM

NuttierThanEver: You won't be after this weeks Soap


Well played.
 
2011-07-01 04:11:48 PM

2wolves: NuttierThanEver: You won't be after this weeks Soap

Well played.


...do do do do-dooo, do-do do do do...
 
2011-07-01 04:19:54 PM

Hobodeluxe: I don't see the point of donating money if the ads can't run outside of the show.
Why is it he has these limitations but Huckabee and Palin don't?
they run ads in local elections, on local channels and afaik Newscorp doesn't have to make any "in kind disclosures"


It means he can't run ads on other networks using Viacom's resources (staff, equipment, etc.) without Viacom disclosing the contribution.

He can produce ads himself, without using Viacom's people or stuff, and air those wherever he can buy the ad space. Or he can skirt the rules in any number of ways so that the equipment and staff aren't being provided by Viacom but are funded from his own corporation or the PAC donations themselves.
 
2011-07-01 04:58:15 PM

dartben: He can produce ads himself, without using Viacom's people or stuff, and air those wherever he can buy the ad space. Or he can skirt the rules in any number of ways so that the equipment and staff aren't being provided by Viacom but are funded from his own corporation or the PAC donations themselves.


Or Viacom can charge him a nominal rental fee of $1 for the space and the equipment, and the staff can volunteer their own time or have their check paid by... well, Steven himself, if he f'n feels like it.

He's going to have ads on every Viacom channel, all but guaranteed. I'm pretty sure that Fox and NBC Universal airtime uses the equal-opportunity prostitute method of apportionment: You buy the slot, it's all yours. FBC and Fox News might claim so solly, we're all booked up for slots for X Show We Don't Want You Embarassing, but I doubt they'll care what's airing on Fox Sports.

Whaddaya think TBC and Time Warner will do? Discovery? Penetration of the above listed is pretty much penetration of everyone that counts as watching TV.
 
2011-07-01 05:28:33 PM
So people read that article and then had to come to this thread to have it explained once again? Or was the article just too long for you?
 
2011-07-01 05:29:01 PM
Brilliant.
 
2011-07-01 05:31:25 PM
Colbert may or may not know yet what he's going to do with the PAC.

But you know whatever he comes up with, it's going to be good.
 
2011-07-01 05:33:52 PM
Colbert does not suck.
 
2011-07-01 05:34:33 PM
Colbert does suck.
 
2011-07-01 05:34:54 PM
I'd like to buy a 150 foot yacht but it's too bad that I don't have that much speech.
 
2011-07-01 05:37:55 PM
Farking genius. Seriously, I had no idea what the SuperPAC rulings even meant until Colbert decided to mock them with this stunt, and now I probably know more about our government just by watching Comedy Central than all of this years' political science graduates.
 
2011-07-01 05:39:13 PM

stebain: Colbert does not suck.


stebain: Colbert does suck.


THIS
 
2011-07-01 05:40:56 PM
Given that his lawyer, Trevor Potter, is the former chair of the Federal Elections Commission, I'd bet Stephen has a good idea of what the likely ramifications of this will be. I doubt it's something he just came up with on a whim and convinced Potter to go along with--this was carefully planned.
 
2011-07-01 05:41:28 PM
If this doesn't spread awareness of the corporatist Republican actions taken against democracy such as the Citizens United bullshiat ruling, then all of this is for nothing.
 
2011-07-01 05:43:14 PM
How dare Colbert make a mockery out of free-speech (SuperPACs). Typical liberals.
 
2011-07-01 05:43:51 PM
What does Colbert's stunt say about our election-financing system?
He obviously intended to shine a satirical light on our "flimsy," post-Citizens United, rich-take-all system, says Dana Milbank in The Washington Post. "But there was a flaw in his plan: The campaign-finance system already is a parody." Actually, the joke's on Colbert, and finance reformers, says Damon W. Root at Reason. By showing the need to hire a high-priced lawyer to even understand his rights regarding political donations, Colbert "has unintentionally revealed the ridiculous nature of campaign finance regulations," period.


Oh I see, we have nothing to fear because only the rich can use it to their advantage!!

uhhhhh.
 
2011-07-01 05:44:26 PM
What Colbert's SuperPAC means?

Thought it just meant that he was taking some time out early on in this hideously overlong election cycle to educate people in a humorous way as to some of the absurdities surrounding the rules for PACs, particularly in a post Citizens United decision world.

Kinda the same way his Cheesy Poof sponsored bid to get on the ticket in North Carolina gave insight into that process.
 
2011-07-01 05:45:39 PM

Mrtraveler01: How dare Colbert make a mockery out of free-speech (SuperPACs). Typical liberals.


Obviously money laundering is "free speech" too, and those should also be considered unconstitutional.
 
2011-07-01 05:45:52 PM
Actually, the joke's on Colbert

Yeah...no. I'm pretty sure he understands what he's doing.
 
2011-07-01 05:46:20 PM

Corvus: Obviously money laundering is "free speech" too, and those laws should also be considered unconstitutional.

 
2011-07-01 05:51:33 PM
FTA: Actually, the joke's on Colbert, and finance reformers, says Damon W. Root at Reason. By showing the need to hire a high-priced lawyer to even understand his rights regarding political donations, Colbert "has unintentionally revealed the ridiculous nature of campaign finance regulations," period.

[InigoMontoya.jpg]

From Reason? Ah.
 
2011-07-01 05:57:54 PM

Hobodeluxe: I don't see the point of donating money if the ads can't run outside of the show.
Why is it he has these limitations but Huckabee and Palin don't?
they run ads in local elections, on local channels and afaik Newscorp doesn't have to make any "in kind disclosures"


Oh, you missed the most important point, his PAC can run adds on any Viacom channel, in between shows as commercials, anywhere Viacom likes (not just his show).

/Yes, this is the ruling.
//They had to rule this way, since this is what FOX has already been doing.
///To deny him, they would have to explain why they weren't allowing him but were allowing Fox.
 
2011-07-01 06:02:22 PM
I'd buy that for a dollar.
 
2011-07-01 06:08:23 PM
I am a SuperPAC (and so can you)
 
2011-07-01 06:13:09 PM

quatchi: Kinda the same way his Cheesy Poof sponsored bid to get on the ticket in North Carolina gave insight into that process.


Excuse me, it was Doritos and South Carolina. If you can't even get the important facts straight, why post?
 
2011-07-01 06:15:25 PM
ftfa The more contentious FEC decision dealth with how media giant Viacom

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
it theems we must have dealth with this before...
 
2011-07-01 06:15:54 PM

BackAssward: Hobodeluxe: I don't see the point of donating money if the ads can't run outside of the show.
Why is it he has these limitations but Huckabee and Palin don't?
they run ads in local elections, on local channels and afaik Newscorp doesn't have to make any "in kind disclosures"

Oh, you missed the most important point, his PAC can run adds on any Viacom channel, in between shows as commercials, anywhere Viacom likes (not just his show).

/Yes, this is the ruling.
//They had to rule this way, since this is what FOX has already been doing.
///To deny him, they would have to explain why they weren't allowing him but were allowing Fox.


The scary thing is the ruling. It's openly admitting that elections are for sale if you file right paperwork and have enough money. I must say that the honesty is refreshing.
 
2011-07-01 06:17:05 PM
The more contentious FEC decision dealth with how media giant Viacom, Comedy Central's parent company, fits in.

Verily, this language doth vex me!
 
2011-07-01 06:17:26 PM
So, what does this mean? Disclosure will only mean that those who've always suspected will have their suspicions confirmed and the teabaggers will double-down on their cognitive dissonance.

What will change?

/Loves Dr. Colbert.
//Also loves voting.
 
2011-07-01 06:19:44 PM
It means an eagle in every pot and a chopper on everyone's helipad.
 
2011-07-01 06:20:34 PM

deadsanta: Farking genius. Seriously, I had no idea what the SuperPAC rulings even meant until Colbert decided to mock them with this stunt, and now I probably know more about our government just by watching Comedy Central than all of this years' political science graduates.



It seems to me he just forced the FEC to set a precedent under the scrutiny of the entire national news media. My guess is that Colbert was actually trying to get them to refuse his request outright, but I'm sure the attention made them limit super PACs more than they would have otherwise.
 
2011-07-01 06:24:44 PM
I think it's even better that the one dissenting opinion thought he should have even more leeway in non-disclosure.
Seriously.
 
2011-07-01 06:29:40 PM

CowboyNinjaD: deadsanta: Farking genius. Seriously, I had no idea what the SuperPAC rulings even meant until Colbert decided to mock them with this stunt, and now I probably know more about our government just by watching Comedy Central than all of this years' political science graduates.


It seems to me he just forced the FEC to set a precedent under the scrutiny of the entire national news media. My guess is that Colbert was actually trying to get them to refuse his request outright, but I'm sure the attention made them limit super PACs more than they would have otherwise.


i'm not sure they really limited anything,
the limits seem to be in regards to how he applied for the pac

imagine colbertcorp holding an umbrella. they/he apply for the pac, anything naturally under the umbrella is free game for obtaining funds, advertising and spending

i'm not sure the people in here saying he can post his ads free of notation anywhere under viacom are correct.

now if he wants to include 'paid for by' he can put the damn things anywhere

so how isn't it limiting? well, consider for a moment if it was viacom that actually applied for the pac and was holding the umbrella..... or newscorp for that matter....

/at least that's my cursory understanding of it
//i could easily be wrong
 
2011-07-01 06:33:29 PM

Salt Lick Steady: quatchi: Kinda the same way his Cheesy Poof sponsored bid to get on the ticket in North Carolina gave insight into that process.

Excuse me, it was Doritos and South Carolina. If you can't even get the important facts straight, why post?


Wait, there's a South Carolina now?

Didn't people already learn their lessons from the existence of North Carolina?

Guess some folks gotta learn the hard way.
 
2011-07-01 06:36:07 PM
"unintentionally revealed the ridiculous nature of campaign finance regulations"

Perhaps that is because of the citizen's united decision? I haven't heard anything about new campaign financial regulation coming through congress.
 
2011-07-01 06:40:36 PM

robmilmel: 2wolves: NuttierThanEver: You won't be after this weeks Soap

Well played.

...do do do do-dooo, do-do do do do...


Ha ha! You guys are old like me!

....Wait....
 
2011-07-01 06:40:58 PM

BackAssward: Hobodeluxe: I don't see the point of donating money if the ads can't run outside of the show.
Why is it he has these limitations but Huckabee and Palin don't?
they run ads in local elections, on local channels and afaik Newscorp doesn't have to make any "in kind disclosures"

Oh, you missed the most important point, his PAC can run adds on any Viacom channel, in between shows as commercials, anywhere Viacom likes (not just his show).

/Yes, this is the ruling.
//They had to rule this way, since this is what FOX, BET, MTV, Comedy Central, The NYT, The Washington Post, MSNBC, etc. has already been doing.
///To deny him, they would have to explain why they weren't allowing him but were allowing Fox.


Added a few items for clarification.
 
2011-07-01 06:42:53 PM
I'm not confused.

Elections in America are now officially a joke.
 
2011-07-01 06:47:09 PM
CORPORATIONS FOR FREEDOM!
 
2011-07-01 06:50:17 PM

Epoch_Zero: If this doesn't spread awareness of the corporatist Republican actions taken against democracy such as the Citizens United bullshiat ruling, then all of this is for nothing.


All of this is for nothing

.
 
2011-07-01 06:53:42 PM

MurphyMurphy: CowboyNinjaD: deadsanta: Farking genius. Seriously, I had no idea what the SuperPAC rulings even meant until Colbert decided to mock them with this stunt, and now I probably know more about our government just by watching Comedy Central than all of this years' political science graduates.


It seems to me he just forced the FEC to set a precedent under the scrutiny of the entire national news media. My guess is that Colbert was actually trying to get them to refuse his request outright, but I'm sure the attention made them limit super PACs more than they would have otherwise.

i'm not sure they really limited anything,
the limits seem to be in regards to how he applied for the pac

imagine colbertcorp holding an umbrella. they/he apply for the pac, anything naturally under the umbrella is free game for obtaining funds, advertising and spending

i'm not sure the people in here saying he can post his ads free of notation anywhere under viacom are correct.

now if he wants to include 'paid for by' he can put the damn things anywhere

so how isn't it limiting? well, consider for a moment if it was viacom that actually applied for the pac and was holding the umbrella..... or newscorp for that matter....

/at least that's my cursory understanding of it
//i could easily be wrong



FTFA: If the FEC had completely cleared Viacom of all disclosure requirements, it would allow giant media corporations to secretly bankroll super PACs affiliated with their employees.

This means that Fox News, for example, could have secretly set up a super PAC for Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee or any of its other former or current employees, unless they only planned to run ads on Fox. Instead, the network would now have to disclose any contributions if they plan to do any real advertising.

Had Colbert not made a big deal out of this, the FEC would have been largely ignored by the national media. It would have been covered, but most viewers wouldn't really understand or care about what was going on. Maybe the FEC would have made the same decision without all the attention. Maybe they wouldn't have.
 
2011-07-01 06:54:08 PM
He did this because if they deny him his PAC then Palin can't have hers.

They are essentially the same thing, him and Palin. One does it for comedy and the other for bucks.
 
2011-07-01 06:56:51 PM

Cataholic: Added a few items for clarification.


That's a rude way of doing it. If anyone replies to you, it will look like your words are my words. You should have just added them in your portion of the reply, not edited mine. You do not represent me.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report