Stephen Colbert: Thank You, God Bless You and God Bless Citizens United
Email
TV host, comedian, writer, and presidential candidate? Stephen Colbert might be adding the latter to his long list of titles; well, presidential candidate for the United States of America of South Carolina anyway.
“I am proud to announce that I am forming an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for my possible candidacy for president of the United States of South Carolina,” Colbert announced to an amped-up crowd on his late-night Comedy Central show ‘The Colbert Report.’
Of course, there is no actual United States of South Carolina. And even if Colbert were looking to run in the January 21st primary, the filing deadline for South Carolina’s primary ballot is long past, and South Carolina does not allow write-ins in their presidential primary.
Rather Colbert’s announcement was a stunt in his long running narrative to call attention to the problems of the superPACs — the independent expenditure committees with unlimited fundraising ability — which are so prevalent in this election cycle.
Colbert began his show by inviting out former Federal Election Commission chairman Trevor Potter, playing the role of Colbert’s personal lawyer, or, as Colbert also described him, his “money’s spiritual advisor.” Colbert and Potter engaged in a dialogue about the do’s and don’ts of superPACs, and Colbert asked Potter if he could join the race and maintain control over his super-PAC.
“No … you cannot be a candidate and run a superPAC, that would be coordinating with yourself,” said Potter. “You can have it run by someone else.”
At this point Colbert invited fellow late-night star Jon Stewart out onto the set. Colbert asked Potter if it would be ok if he transferred control of his superPAC to Stewart, even though the two are business partners. They joked that they were starting a combination bagel shop and travel agency called “From Schmeer to Eternity.”
“Being business partners does not count as coordinating, legally,” explained Potter.
The bit continued as Colbert and Stewart engaged in a “transfer of power,” and afterwards Mr. Stewart and Mr. Potter each left the set, and Colbert made his “announcement,” balloons dropped, and the audience went wild.
The rise of the superPAC began in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled that independent spending for political purposes was protected under the first amendment, in the landmark case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The irreverent segment offered a thoughtful critique of these new groups who are legally not allowed to coordinate with the candidates they are supporting, but are often run by former staffers, highlighting the strong ties that bind candidates to these powerful organizations.
“With your help and with possibly the help of some outside group that I am not coordinating with, we can explore taking this country back,” Colbert proclaimed just before going to a commercial break. “Thank you, God bless you, and God bless Citizens United.”
Rick Santorum Defends Earmarks 
Ron Paul Ad's Call Santorum a 'Fake'
Typo 7th stanza.. (Colbert)* not Stewart
Posted by: Miguel | January 13, 2012, 12:58 am 12:58 am
we all knew it. he hasn’t been laughing at the other guys for nothing. now he can show his true colors. if he has any.
Posted by: Bobbb | January 13, 2012, 7:06 am 7:06 am
BOBBB: We all knew what exactly? That Colbert was going to run for the President of the United States of South Carolina? You do realise he’s not actually running for anything; it was just a way to highlight the nonsense that are superPACs?
Posted by: 2hundredthousand | January 13, 2012, 7:37 am 7:37 am
But the greatest danger of Super PACs is that they may skew the legislative process in the next Congress in favor of the interests of large Super PAC contributors. [IN THE REAL WORLD WE CALL THAT BRIBERY]
, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment barred a federal law preventing corporations and unions from spending their own funds to influence the outcome of elections. Key to this ruling was the court’s statement that independent spending (that is, spending not coordinated with candidates) cannot corrupt the political process.
first Gone was the $5,000 per person contribution limit to political action committees — or PACs — which only spend independently to support or oppose federal candidates.
Second, Corporations now have a way to influence elections anonymously, thus avoiding the risk of alienating customers who may object to their choice of candidates.
But the initial supposition is wrong. Independent spending can corrupt.
large contributions can create the actuality and appearance of corruption of those candidates. A candidate who receives a large contribution will feel grateful [INDEBTED] to the contributor
And federal officeholders may do the bidding of other wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions out of fear that they will support the official’s opponents through a Super PAC in the next election if they don’t.
Given the expected vast spending by presidential candidates and parties in the general election, I am not very concerned that Super PAC spending will influence the outcome of the presidential election, though it might. [YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS. COMPARE MATCHING FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS LEVEL TO EXISTING SUPERPAC FUNDS AND SEE WHICH ONE HAS THE MORE POWER TO INFLUENCE]
THIS NEGATIVE ADVERTISING IS SO OFTEN FALSE OR PRESENTS FACTS MISLEADING
these groups will skew public policy away from the public interest and toward the interest of the new fat cats of campaign finance, as members of the House and Senate thank their friends and look over their shoulder at potential new enemies. [WITHOUT ANY DOUBT THIS IS THE GOAL OF THE FUNDERS OF THE SUPERPAC IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHY ELSE WOULD THEY CONTRIBUTE SUCH MASSIVE AMOUNTS. DO YOU THINK THEY CONTRIBUTE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NICE GUYS?]
Posted by: Economystic Extraordinaire | January 13, 2012, 8:08 am 8:08 am
2hundredthousand, WE ALL KNEW STEVIE HAD POLITICAL ASPERATIONS. QUITE FRANKLY, I DON’T FIND ANYOF THE BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION OF OUR HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT NONSENSE.
Posted by: Bobbb | January 13, 2012, 8:12 am 8:12 am
BOBBB: I wasn’t arguing with whether or not Colbert has political ambitions. I was simply pointing out that his announcement that he will run for President of the United States of South Carolina doesn’t mean he is actually running for anything; as you seemed to believe when you said “now he can show his true colors”. OK? SuperPACs are a nonsense, not the attempt by Colbert to point that out. I could have said a scam, a fraud, a pretence, a con-trick or many other things and I don’t in any way disagree with you when you label them corrupt. I don’t think that the Supreme Court judgement was wrong it’s just that over and over again sensible judgements and rules are twisted to suit ends that they were never meant to suit. Politicians and lawyers are invariably a very bad combination.
Posted by: 2hundredthousand | January 13, 2012, 9:00 am 9:00 am
BOBBB: PS It’s rude to SHOUT!
Posted by: 2hundredthousand | January 13, 2012, 9:01 am 9:01 am
Why are you giving all this free time to this idiot? Solyndra is giving out bonuses, before paying back the taxpayers, 6 million more people in poverty since Obama took office, he wants $1.2 Trillion dollars more to pay back donors and unions, we pay or borrow $4 billion a day under Obama, Fast and Furious has not been explained, etc. lots of real news we need, not this.
Posted by: Freedom | January 15, 2012, 7:08 am 7:08 am
The interview with George Snuffleuffagus was a total waste of time. If THIS WEEK ever does another time wasting interview like this again, I won’t ever watch this show again.
Posted by: LS | January 15, 2012, 9:19 am 9:19 am
Like Garrison Keillor before him, I’m waiting for him to say something funny. It could be years.
Posted by: Torpedo8 | January 15, 2012, 10:35 am 10:35 am
What an unfortunate waste of the This Week platform. Cobert was neither funny nor informative. Please, the PTB at TW, do not waste your audience’s time. The Cobert interview was a turkey.
Posted by: CJ | January 15, 2012, 11:12 am 11:12 am
Compare the cringe-worthy Cobert piece and the irrelevant Perry piece to Gregory’s interviews with Reid and Gingrich this morning and it almost makes one pine for Christiana to return to this show. If ABC is looking to make its Sunday morning show something that can compete with NBC, it needs to stop the piddling.
Posted by: CJ | January 15, 2012, 11:22 am 11:22 am
Colbert is brilliant. He has done more to demonstrate the idiocy of the Citizens United decision than any so called “serious” news organization. In fact, Comedy Central (Colbert and Stewart) provide better news coverage than ABC/CNN/FOX/ETC, combined. They are not in bed with the politicians they cover. I get a laugh out of commenters who say “this is not serious news, I will not watch This Week if it happens again”.
Posted by: marco60 | January 15, 2012, 11:31 am 11:31 am
I believe Stephen Colbert would do a better job as president than Barack Hussein Obama. Of course, according to recent polls, voters would prefer Mickey Mouse to Barack Hussein Obama.
Posted by: Robert Coyle | January 15, 2012, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm