Colbert's Run For President May Be Criminal

eldavojohn writes "Some of you may know about Steven Colbert's fake presidential campaign... although are you sure it's fake? Well, it had better be because if it is taken too far — such as if he actually gets on the Republican and/or Democratic ballot in South Carolina — his use of corporations & advertising to back his campaign could get the attention of the Federal Election Commission. Doritos & Comedy Central could be facing some problems as well, funding a man running for president." A million Facebook users have signed up for the "1,000,000 Strong for Stephen T Colbert" group in the last week — though the group could be read as a satire of Barack Obama's similarly-named group, which has fewer than 400,000 members after 9 months.

Didn't you watch the show?

[SnoopJeDi (859765)]

He's being sponsored to cover the election. He's not a candidate promoting a product, just a man who really enjoys Doritos in his spare time.

Re:Didn't you watch the show?

[AmericanInKiev (453362)]

Say Gulliani has been paid by the Mexican government (for consulting on crime) and he is using his wealth to fund his campaign - is that Illegal because it amounts to foreign support for political candidates?

Apparently Stephen earns the money he makes by appearing as "Talent" on a show which sells advertising. The shows sponsors are paying him for attracting viewer - rather than advancing a political agenda. I don't know that Stephen's "Campaign" is directly funded by the people who pay him to do his job.
Aik

COLBERT NATION!!

[Brian Lewis (1011579)]

If a comedian wins president with a fake campaign and gets "in trouble", I'm moving to Canada.

Re:COLBERT NATION!!

[The Ultimate Fartkno (756456)]

He said "comedian," not "joke."

He Knows This

[bazald (886779)]

He pretty much said so on the show. He joked that Doritos couldn't fund the campaign directly, so he would have to find some other excuse to accept their money. He has said in an interview (off his show) that he doesn't want to be President, he just wants to run for it. He is a smart guy, and he is backed by smart lawyers. I'm sure he'll stop before he crosses the line from legal to illegal.

Re:He Knows This

[Omnifarious (11933)]

I may well vote for him. Unless Ron Paul wins the Republican primary, which I consider doubtful, I will likely vote for Stephen Colbert. People who actually want to be president generally shouldn't be allowed to be.

Re:He Knows This

[Russ Nelson (33911)]

It's really bizarre. I keep hearing from all these people that they want Ron Paul to win, but they think nobody is going to vote for him. Well, damnit, if you're a Republican, vote for him! And if he gets the nomination, vote for him!

Re:He Knows This

[Seumas (6865)]

Colbert is just doing openly what every other candidate does behind the curtain.

You don't even become a viable candidate in this country unless you have been vetted and supported by prominent corporations and aristocrats. There's a reason all of the candidates are essentially the same on both sides of the aisle and why the new boss is almost always the same as the old boss. It's because they're only made viable by the same real "bosses" every time.

This has been addressed on the report

[kosanovich (678657)]

The other night Colbert talked specifically about this. He said that under election law he can use the corporate sponsorship money to produce the Colbert Report but he can't use it for his campaign. So he took the opportunity to satirize the law and point out that as Colbert the show host he is saying "eat the chips!" but as Colbert the presidential hopeful he is simply saying that he enjoys a nice doritos chip.

In any case he and his show lawyers aren't as stupid as they pretend to be and they will make sure they stay on the right side of the law in case this does get taken seriously.

We are lucky......

[budword (680846)]

We are lucky we live in the United States of America. We have a Constitution that guarantees that congress can make no law "abridging the freedom of speech". Errr....wait.....ummmmm. Well, I mean... except POLITICAL speech. I'm sure when they wrote the 1st amendment they didn't really mean political speech. I wonder why the supreme court just ignores this ?

Re:We are lucky......

[Duhavid (677874)]

Come come now.

Why would we want to reduce the rights of corporations to
merely those of "citizens"?

Re:We are lucky......

[imadork (226897)]

Citizens are human beings, born with certain inailenable rights. Corporations are not.

Steven Colbert's for the win

[PetriBORG (518266)]

I honestly hope Colbert wins in SC. The only better guy for president would be Jon Stewart!. Either of them would spank those Dem/Rep around in a debate until they cried.
Politics in the US is outright pathetic. That may sound crass - but really, where is the candidate that doesn't have a stick up his ass and his hand in the cookie jar.

Re:Steven Colbert's for the win

[Fear the Clam (230933)]

a stick up his ass and his hand in the cookie jar

Your fetishes interest me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

yeah but...

[microcars (708223)]

right now it is all "speculation" about his rather obvious "sponsorship" by DORITOS.

But what if they are not actually doing anything except "playing along" and agreeing to let him "pretend" to have a corporate sponsor?

And if they are indeed paying "something", what if they are paying it to THE COLBERT REPORT?

Why can't the media be this interested in real shenanigans going on in politics?

is it because "real" politics does not have TASTY DORITOS? They are delicious.

Guantanamo?

[Hal_Porter (817932)]

I'm in Kaffiristan so I don't know how things work in the USA. But is possible that he might be sent to Guantanamo Bay for this?

In my country someone made a joke about running against our President and he was sent the toxic waste mines. We love our President and do not want his good name to be besmirched by hoodlums. From what I can tell Mr Colbert has made many jokes about your President yet he has evaded the Secret Police.

Do such things happen in America now too? I don't know much about your country. I do know from watching American TV that crime is very bad there and people hire vigilantes like Robert McCall to scare off drug dealers who are menacing them. Here in our country we have no crime, since undesirables are worked to death in the mines. Why doesn't your President hire more policemen using aid money from the decadent imperialist west?

There is a great history of comedic candidates

[by Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulsen [wikipedia.org]

Pat Paulsen ran many times for President and even got some write-in votes. It's conceivable that Colbert could get a lot of protest votes.

I don't know the law well but there are some places where write in votes count. If that were the case here, Colbert could win without being on the ballot. That would be really funny. If you're not on the ballot, how can you be charged with campaign violations?

(Yes, I know about the Electoral College etc. etc.)

I think this is some great comedy

[jollyreaper (513215)]

What I really want to see him do is show up for a debate in South Carolina with so many sponsor patches on his dress suit that he looks like he races in NASCAR. He should invite the other candidates to do the same.

1.000.000?

[xirtap (955611)]

There is a big difference between 1,000,000 people and 1,000,000 Americans.

Re:Why Colbert?

[schmiddy (599730)]

The crazy thing is, I'd actually vote for Colbert, no qualms at all.. and I'm fairly serious about politics. (Watch his speech at the Bush dinner if you at all doubt his intelligence and capability). Even if some of the 'real' candidates look alright (Barack, say).. The last eight years have left me so disillusioned with politicians that I don't really trust any of them. Although I personally didn't support Bush in the least back in '00.. I could have in no way predicted that he'd be the power-hungry, numbskull, overarching leader he turned out to be. Sure his past was spotty (drugs, alcohol, some dumb decisions).. but not a whole lot worse than, say, your average college kid.

I'm reminded of a quote (can't find exact quote atm..) Anyone capable of being elected president doesn't deserve the title. Such is the state of money-dominated politics. I'd actually we randomly select a 'president' from a hat of all eligible citizens every six months or so — give 'em a short reign so they can't screw it up too badly.

Interestingly, I know some very bright guys doing research into randomized elections — basically you randomize the outcome somewhat to bypass the restrictions of Arrow's impossiblity theorem.

Douglas Adams

[Joce640k (829181)]

"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Douglas Adams.

Re:Why Colbert?

[sssssss27 (1117705)]

"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." - Plato

Re:Why Colbert?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745)]

"Wouldn't Jon Stewart be a better choice if you want one of the clowns to become president?"

Clowns? Perhaps you should take a look at the real presidential candidates before you call Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, "clowns".

I dare you to NOT find a clown running for president.

Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win.

[by Anonymous Coward]

How many non-rich people have been elected President in the last 250 years? The same people that succeed in their private endevours are the same people that succeed in politics because they have the connections and the ability to make them.

In a Republic, it is the business of every free citizen to participate. Most, however, do not. If you don't like it, participate. But that means more than just voting, and that means starting early. If you don't have a record of success, if you don't have the connections, you'll never make it. You can't blame people for succeeding when you don't.

Its tempting to think that some "normal" person can become President, but I'm not going to vote for a random IT worker or the town druggist for anything more than town council or congressman. Why? Because if they had the chops that it takes to be President, then they would have done more with their life than that. Everyone has to start somewhere, but you can't jump straight into the big game.

Re:And if it goes to court? He'll win.

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

For all their crimes, that's one thing Enron and Halliburton haven't done. They didn't offer a pension, just a retirement account match. In Enron's case, workers lost whatever they put into Enron stock, plus their match (which was given in stock).

If you want to complain about pension funds getting raided to pay for yachts, I'd like to direct your attention to:

-American car makers
-American steel makers
-American air carriers
-every state and local government pension fund
-the US Social Security system (I know, getting way off topic here)

All private companies listed above offered long-deferred compensation that they never bothered to fund in advance to actuarially-accurate levels, making them vulnerable to those expenses in the future. Because they got cheaper labor (by deferring part of workers' compensation) they were supposed to set aside a fund, but instead it was spent on dividends and bonuses. It is exactly as if I took out a giant business loan, paid it out as a dividend, and then complained about "legacy interest costs". Until recently, that was all with the blessing of the SEC.

In the case of the government agencies above, they take money that should be used to fully fund the obligations and instead spend it on present fads.