Colbert's Super PAC Add

Thrilla said:

I support Colbert's SuperPAC..

but then again, i'm not scared of the CU decision, and i'm not scared of our freedom of speech.... pretty goddamn sad that so many people are, though.

Click to expand...

CU doesn't deal with the free speech of humans.

Thrilla said:

I support Colbert's SuperPAC..

but then again, i'm not scared of the CU decision, and i'm not scared of our freedom of speech.... pretty goddamn sad that so many people are, though.

Click to expand...

I'm mystified by people who can't see the problem here. I mean, we all have the freedom to buy stuff that isn't illegal, right? If I have the cash and the will, there's no law against me going out and buying a million dollars in gold coins. No one would dispute that. But it becomes problematic if I buy the gold coins and then give them to a candidate who's running for public office ... even if I say I'm just doing it out of the goodness of my own heart. Is it less problematic if, instead of giving the gold coins directly to the candidate, I give them to candidate PAC which is going to turn around and use them to get the candidate elected?

AdamT said:

The decision doesn't say it directly. The REASONING in the decision leads to that conclusion, as lower courts have stated.

Va. judge rules against U.S. ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates - The Washington Post

Click to expand...

False.

CU clearly states its logic has nothing to do with personhood.

AdamT said:

I'm mystified by people who can't see the problem here. I mean, we all have the freedom to buy stuff that isn't illegal, right? If I have the cash and the will, there's no law against me going out and buying a million dollars in gold coins. No one would dispute that. But it becomes problematic if I buy the gold coins and then give them to a candidate who's running for public office ... even if I say I'm just doing it out of the goodness of my own heart. Is it less problematic if, instead of giving the gold coins directly to the candidate, I give them to candidate PAC which is going to turn around and use them to get the candidate elected?

Click to expand...

To express your opinion about a candidate, even if you spend money to advertise that opinion, is not giving the candidate anything. It's expressing your opinion. If speaking about the candidate helps (or hurts) him, that's fine. That's the POINT, in fact. It's not corrupt to speak your mind about a candidate. It's ridiculous to say that.

AdamT said:

Here's the classic blunder in Citizens United:

"...this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. , 556 U. S. ___, distinguished. Pp. 40–45. (emphasis added; this is from the syllabus -- not the decision proper).

Anyone who doesn't think that these massive anonymous contributions to super PACs create the appearance of influence or access, raise your hand. :roll:

Click to expand...

Hand raised.

Speech is not corruption.

AdamT said:

The decision doesn't say it directly. The REASONING in the decision leads to that conclusion, as lower courts have stated.

Va. judge rules against U.S. ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates - The Washington Post

Click to expand...

The judge's ruling in this lower case doesn't change what CU says. The judge didn't say "corporations are people" he said there is no distinction when it comes to rights - in other words, it doesn't matter. Rights are not limited to individuals. Groups of people have them too, even groups that are incorporated.

The bottom line is this: the First Amendment doesn't protect people, or corporations - it protects speech. The source is irrelevant to that.

Swit said:

I don't understand.... Misterman, are you claiming that there is no such legal conception of Corporate Personhood (i.e. a legal person under the law although not a natural person), or are you just pointing out that the words never appeared in this particular decision?

Click to expand...

I'm saying they never appeared in this decision and are not part of this decision.

The decision simply said that it doesn't matter what the source of the speech is or whether it's a person or not, it's still protected.

The idea that only people have rights is silly anyway. That would mean political parties, non-profit groups, churches or news media outlets have no rights. It would even mean that groups that want to overturn the CU decision don't have the right to say so!

AdamT said:

Here's the classic blunder in Citizens United:

"...this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. , 556 U. S. ___, distinguished. Pp. 40–45. (emphasis added; this is from the syllabus -- not the decision proper).

Anyone who doesn't think that these massive anonymous contributions to super PACs create the appearance of influence or access, raise your hand. :roll:

Click to expand...

Tell me, AdamT - is any speech about a candidate that involves using money to broadcast it corrupt? That's what you are saying. If you buy a bumper sticker supporting a candidate, that would be corruption, according to you.

misterman said:

Tell me, AdamT - is any speech about a candidate that involves using money to broadcast it corrupt? That's what you are saying. If you buy a bumper sticker supporting a candidate, that would be corruption, according to you.

Click to expand...

Any argument, taken to the extreme, is absurd. That's what you want to do with free speech.

So let's be clear: no one is arguing that political advertising isn't speech. No one is arguing that speech isn't protected. The argument is that free speech is not limitless. The government can regulate speech when it has a compelling reason to do so. Stopping government corruption is a compelling reason. Obviously the bigger the expenditure is, the greater the possibility of corruption becomes. If someone puts a bumper sticker on their car, is there a realistic chance that that act could cause a politician to do favors for the owner of the car? Of course not. Thus there's no compelling reason to regulate that kind of speech. OTOH, if a casino owner spends $20 million to get his man elected, is there a realistic chance that his man would feel obligated to do the casino owner some favors once he got elected? Of course. Thus there is a compelling reason to regulate *that* kind of speech.

AdamT said:

Any argument, taken to the extreme, is absurd. That's what you want to do with free speech.

Click to expand...

How so?

So let's be clear: no one is arguing that political advertising isn't speech. No one is arguing that speech isn't protected. The argument is that free speech is not limitless.

Click to expand...

Okay. So where do you get that idea? The First Amendment says nothing about limits. In fact, the idea that there can be a LIMIT on something is exactly opposite to the idea that it is FREE. If it is limited, it's not free.

The government can regulate speech when it has a compelling reason to do so. Stopping government corruption is a compelling reason.

Click to expand...

And that is where you drift into absurdity. The idea that speech can be corruption - for the only reason that it happens to help a politician - is ridiculous.

Obviously the bigger the expenditure is, the greater the possibility of corruption becomes. If someone puts a bumper sticker on their car, is there a realistic chance that that act could cause a politician to do favors for the owner of the car? Of course not. Thus there's no compelling reason to regulate that kind of speech.

Click to expand...

So how much is too much, Adam? And how do you know? What's the dollar figure for allowable speech?

OTOH, if a casino owner spends $20 million to get his man elected, is there a realistic chance that his man would feel obligated to do the casino owner some favors once he got elected? Of course. Thus there is a compelling reason to regulate *that* kind of speech.

Click to expand...

Rick Perry just endorsed New Gingrich. That benefits Newt a great deal, and it might easily cause Newt to do Perry a favor.

Should Perry be hauled of to jail for that speech?

If a politician does a favor for someone who dared to exercise his right to speak in favor of him, and spend money doing it, the voters can judge that as much as they judge all the other things he does and all the other favors he doles out.

You can't limit speech. Period. Get used to it.

misterman said:

Okay. So where do you get that idea? The First Amendment says nothing about limits. In fact, the idea that there can be a LIMIT on something is exactly opposite to the idea that it is FREE. If it is limited, it's not free.

Click to expand...

I get that from over 200 years of Supreme Court precedent. Google "strict scrutiny".

And that is where you drift into absurdity. The idea that speech can be corruption - for the only reason that it happens to help a politician - is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

That is a shockingly naive view. Politicians need money, and lots of it, to get and keep their jobs. It's been estimated candidates and PACs in this presidential election will spend THREE BILLION DOLLARS. If someone gave you a gift of $20 million, are you telling me that you would feel no reciprocal obligation? Of course you would. That's human nature. Now, you know what that donor wants from you, even if he hasn't come right and asked for it, and you know that he might give you another boat load of cash if you vote his way. The potential for corruption is obvious.

So how much is too much, Adam? And how do you know? What's the dollar figure for allowable speech?

Click to expand...

That's a difficult question, because even relatively small contributions can be (and are) bundled by someone with a specific agenda. That's why I favor 100% public funding of elections. That would remove the major source of corruption in our system AND it would free politicians from having to spend so much time begging for cash ... and they spend a HUGE amount of time and effort fundraising.

Rick Perry just endorsed New Gingrich. That benefits Newt a great deal, and it might easily cause Newt to do Perry a favor.

Should Perry be hauled of to jail for that speech?

Click to expand...

No, there should be no limit on individual endorsements. If Perry's endorsement is helpful to Gingrich it would only be because people respect Perry's opinion. And obviously it's very transparent.

If a politician does a favor for someone who dared to exercise his right to speak in favor of him, and spend money doing it, the voters can judge that as much as they judge all the other things he does and all the other favors he doles out.

Click to expand...

That's certainly not the case now. Under present law donors can hide their identity so there is absolutely no way to know if a politician is acting in his or her constituents best interest or in a donor's best interest. Making all donations completely transparent would be a big step in the right direction, but not big enough to solve the problem. Realistically, most voters don't have time to pour through a politicians campaign finance documents to sniff out every possible conflict of interest.

You can't limit speech. Period. Get used to it.

Click to expand...

Of course you can. The Supreme Court has made that very clear in any number of situations. Why do you think there are strict dollar limits on direct contributions to campaigns?

AdamT said:

I get that from over 200 years of Supreme Court precedent. Google "strict scrutiny".

Click to expand...

Strict scrutiny favors MY view on EVERY single legal issue in this thread!

That is a shockingly naive view. Politicians need money, and lots of it, to get and keep their jobs. It's been estimated candidates and PACs in this presidential election will spend THREE BILLION DOLLARS. If someone gave you a gift of $20 million, are you telling me that you would feel no reciprocal obligation? Of course you would. That's human nature. Now, you know what that donor wants from you, even if he hasn't come right and asked for it, and you know that he might give you another boat load of cash if you vote his way. The potential for corruption is obvious.

Click to expand...

I didn't say a politician would never feel they owed a favor to someone who spoke well of him. I said it doesn't matter. You can't use that as an excuse to take away a fundamental right. There will always be favors owed for all kinds of reasons. That's not corruption, it's just politics. To say that we need to stop people from talking about candidates because, God forbid, they might appreciate it is ridiculous. It completely tears down freedom of speech and our democratic system.

That's a difficult question, because even relatively small contributions can be (and are) bundled by someone with a specific agenda. That's why I favor 100% public funding of elections. That would remove the major source of corruption in our system AND it would free politicians from having to spend so much time begging for cash ... and they spend a HUGE amount of time and effort fundraising.

Click to expand...

But this has nothing to do with that.

This is about people spending money, on their own, to speak. Not candidates spending money.

So I ask again: how much is too much speech? Give me a dollar figure.

No, there should be no limit on individual endorsements. If Perry's endorsement is helpful to Gingrich it would only be because people respect Perry's opinion. And obviously it's very transparent.

Click to expand...

But how is it any different than spending money? Perry is giving Gingrich something of value to his campaign, and Gingrich might owe him a favor for it. That's corruption according to you.

That's certainly not the case now. Under present law donors can hide their identity so there is absolutely no way to know if a politician is acting in his or her constituents best interest or in a donor's best interest. Making all donations completely transparent would be a big step in the right direction, but not big enough to solve the problem. Realistically, most voters don't have time to pour through a politicians campaign finance documents to sniff out every possible conflict of interest.

Click to expand...

They don't need to. Why should voters care that someone gets a favor? The only question is what is done. If Obama shoots down an oil pipeline, they should judge that based on whether they favor or oppose the pipeline, not whether he's doing it to help or hurt someone.

Of course you can. The Supreme Court has made that very clear in any number of situations. Why do you think there are strict dollar limits on direct contributions to campaigns?

Click to expand...

Direct contributions are not speech. The Supreme Court has approved of limits on contributions, but struck down limits on spending on speech. The distinction is very clear.

misterman said:

Strict scrutiny favors MY view on EVERY single legal issue in this thread!

Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't. It demolishes your argument that there can be NO exceptions to free speech.

I didn't say a politician would never feel they owed a favor to someone who spoke well of him. I said it doesn't matter. You can't use that as an excuse to take away a fundamental right. There will always be favors owed for all kinds of reasons. That's not corruption, it's just politics. To say that we need to stop people from talking about candidates because, God forbid, they might appreciate it is ridiculous. It completely tears down freedom of speech and our democratic system.

Click to expand...

No, buying favors isn't "just politics". It is the definition of corruption. It is under the counter bribery. It results in public officials spending taxpayer money for personal gain. If you don't think it happens every day then you aren't living in the real world.

This is about people spending money, on their own, to speak. Not candidates spending money.

Click to expand...

Oh for ****s sake, would you pull your head out of the sand? These gigantic contributions aren't speech -- they are INVESTMENTS. Why do you think Goldman Sachs gives money to essentially EVERY candidate on BOTH sides of the aisle? Here's a hint: it's not because they want to trumpet their support for every single candidate. It's because they want to pull the winner's strings when he gets in office.

So I ask again: how much is too much speech? Give me a dollar figure.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as too much speech. There is such a thing as too much influence peddling. As for a dollar figure, I would accept the limits currently upheld by the SC, if they couldn't be bundled.

But how is it any different than spending money? Perry is giving Gingrich something of value to his campaign, and Gingrich might owe him a favor for it. That's corruption according to you.

Click to expand...

Like I said above, you have to view things realistically. The threat of corruption from an endorsement is not compelling. There isn't much Gingrich can do for Perry that wouldn't immediately draw public notice. So yes, it's not qualitatively different, but it is quite different in degree.

They don't need to. Why should voters care that someone gets a favor? The only question is what is done. If Obama shoots down an oil pipeline, they should judge that based on whether they favor or oppose the pipeline, not whether he's doing it to help or hurt someone.

Click to expand...

Are you serious? Why should voters care if their representative is being paid off? They should care because a paid off representative is representing someone else's interests and not theirs! Certainly in a perfect world voters would be able to make that judgment, but this is the REAL world, where 99% of what legislators do isn't known to the voters. Hell, most voters cant even NAME their own representative, let alone say what he's doing from day to day. That's why we need these protections; because this isn't a Platonic world of perfect knowledge.

Direct contributions are not speech. The Supreme Court has approved of limits on contributions, but struck down limits on spending on speech. The distinction is very clear.

Click to expand...

In this case the SC is splitting hairs and ignoring, or simply ignorant of the way things work in the real world. There is no practical difference between contributing to a campaign and contributing to a super PAC that supports a campaign.

AdamT said:

Of course it doesn't. It demolishes your argument that there can be NO exceptions to free speech.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to say there are no exceptions. I'm saying yours is not one of them. Not even close.

No, buying favors isn't "just politics". It is the definition of corruption. It is under the counter bribery. It results in public officials spending taxpayer money for personal gain. If you don't think it happens every day then you aren't living in the real world.

Click to expand...

But by your incredibly broad definition of corruption, doing ANYTHING that helps a candidate is corruption! That's ridiculous!

Oh for ****s sake, would you pull your head out of the sand? These gigantic contributions aren't speech -- they are INVESTMENTS. Why do you think Goldman Sachs gives money to essentially EVERY candidate on BOTH sides of the aisle? Here's a hint: it's not because they want to trumpet their support for every single candidate. It's because they want to pull the winner's strings when he gets in office.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what their motivation is. It's protected by the Constitution. Period. And you or the government must stay out if and let the people judge.

There is no such thing as too much speech. There is such a thing as too much influence peddling.

Click to expand...

And speech is not influence peddling.

You can't just go defining stuff however you want.

As for a dollar figure, I would accept the limits currently upheld by the SC, if they couldn't be bundled.

Click to expand...

No such limits are accepted by the SC, that was the point of Citizens United.

So YOU tell me what the limits on speech should be, and why.

Like I said above, you have to view things realistically.

Click to expand...

Like hell I do. You have to view things constitutionally though.

The threat of corruption from an endorsement is not compelling. There isn't much Gingrich can do for Perry that wouldn't immediately draw public notice. So yes, it's not qualitatively different, but it is quite different in degree.

Click to expand...

Bull****. It's no different. You just didn't consider it because you are obsessed with money. If it involves money, it must be corrupt. Well, it's not that simple.

Are you serious? Why should voters care if their representative is being paid off? They should care because a paid off representative is representing someone else's interests and not theirs!

Click to expand...

I didn't say "paid off" - you did. I said favor. And that could apply to anything. If you go out and volunteer for a candidate, and he does you favor, is that corruption?

Certainly in a perfect world voters would be able to make that judgment, but this is the REAL world, where 99% of what legislators do isn't known to the voters.

Click to expand...

Um, no, that's not the real world.

Hell, most voters cant even NAME their own representative, let alone say what he's doing from day to day. That's why we need these protections; because this isn't a Platonic world of perfect knowledge.

Click to expand...

No, we don't need the government to restrict speech because people don't know enough about politics! And we certainly don't need it because voters are too lazy to go look up their own rep's name.

In this case the SC is splitting hairs and ignoring, or simply ignorant of the way things work in the real world. There is no practical difference between contributing to a campaign and contributing to a super PAC that supports a campaign.

Click to expand...

There's a gigantic difference.

In this case the SC is splitting hairs and ignoring, or simply ignorant of the way things work in the real world. There is no practical difference between contributing to a campaign and contributing to a super PAC that supports a campaign.

Click to expand...

There's a gigantic difference.

Click to expand...

How is it a gigantic difference? In both cases it's contributing money that's going to be spent on advertizing to elect a candidate.

Good for business, too.

Two-thirds of American small business leaders believe the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case handed down two years ago on January 21 hurts small companies.

In fact, only nine percent of small business leaders thought the ruling positive, according to an independent national survey of 500 small business leaders released today by the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance and Small Business Majority.

The survey also found that 88 percent of small business owners hold a negative view of the role money plays in politics, with 68 percent viewing it very negatively. [...]

“As we approach the two-year anniversary of the Citizens United case, the verdict is loud and clear: the ruling hurts the small businesses that we need to be strong for economic recovery,” said David Levine, executive director of the American Sustainable Business Council. “Business owners are frustrated because they have to compete with big business bank accounts to be heard, and they are fighting back.”

Click to expand...

People who live in the real world understand what this is about.

http://mainstreetalliance.org/wp-co.../Release-smallbusinesspoll-CitizensUnited.pdf

AdamT said:

How is it a gigantic difference? In both cases it's contributing money that's going to be spent on advertizing to elect a candidate.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with money spent to advertise to elect a candidate?

The difference is that one is money going to a candidate, the other is someone spending money to express their free speech. Huge difference.

People who live in the real world understand what this is about.

Click to expand...

Lame. Do you have a real argument?

Now, regarding the "corporations are people" thing, here's a good article that talks about that:

Unfortunately, the most prevalent critique of the decision — Corporations are not people! — is simplistic and dangerous. Many anti-corporate activists are coalescing their efforts around a proposed constitutional amendment saying that constitutional protections are intended only for “natural persons.” The amendment has been introduced in both chambers of Congress, and nearly 50 municipalities, including New York and Los Angeles, have endorsed it. Opponents of corporate power have announced plans to stage protests, or “Occupy the Courts,” including the Supreme Court, on Friday.

These efforts squander the energy of thousands of Americans on a potential remedy founded on a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional law. Citizens United did not hold corporations to be persons, and the court has never said corporations deserve all the constitutional rights of humans. The Fifth Amendment’s right to be free from self-incrimination, for example, does not extend to corporations.


In fact, saying corporations are not persons is as irrelevant to constitutional analysis as saying that Tom Brady does not putt well in handicapping the NFL playoffs. The Constitution protects the rights of various groups and institutions — whether Planned Parenthood, Bob Jones University or the AFL-CIO — though they are not “natural persons.” Humans gather themselves in groups, for public and private ends, and sometimes it makes constitutional sense to protect the group as distinct from its constituent humans.

Click to expand...

‘Citizens United’: A Supreme Court decision that is widely misunderstood - The Washington Post

misterman said:

What's wrong with money spent to advertise to elect a candidate?

The difference is that one is money going to a candidate, the other is someone spending money to express their free speech. Huge difference.

Lame. Do you have a real argument?

Click to expand...

Well, I think we're just going over the same ground and you just refuse to acknowledge the problem, but I'll give it one more go. The problem with individuals and corporations spending large sums of money on behalf of a candidate is that it corrupts the political process by creating, at the very least, the appearance of a quid pro quo situation where the politician becomes obligated to the person or corporation who has spent all that money. That creates a conflict of interest whereby the politician is representing the interests of the donor rather than his or her constituents. Obviously our system is not intended to work that way. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents -- not whoever spends the most money to get them reelected.

We can't discuss this if you refuse to even acknowledge the problem. There might be a discussion if you would at least face the fact that it IS a problem, but maybe you don't think it's serious enough to infringe on free speech ... in any way, shape, or form.

I wonder how far you're willing to go with this? Would it be acceptable to you if a lobbyist for ToxiCorp handed a Senator a briefcase containing $1 million in non-sequential, unmarked bills for the express purpose of obtaining an EPA waiver to pump waste into Potable Springs Acquifer? Wouldn't that "donation" just be considered speech according to your logic?

AdamT said:

Well, I think we're just going over the same ground and you just refuse to acknowledge the problem, but I'll give it one more go. The problem with individuals and corporations spending large sums of money on behalf of a candidate is that it corrupts the political process by creating, at the very least, the appearance of a quid pro quo situation where the politician becomes obligated to the person or corporation who has spent all that money.

Click to expand...

But you could say the same thing about volunteering for a campaign, or endorsing a candidate, or an elected official making a policy decision that affects the election of an ally. It's just politics.

That creates a conflict of interest whereby the politician is representing the interests of the donor rather than his or her constituents. Obviously our system is not intended to work that way. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents -- not whoever spends the most money to get them reelected.

Click to expand...

Again, if you think you can remove every conflict of interest from politics, especially one that involves a fundamental constitutional right, you're going to fail.

We can't discuss this if you refuse to even acknowledge the problem. There might be a discussion if you would at least face the fact that it IS a problem, but maybe you don't think it's serious enough to infringe on free speech ... in any way, shape, or form.

Click to expand...

Haven't I made that clear yet?

I wonder how far you're willing to go with this?

Click to expand...

I've been asking you the same question.

Would it be acceptable to you if a lobbyist for ToxiCorp handed a Senator a briefcase containing $1 million in non-sequential, unmarked bills for the express purpose of obtaining an EPA waiver to pump waste into Potable Springs Acquifer? Wouldn't that "donation" just be considered speech according to your logic?

Click to expand...

No, of course not. That's ridiculous. There's no speech involved, and the money is going directly to the candidate. And this huge difference is painfully obvious.

How far will YOU go? Would it be acceptable to you if the government put someone in jail because he was distributing a film about a political candidate, and wanted to use corporate money to distribute that film (like most films)? Even if the corporation was not for profit?

Would it be okay if the government banned books that criticized or praised candidates for office because they were published by corporations (like most books)?

I'll wait for your answer to these before I explain why I picked them.

Colbert super PAC ad promises "orgy of pure distortion"

"Colbert, who transferred his super PAC to Stewart when he jokingly announced "an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for my possible candidacy for the president of the United States of South Carolina," describes super PACs as "100 percent legal and at least 10 percent ethical." (For what it's worth, Colbert can't at this point actually get on the primary ballot in South Carolina, which holds its primary Saturday.)

Donors can pour unlimited money into super PACs in order to support or attack candidates, and thus influence election outcomes. The groups, who are technically unaffiliated with candidates even though they are often run by their former staffers, were made possible by the 2010 "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision that effectively classified money as speech."

"On "The Daily Show" last night, Stewart and Colbert discussed the spots while monitored by lawyer Trevor Potter, asking the former head of the Federal Election Commission to interrupt them if they said anything that broke the law. (Potter never did, though at one point he said the men could be subject to a fine for their comments - a fine they could pay with super PAC money.)

The comedians also noted that while Colbert can't tell Stewart what he wants, he can say it to the public while speaking on television - just like Gingrich and other candidates have done."

Colbert super PAC ad promises "orgy of pure distortion" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

"2010 "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision that effectively classified money as speech."

False.

"the men could be subject to a fine for their comments"

Now there's an irony they failed to notice.

Catawba said:

Colbert super PAC ad promises "orgy of pure distortion"

"Colbert, who transferred his super PAC to Stewart when he jokingly announced "an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for my possible candidacy for the president of the United States of South Carolina," describes super PACs as "100 percent legal and at least 10 percent ethical." (For what it's worth, Colbert can't at this point actually get on the primary ballot in South Carolina, which holds its primary Saturday.)

Donors can pour unlimited money into super PACs in order to support or attack candidates, and thus influence election outcomes. The groups, who are technically unaffiliated with candidates even though they are often run by their former staffers, were made possible by the 2010 "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision that effectively classified money as speech."

"On "The Daily Show" last night, Stewart and Colbert discussed the spots while monitored by lawyer Trevor Potter, asking the former head of the Federal Election Commission to interrupt them if they said anything that broke the law. (Potter never did, though at one point he said the men could be subject to a fine for their comments - a fine they could pay with super PAC money.)

The comedians also noted that while Colbert can't tell Stewart what he wants, he can say it to the public while speaking on television - just like Gingrich and other candidates have done."

Colbert super PAC ad promises "orgy of pure distortion" - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Click to expand...

I think this is brilliant of them. Terrific comedy, but also biting political commentary/satire. I doubt any of those salivating at the prospect of Super PACs following the CU ruling, (both sides of the aisle) imagined how cleverly it might be turned against them. The most humorous thing to me, is the GOP candidates openly lamenting Super PACs at the debate on Saturday.

Gina said:

I doubt any of those salivating at the prospect of Super PACs following the CU ruling, (both sides of the aisle) imagined how cleverly it might be turned against them.

Click to expand...

How is it turning against them?

The most humorous thing to me, is the GOP candidates openly lamenting Super PACs at the debate on Saturday.

Click to expand...

The GOP candidates are pandering to you, and you're buying it (so to speak).

Why

misterman said:

"2010 "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision that effectively classified money as speech."

False.

Click to expand...

Who ever has the most money has the most speech. That's what the founders intended I'm sure.

"the men could be subject to a fine for their comments"

Now there's an irony they failed to notice

Click to expand...

I guess you missed they were highlighting that fines could simply be paid from the Super PAC donations?

misterman said:

How is it turning against them?



The GOP candidates are pandering to you, and you're buying it (so to speak).

Why

Click to expand...

The mockery they are making of the process. It's going against the GOP candidates at this time as they have center stage.

Running ads with Colbert's face urging the voters of South Carolina to vote for Cain, could garner Cain some votes. This is in no way me impugning the intelligence of those voters. There are numerous reasons they would want to; to stick it to the remaining candidates, comes to mind. The other ad, using "Mitt the Ripper", illustrates the point better. The power of the Super PAC lies in the ability of those controlling them, to run any ad they want, making outrageous statements, and the candidate cannot not be called on it, as Romney has already proven.

So here comes Colbert and Stewart. They skewered Romney. No matter how obvious the joke, he and his campaign cannot enjoy that imagery. The Super PAC is now horribly turned against them, especially since neither Colbert or Stewart are running. They are free to say anything, no matter how inflammatory and no candidate can be held accountable.

Pandering? It's possible. Maybe they don't see what I have laid out. It will come back to bite them.