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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

When laws violate the Constitution, it means they must be challenged. This may be the perfect case for such a challenge.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm sure striking down laws allowing rich people to automatically win the election is for the good of the nation, and exactly what the Founders intended.

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

[aichpvee]

Not that I'd endorse what the GP said, but how is this all that different from what we have now?

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

[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.

[yesteraeon]

Here's my rebuttal: George W. Bush. Having a rich and powerful family is the only reason he is where is.

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

[Shakrai]

Here's my rebuttal: George W. Bush. Having a rich and powerful family is the only reason he is where is.

I'm kinda with the parent on this one. I have zero respect for GWB but being rich and/or powerful does not automatically make one evil. Is Warren Buffett evil?

I'll grant you that GWB wouldn't have made it past college without his family connections. To me that's somewhat anti-American. Americans aren't supposed to condone or support the concept of a permanent nobility. We fought a revolution to free ourselves from it. That's one of the reasons why I'm always amused when people whine about the estate tax.

People like Paris Hilton are rightfully despised because they've never accomplished anything on their own and the only reason they are famous is because of their parents. I doubt I'll ever be rich but should I happen to make the right choices in life and wind up rich and/or powerful I won't be leaving millions of dollars to my kids. They should find success on their own.

Re:

[Zaitor]

No thats wrong. Paris Hilton is famous because we all saw her get it in her "promo" video.

Re:

[NiceGeek]

Hate to tell you this but everyone knew who Paris Hilton was before that video also.

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

[Scrameustache]

I doubt I'll ever be rich but should I happen to make the right choices in life and wind up rich and/or powerful I won't be leaving millions of dollars to my kids. They should find success on their own.

Bill Gates is "only" giving his kids 10 million when they become adults, for those very reasons.
Although I could have sworn that he once said $640,000 ought to be enough for anybody...

Re:

[Attila Dimedici]

People like Paris Hilton are rightfully despised because they've never accomplished anything on their own and the only reason they are famous is because of their parents.

Do you really think the rich pay the estate tax. I have a friend that I went to high school and college with. His grandfather built a poultry business into a national company. My friend's father and uncle sold the business. They took the money and set up a trust (actually, I suspect that the trust owned the business). My friend receives a regular "allowance" from the trust. This is the same sort of set up that the Dupont's, Kennedy's, Rockefeller's, and Bush's have.
The fact of the matter is that the est

Re:

[kiatoa]

Sounds great. Now try to nail down "income" and try and collect 10% of it. Hint, look at US tax law. Taxing *income* is the problem. Try taxing something that isn't made by people and is relatively easy to measure. One good (IMHO) candidate is land. Some guy in the 18th century figured it all out. His name is Henry George. BTW taxing sales, bank transactions or flat taxes all have serious unintended consequences. Taxing land isn't perfect but it is about as equitable as you can get and it would *stimulate*

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

[h3llfish]

Warren Buffet is Satan himself! No, no, I kid. No human being is entirely good or evil. Even Hitler was sweet to his dogs. And as mega rich guys go, Buffet is one of the better ones, by far. I admire much about him, but let's not quite give him sainthood yet. While I certainly applaud many of the public stances he has taken, I think it's accurate to say that Buffet has been primarily motivated by desire for profit, and not by improving the life of his fellow human bings.

And in the quest for that profit, Buffet has been a part of some business ventures that aren't exactly wonderful. Buffet made lots of his money in insurance. My experience with insurance companies, and the overwhelming majority of anecdotal evidence that I've encountered, is that they are complete and utter bastards. The goal is always to deny the claim, not matter what. The insured then typically has to endure a bureaucratic nightmare trying to get the money that they rightfully are owed. So is that not evil?

Buffet also made a lot of money by owning Coca-Cola stock. I consider them to be pretty evil. They use a massive marketing budget to promote a product that is unhealthy and contributes massively to making the world overweight. So what's evil, if not profiting from the suffering of your fellow humans? Yeah, they're not exactly a tobacco company, but they're not really far off in my mind. To me, the Coca-Cola corporation exemplifies everything that is bad about American culture - fantastic marketing, no nutritional value.

And, to somewhat tie this rant back to the Colbert story, it's not like Buffet is a self-made man. He has far more in common with George W. Bush than he does with Colbert. Buffet is a child of privilege, like so many other rich people. His dad was in Congress. That's a nice head start in life. My dad is a meth dealer. So yeah, the playing field was not quite level there. Buffet had enough money to buy a gas station when he was 21. Did you? Me either. The Buffet worshipers should keep that in mind.

But to get back to the original poster's question: yes, rich people are all evil. As you get more and more rich, it's harder and harder to stay away from evil. I'll just quote my main man JC here: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".

What is so wonderful to me about Colbert's candidacy is how he is lampooning the system by becoming part of it. Yes, he faces some serious legal issues. And that's wonderful. He's gone into Andy Kaufman territory, where a big part of the joke is the fact that no one can be exactly certain where the joke ends. Colbert likes to say that he's in now way qualified, but is he really any less qualified than Fred Thompson? Or for that matter, Dubya? I'd bet a kidney that Colbert would beat Dubya on a teast covering basic knowledge of current events. Colbert a really sharp guy. Bush is not. So who is qualified?

One thing I could respect about Clinton was that whatever you could say about him, good or bad, he wasn't born with silver spoon in hand... he wasn't no Senator's son, no, no...

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

[Khaed]

Could anyone enlighten me as to a detail in the US law? Do you HAVE to be nominated to run, or would a simple majority of voters writing your name on the paper be considered a legal vote?

I'm not an election-law lawyer or expert, but: You do not have to be nominated to run, but it can be difficult getting your name on the ballot in states without a party backing you. It doesn't have to be Republican or Democrat; Libertarians regularly get their candidates on most state ballots as far as I am aware. I don't think Perot had a party backing him the second time.

As to the second part: If, in 2008, 51% of people in states making up at least 270 electoral votes voted for, say, Bill Gates, then he would be the legal winner, on a ballot or not. A vote is legal regardless of if the person has a party backing them. The person may not be legally eligible to be president however; you have to be 35 years old and a natural born citizen (plus a few other requirements, like spending the last five or ten years with the US as your primary residence, or something).

Anyone can run, and anyone over 35/natural citizen can actually be put in office. And I can legally vote for anyone I want, and the vote counts.

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

[UncleTogie]

And I can legally vote for anyone I want, and the vote counts.

...At least until the Electoral College [wikipedia.org] gets ahold of it...

Re:

[Elrond, Duke of URL]

You make some good points about the electors and who we as voters actually choose in an election, BUT...

You're wrong about getting Bill Clinton elected for a third term. Congress didn't just make a law about it, it's the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..."

Bourgeoisie? Mai non.....

[FireAtWill]

If the laws written by those with money and power are meant to benefit that same class then they must also, by necessity, benefit those who are making them wealthy and powerful. I was poor and non-powerful once, and still spent some of my Earned Income Credit on Doritos. Food Stamps too.

I'm actually warming up to the idea of corporate sponsorship of political candidates. "The Stephen Colbert Presidential Candidacy, brought to you by Doritos". Yeah, that has a nice ring. Political candidates have to seek approval, at most, once every couple of years. But Americans are voting with their dollars several times every day. They vote for who will be rich and powerful several times a day based not on what's philosphically agreeable to them, but on what they actually want - with a direct negative impact to their bank account. Political votes are free and voluntary. Capitalist votes (with dollars) are also voluntary, but not free. That's the beauty of capitalism - when a transaction is finalized, both parties say "Thank You" - because I wanted the Doritos more than I wanted the dollar, and they wanted the dollar more than they wanted the Doritos.

Mutually agreeable is a good thing, no?

So why not let those whom we've already voted into power have a large impact on elections?

Re:

[olyar]

Just because an institution is good at making delicious snacks doesn't mean they're competent or trustworthy enough to control - or even disproportionately influence - our entire political system.

And watery tarts distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

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

[billcopc]

Well then, Mr Coward, how is it any different from all the other self-serving bills put forth by various government officials "on behalf of" the deep pocketed corporations that lobby them ?

I mean, Halliburton is a nice, community-focused, law-abiding facilitator of world peace... rrright ?

What I like about Canada is up here, we have sponsorship scandals. In the states, it's just business as usual. I'm not saying the Canadian government is devoid of corruption, geez, we've got a bunch of asshats too! The thing is, when any law prohibits some activity, people find ways around that law. People with money are typically better equipped to find, establish and employ those workarounds. Me, law or no law, I couldn't get any TV show to promote my campaign because I'm a broke ass geek.

Most everything follows the same pattern... copy-protection: no-cd patches, DVD CSS: decrypters, Laws: loopholes. The reason they all fail is because of the human factor. People make them, and people will break them.

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

[bigpat]

Yeah, I'm sure striking down laws allowing rich people to automatically win the election is for the good of the nation, and exactly what the Founders intended.

Nothing in the current laws prevent rich people from using their own money... just look at Romney's campaign contributions to himself. So, really the laws in place ensure that only rich people (or those that got their campaign contributions before they started their campaign, in the form of salary or "speaking fees") can afford to run successfully.

Campaign finance reform is a barrier to entry to keep the parties in control of government.

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

[Khaed]

I always considered McCain-Feingold to be "incumbent protection."

When, in this election, they say you need 100 million to matter, it's pretty clear CFR failed miserably...

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

[Original Replica]

I'm sure striking down laws allowing rich people to automatically win the election is for the good of the nation,

Actually the laws have the inverse effect. Instead of a potentially good leader being backed by (and owe favors to...) one or two super rich people, we have been left with poor leaders who are excellent fund raisers and who owe favors to many many people.

One of the most appealing things about politicians like Bloomberg or Perot is their freedom to do the job without oweing any special favors. The same or better could be said about a candidate that was sponsored solely by a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Everyone would know that the was a connection between the two and special favors would be glaring obvious and embarrassing.

The way campaign funding works now, I have almost no idea who the candidates really owe. Sure I could track down the long lists of info if I so desired, but it's a very long list for each and every candidate. I also have very how to direct my daily purchasing in regards to political spending, ie. If I buy a pint of Ben and Jerry's is the profit fro that going to go into a Democratic election coffer? What about Snapple, I heard somewhere that they donate Republican. Regardless the politicians owe more favors because the must collect from more sources.

The rich people still give lots of money, and still have disproportionate political influence, but now it is filtered through a dozen different "Friends of..." and "Citizens for ..." groups. If campaign reforms worked at all the way they were intended, why have the candidates become ever less trustworthy and inspiring?

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

[damn_registrars]

The system is corrupt enough as it is. We don't need Pfizer/Mobil for 2012.

Yeah, because we didn't get Halliburton/Enron in 2000? Hell at least Doritos isn't stealing peoples pensions to buy enormous yachts (that we know of).

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

[UbuntuDupe]

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.

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

[damn_registrars]

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).
Even if Enron didn't offer a pension, they did cheat their employees out of their retirement. I say this because the big wigs at Enron knew about their impending collapse, and did not warn the employees. The executives knew that the company was horribly overvalued and heading for ruin, and let the employees take the fall.

So while in the most strict interpretation of the term "pension", you may be correct, the power players at Enron were certainly aware that they were screwing their underlings, and seemed to have no qualms about it.

Frankly, I'm just disappointed that the biggest of the big wigs died mysteriously (and quite conveniently) not long after being found guilty by a jury of his peers. Amazing how of course that meant his money was distributed to his family rather than to those from whom he cheated it out of.

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

[UbuntuDupe]

Even if Enron didn't offer a pension, they did cheat their employees out of their retirement. I say this because the big wigs at Enron knew about their impending collapse, and did not warn the employees.

Wait, Enron screwed over its employees because it didn't assist them them in illegal insider trading by dumping their stock onto some sucker before the financial weakness was public information?

No, Enron's employees fared much better than if their employer had offered a conventional pension. For one thing, if they chose to divert their 401(k) funds to any investment other than Enron stock (i.e. followed rudimentary diversification advice), they would have kept everthing short the company match (i.e. most of it). In a convetional pension, they either would have gotten nothing, or what the PBGC chose to award them from *other* workers' premiums.

The point is not that Enron's management was blameless, but that raiding a pension fund (i.e. withdrawing dedicated investment funds) is one crime they did not commit. And while I do feel for the the employees, we need to quit pretending they were passive bystanders in all of this. They thought they could make fast money and so ignored the boring diversification advice. Claiming that executives should say their own stock is overvalued, even if true, is unrealistic.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Wait, Enron screwed over its employees because it didn't assist them them in illegal insider trading by dumping their stock onto some sucker before the financial weakness was public information?

Enron had been cooking the books for some time before they collapsed. The powers in charge were concerned only about their own profits. If they'd have been forthcoming with their employees that the world was not all roses, they could have had a chance to get out without needing "illegal insider trading". Hell, some of them may have even had better chances at finding better jobs for companies that weren't morally and financially bankrupt, had they had even a slight amount of notice ahead of time.

They thought they could make fast money and so ignored the boring diversification advice.

Th

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

[kaladorn]

"They were told that their company was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sure, they could have sought advice from outside, but why should they expect their employers to be giving them a load of BS?" -- I don't mean to speak out of turn, but have you ever worked in any sort of industry that has any sort of sales, marketing, or human resources department? I'd guess not, if you'd ask such a question... The entire world these days is spin management. Optics internally and externally are key focus items. BS is just an unappealing characterization of the typical activity performed by many parts of corporate infrastructure - marketing, legal, communications, HR, etc. Caveat Emptor applies to any corporate pronouncements. Only the terminally naive expect anything different and they habitually end up on the short end of the stick.

Re:

[DavidTC]

Um, no.

Publically traded companies have an obligation to present accurate financial information. Not only to their employees, but to everyone.

Insider trading would be if they only gave accurate information to their employees. 'Not lying' to everyone is not insider trading.

Didn't you watch the show?

[SnoopJeDi]

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]

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]

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

Re:

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

"If a comedian wins president with a fake campaign and gets "in trouble", I'm moving to Canada." They are much funnier up there.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

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

WTF? Have you seen the other candidates? President Colbert winning in '08 is the only thing that could keep me from moving to Canada.

Re:COLBERT NATION!!

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

He said "comedian," not "joke."

Fox News illegal then?

[IamTheRealMike]

Well? Is it? They might not donate money but they donate 24/7 spectrum to the Reps propaganda, which has to be worth quite a lot ...

Re:

[advs89]

Oh yeah, and you don't think CNN and MSNBC is doing the same thing with the "Dems"??? Wake Up!

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

No, they really aren't. If they were they would have actually opposed the Iraq War like they should have.

Re:

[ScentCone]

No, they really aren't. If they were they would have actually opposed the Iraq War like they should have.

You're confused. The lefter-leaning networks have always backed the lefter-leaning candidates and their more centrest party-mates. They still do. That's not exactly surprising.

What seems to be slipping past you is the large number of Democrat politicians that did support going after Saddam's regime, and which today - right now - if asked about yanking troops out of a country that is being actively

Beat that strawman!

[khasim]

Iraq's infrastructure was completely in the dumps long before 2003.

So? It still worked better than what they have now.

The UN ... and plumbing.

So? It still worked better than what they have now.

You really think that the previous military and law enforcement regimes were bastions of just, and even-handed peacekeeping?

Who said that? Post a link.

If you cannot, then you're beating a strawman. Which means you've already lost the discussion.

You mean, like, in between burying non-Sunnis in mass graves, shooting at NATO aircraft ever week for years after signing a cease-fire that said they wouldn't, after invading a neighboring country?

So? Saddam couldn't even travel his own country without a body-double. He was constantly in danger of assassination.

So why are you defending the plight of the average Iraqi now ... because of something that Saddam did ... years ago ... that they probably did not support?

Saddam was executed. He's dead. Isn't it time you moved on instead of trying to blame him for the anarchy and warlordism that is Iraq today?

It wasn't Iran that did that, it was Saddam.

He's dead. He was executed. Yet the situation did not improve. Are you going to keep blaming Saddam for the current situation?

And now it's Iran's mullahs that don't want anything healthy, peaceful, and democratic thriving next door, since they know that that's exactly what most of their younger populat desparately want right there in their own country.

Then we should just wait until the "their younger populat" becomes the government in 20 or so years.

And so we have Iran shipping troops, explosives, cash, and more aross the border in an attempt, via badly painted proxies, to prevent things from productively moving ahead.

They can ship all they want. Without Iraqi support, it would go no where.

The problem you don't want to face is that the Iraqi people do not seem to want our troops there. They're happy to attack them.

Are you actually under the impression that Iran is just a warm and fuzzy neighbor that only wants to help out, now that their poor Sunni tyrant next door is out of power, and, alas, as dead as the millions of people that died when he started a war with Iran, too? Yeesh.

Again with the strawman. Is that all you have?

No matter how bad Iraq was, our invasion fucked it up even worse.

No matter how much the Iraqis hated Saddam and/or Iran, they prefer them to us.

No matter how much we spend (lives and money) in Iraq, when we leave it will be a civil war.

No matter how we re-define "victory", Iraq will end up with a Sharia-based legal system and strong ties to Iran.

You can blame anyone you want to. But all you're doing is trying to hide from the fact that you supported a fucked up invasion and the result is a lot more death and misery than Saddam inflicted. Yes, it is possible to say Saddam was a vicious 3rd world tin-pot dictator ... and that our invasion was WORSE for the average Iraqi than that.

Re:

[LurkerXXX]

'm always confused when people say this. You really think if we reinstated the draft and raised taxes to WWII levels we couldn't get that country in line?

Apparently you are very confused if you think we could make everything 'ok' by just putting in a massive force.

The people there don't want us there. You can't win the hearts and minds of the people just by putting in a massive force. They will keep going supporting snipers, etc, hiding among them and take any opportunity to kill off our more massive forc

Re:Fox News illegal then?

[msuarezalvarez]

For quite awhile they did... MSNBC still does... CNN has wised up (in my opinion) and is beginning to support it...

So you are saying that CNN, after everything that's happened now is supporting the whole debacle? Are they believing now in the existence of the famous mass destruction weapons, too?

The US would be quite entertaining, had it not such an influence on everyone else...

Re:Fox News illegal then?

[sheldon]

It's about instability and anarchy in Iraq, and a heavy terrorist presence funded by the Iranian government.

This is a self-enforcing prophecy. You claim that we need to help with the instability by leaving troops there, which further increases the instability... We could be there 50 years, and that will not change.

Courage would involve doing something different, not following the same old methodology that has been proven a failure.

Re:

[MyLongNickName]

Rirelobql xabjf gung EBG-13 vf gur yrnfg frpher rapelcgvba rire, ohg jbhyq lbh jnfgr lbhe gvzr npghnyyl qrpelcgvat vg???

Orpnhfr V pna!

He Knows This

[bazald]

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]

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]

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

[dangitman]

More like people dying in the streets because they can't afford healthcare or other social services. I heard Ron Paul interviewed, and his views seem to be based on total naivete. His heart seems to be in the right place, but he hasn't thought his position through. His argument for opposing government healthcare was basically "Back in my day, doctors would treat people for free if they couldn't afford to pay. Things were much better then." That's just not going to happen in a corporate-run system - there's no way a few kind-hearted doctors are going to cope with the sheer number of people needing free treatment. We don't live in the nostalgic small-town world of his memories anymore, and we probably didn't back then - at least not in the way he remembers it.

Re:

[Wildclaw]

Randomocracy is a very nice idea in my opinion. It is a combination of direct democracy and statistics.

Also, while the average person may not be the brightest, they aren't that much worse than most politicians. If anything, I think that a random selection of common people have a larger knowledge and experience base than a random selection of politicians.

Actually listening to politicians, it is obvious that they aren't brighter than the average person. Or do you think that saying that "The internet is a seri

Re:He Knows This

[Seumas]

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]

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]

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]

Come come now.

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

Re:

[Keebler71]

why shouldn't they? They are taxed separately than the individuals they embody so shouldn't they be represented as well? Or do you believe in taxation without representation? They are part of the economy, they are taxed, they are regulated, they are subject to laws. How exactly are they different?

Re:We are lucky......

[imadork]

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

Re:

[daigu]

Unfortunately, the law doesn't make that particular distinction. In some countries, corporations have the same rights as human beings and in others, so long as they are performing certain legal functions - they are also considered the same as human beings. I believe the term is juristic person.

Re:We are lucky......

[Alsee]

[Bill Gate's secretary walks in with an odd expression]
[Bill] What's that?
[Secretary] A Jury Duty notice.
[Bill] Crap. Ok, get me a substitute secretary before you go.
[Secretary] It's not for me.
[Bill] Oh? Oh! Double crap! I've got better things to do with my time than...
[Secretary interrupts] It's not for you either.
[Bill] Huh? Then who the hell *IS* it for?
[Secretary] Microsoft.

-

Re:

[notamisfit]

A corporation is merely a group of individuals acting in a common interest. They have about as many First Amendment rights as, say, the RNC or MoveOn.org.

Re:

[ScentCone]

Which, BTW I consider one of the most tragic things to happen to America in the last 100 years.

Which is more tragic: you get the permit to make use of a facility such as a convention center to hold a political event for you and your fellows, pay to make sure that police and rescue people are on hand to keep entrance and exit from the building safe, and then anyone with a length of chain or a giant puppet gets to shut down your event? Or, you get to exercise your First Amendment Rights just like anyone wh

Re:

[Alsee]

You know, it's funny how we got along just fine without FreeSpeechZones before Der Fuhrer came to power.

I don't give a shit if it's a Bush motorcade or a Clinton motorcade. It is CRIMINAL for the gestapo to round up peaceful law-abiding people from the public sidewalks and lock them in cages simply because they are wearing a T-shirt that says [Democrats/Republicans] Suck!

At MINIMUM such behavior by badge-wearing speech-police thugs should result in devastating civil suit awards against the government, big e

Oh come on..

[gQuigs]

Did you watch the episode where he clearly differentiated between himself as the host and the candidate. He even drew a line in the middle of the screen :). He will not cross said line.

Re:

[Kamineko]

So there's two 'Stephen Colbert' characters: 'Stephen Colbert' the host of the Colbert Report, and 'Stephen Colbert' the presidential candidate? And they're played by Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert respectively?

Crikey.

Steven Colbert's for the win

[PetriBORG]

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:

[Colin Smith]

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.

Here [ronpaul2008.com]

 

Re:

[PetriBORG]

Heh.
Already well aware of him, I'm not a registered republican so I can vote for him in the primary, but if he makes it to the main election he'll get mine. Of course thats a snowballs chance in hell.
What would be interesting is if candidates had to to answer a series of questions to honestly indicate where on they really fell, something like the political compass test. [politicalcompass.org]

Re:Steven Colbert's for the win

[Fear the Clam]

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

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

Getting into debates

[FleaPlus]

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.

Heh, I'd love to watch this as well. I was curious about what the requirements were to get into the debates, so I did a little googling. I can't find the criteria for the 2008 Presidential election (which are presumably pretty different, considering a number of the candidates in the debate don't meet the criteria below), but for curiosity's sake here's the criteria used in the the 2004 election debates:

http://debates.org/pages/candsel2004.html [debates.org]

* Evidence of Constitutional Eligibility: yup, Colbert's >35 years old and is a natural born citizen (born in DC, actually)

* Evidence of Ballot Access: he needs to get on enough state ballots to be able to theoretically win the election (270 electoral votes). I'm not familiar with the requirements for each state, but I imagine this could be tricky.

* Indicators of Electoral Support: He needs to poll at least 15% nationally. He's already polling ahead of Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. He also got 13% in polls which pitted him against Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani [rasmussenreports.com].

Re:

[Romancer]

Stopped reading at "shove it" since children aren't worth the time obviously.

Re:

[dangitman]

I don't want you to assume anything about my claim. I'd like you to critically evaluate it, asking questions if necessary.

Ok, here's my evaluation: The comment about "subverting the left" didn't make any sense.

Here's my question: What, exactly, did you mean by that?

You go on to write a bunch of weasel words, and avoid simply addressing the issues directly and clarifying your statement. That's not very useful. So, please tell us what you meant.

Re:

[PetriBORG]

The purpose of TDS and TCR is not to be a real news show, but to make really clear the stupid stuff that takes away the integrity of real news shows. Similarly, the purpose of this campaign is not to be a real campaign, but to expose the corruption and falseness of real political campaigns.

I agree actually with you, that their point is to expose the corruption etc.

If he actually does win, it will only go to show that nobody gets his point, but that they're just a slightly different bunch of sheeple.

What I don't think you understand is that a lot of people view a vote for SC or JS as a vote against the corruption and normal BS of this process. Consider that while they are doing their show to be funny, they are also showing themselves to be extremely intelligent and personable people capable of possibly leading. Watching JS rip those the guys to pieces on crossfire or even the extremely direct questions to Pres. Bill Clinton a

yeah but...

[microcars]

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.

Re:yeah but...

[Lane Rendell]

Maybe his first act as president will be to ask Congress to make Dorritos the national chip? It would be more productive than what Congress is doing at the moment...

Re:

[MSTCrow5429]

Congress is most productive when it's out of session.

Guantanamo?

[Hal_Porter]

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?

Re:

[jamar0303]

Is your name-a Borat? No wait, that's Kazakhstan. But bet you have a house-cow all the same.

Re:

[SailorSpork]

Ahh, the difference is that in your case you love your President. In our country, the office of President is reserved for the most embarrassing individual we can find to distract the rest of the world while various 3 letter organizations actually do the dirty work. Mr. Colbert would fit the bill perfectly, and as the "Doritos President of the United States" he would lead us into a new era of corporations openly buying political favors, instead of the current methods of indirectly purchasing political favo

at least we know where colbert's money came from!

[DragonTHC]

We know where his money came from.
Where is Hillary getting all that dough?
Where is twit romney getting all that dough?
Where is cross-dresser Judy Guiliani getting all that dough?

obviously not from "People".

Those "People" who support the republican candidates usually can't afford to feed their own family.

Corporations and the military industrial complex get republicans and hillaries elected.

Re:at least we know where colbert's money came fro

[Voltageaav]

Hillary was on the board of directors for Wal-mart. Romney was the CEO of Bain & Company. Giuliani founded Giuliani Partners, a security consulting business and is a partner of Bracewell & Giuliani, a law firm.

There is a great history of comedic candidates

[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.)

His only choice will be to win

[Junior J. Junior III]

If he wins, then it does not matter what illegal actions he has taken to win. The last two elections have established this sufficiently in legal precedence.

I thought it was the other way around

[edwardpickman]

I thought taking money from corporate sources was okay, big oil, defense contractors, etc, it's taking money from average Americans that's illegal? If he's taking money from Doritos all that will happen is instead of former oil men running the EPA we'll get junk food reps running the FDA.

Re:

[jamstar7]

And the problem (other than to my chloresterol level) with this is???

Might as well make medical school criminal for MDs

[MSTCrow5429]

How can it be criminal to run for a position for which every previous holder has to some degree or another, with cognizance, committed violence against the US Constitution?

I think this is some great comedy

[jollyreaper]

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]

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

Re:

[RelliK]

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

Let me guess: people are civilized?

Re:1.000.000?

[jalefkowit]

To be precise, the 1,000,000 Americans weigh twice as much.

Re:1.000.000?

[Alsee]

And twice as many of them ain't descended from no monkeys.

-

Protest Vote

[OldSoldier]

When I first heard of Colbert's run I thought it was a brilliant way to stage a protest vote. I believe (like apparently Steward and Colbert do) that the majority of Americans are much more in the reasonable middle than either the Democrats or the Republicans. If he were to get a "significant" vote in both the Democratic Primary AND the Republican Primary in South Carolina then hopefully the parties will realize how far on the fringe they BOTH are.

Unfortunately, even if Colbert is successful at this I do not believe the Dems or the Repubs(?) will have any sort of awakening. Regardless though... this seems to be a protest vote. Is there any sort of legal president for protest votes? If so, is it possible that protest votes may run afoul of the FEC?

Re:

[jellie]

My impression is that Stewart and Colbert are slightly liberal (both are self-described Democrats; Stewart says he is probably "more of a socialist or an independent" [cnn.com] and Colbert "admits to being a Democrat" [washingtonpost.com].) I don't think they necessarily believe that the majority of Americans are moderates, but rather that the majority is more intelligent than the politicians make them out to be. That is, they want politicians to be direct and honest, and not hide behind stupid photo ops or make blatant lies. I think the

Precedent in 1981 French presidential elections

[stephdau]

Coluche (1944-1986), a cult French Comedian, tried to pull this off in 1980, for the 1981 French presidential elections. Everybody started to get freaked out when he actually showed up with 16% of intended votes in the polls...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coluche#Presidential_bid [wikipedia.org]

Truthiness

[naoursla]

My gut tells me it is not illegal.

So

[kurtis25]

So Might Hillary's! it's funny cause it's true

Re:

[Deltaspectre]

You're looking at the wrong group then, the one I'm in is at http://ksu.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7406420086 [facebook.com]

It has 1,092,360 members.

Re:Why Colbert?

[schmiddy]

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]

"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]

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

Re:

[jamstar7]

Oh hell no. Kilby [imdb.com] by a landslide.

Re:Why Colbert?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

"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:I hope he doesn't run serously.

[bladesjester]

With regard to the entry you linked to - ever notice how almost no candidate actually acts on the platform that they speak so much about during an election?

Now, with that in mind, why do you actually buy into what a candidate says their platform is? Looking at their past actions is much *much* more indicative of their actions if they actually get the office they are running for,

Re:

[evil_aar0n]

You mean those voting Republican or Democrat?