Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Nation & World


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Originally published June 29, 2011 at 10:05 PM | Page modified June 30, 2011 at 6:46 AM

Colbert's campaign-fund satire is no joke

Stephen Colbert is set to testify Thursday before the Federal Election Commission on his tongue-in-cheek bid to form a "Colbert super PAC" for the 2012 election season.

The Washington Post

quotes I think it's safe to say that if there's a legal problem here... the problem is not... Read more
quotes If Fox News channel and Fox Business channel can do it (The Murdoch octopus), why can't... Read more

advertising

WASHINGTON — The Federal Election Commission (FEC) does serious issues. It does complex debates over mind-numbing campaign laws. It does not do funny.

But the agency finds itself the target of a public joke by television comedian and provocateur Stephen Colbert, who is set to testify Thursday about his tongue-in-cheek bid to form a "Colbert super PAC" for the 2012 election season.

The host of "The Colbert Report" on Comedy Central has spent months riffing on the notion of a political committee dedicated to his own enrichment, part of a broad satire poking fun at the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. He wants permission to let his network's parent company, Viacom, help him.

"You, the Colbert Nation, could have a voice in the form of my voice shouted through a megaphone made of cash," he told his audience recently.

But while Colbert is playing for laughs, many experts worry that the request will further loosen election laws by blurring the line between broadcast personalities and politicians, giving media companies freer range to act as de facto political groups.

The episode illustrates the sense of chaos that has enveloped the nation's campaign-finance system as regulations are steadily chipped away by the courts and by Republican FEC commissioners, who take a dim view of many election rules. This week, the Supreme Court threw out part of Arizona's public-financing law, ruling that it is unconstitutional to provide matching funds for candidates facing well-funded rivals.

"Obviously Mr. Colbert is playing this for humor," said Lisa Gilbert of the Public Citizen advocacy group. "But I'm not sure if he intended these far-reaching consequences."

At the normally staid FEC, the agency's small contingent of bureaucrats and little-known commissioners has been scrambling to prepare for Colbert's scheduled appearance Thursday.

When Colbert first made a show of dropping off his initial paperwork at the FEC in early May, an estimated 500 fans came to cheer him on.

Colbert decided to form his own super PAC, a new breed of political-action committee that is allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from corporations and individuals.

But any work on behalf of the super PAC in connection with the show could be considered an in-kind contribution from Viacom, which would have to report such spending to the FEC.

"Why does it get so complicated to do this?" Colbert complained on his show. "All I'm trying to do is affect the 2012 election. It's not like I'm trying to install iTunes."

Colbert has gone all out, hiring lawyer Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman and counsel to Arizona Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. (The case has proved somewhat awkward for Potter, who also heads the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, which opposes Colbert's plans.)

Neither Colbert nor Potter is talking about the case outside the show; Viacom also has stayed mum.

The matter lies with the six-member FEC, a board paralyzed by 3-3 partisan standoffs over the proper reach of campaign-finance laws.

Among the questions before the panel:

• Should Colbert be given a media exemption, generally available to newsgathering operations, to discuss his "Colbert Super PAC" on the air?

• Should Viacom have to report any help it gives Colbert as a political contribution?

• And can Colbert use Viacom resources to pay for super PAC ads that run on other networks?

FEC lawyers have drafted three separate sets of possible answers, including an opinion that would place few limits on what Viacom and Colbert could do. All three options appear to allow Colbert to highlight the super PAC on his show without having to treat that as reportable political spending.

Many campaign-finance activists fear this would allow media companies to secretly fund unlimited political campaigns, perhaps on behalf of their own analysts or pundits.

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, notes that the FEC also is set to consider a request Thursday to allow federal candidates to raise unlimited funds on behalf of super PACs.

Many conservatives are rooting for Colbert. "I think it's actually providing his viewers with an inside look at just how convoluted, complex, and stifling our current system of campaign-finance regulations are," wrote Sean Parnell of the conservative Center for Competitive Politics.

Colbert has run into complications. When he greeted supporters outside the FEC in May, he bragged that he took in $31 in donations stuffed in a greasy paper bag. So, the FEC asked, does that mean you've already started collecting money for your PAC?

No, his lawyers responded: "They were $1 bills received by Mr. Colbert personally as payment for shaking his hand."

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon




Advertising