http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/colbert-in-south-carolina.html

Quote :

"He runs behind Mitt Romney's 27%, Newt Gingrich's 23%, Rick Santorum's 18%, Ron Paul's 8%, and Rick Perry's 7%. But's he beating out Jon Huntsman's 4% and Buddy Roemer's 1%."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71393.html

Quote :

"NEW YORK — Stephen Colbert announced on “The Colbert Report” that he is exploring a presidential run in South Carolina, and made it legal by handing control of his super PAC to Jon Stewart in the opening segment of Thursday night’s show. ... The stunt was part of Colbert’s continuing effort to expose what he considers absurdities in U.S. election law."

Thank you Citizens United.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/12/colbert-for-president-again/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed&hpt=hp_t2

Quote :

""I'm proud to announce I plan to form an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for my candidacy in the United States of South Carolina," Colbert said at a taping of his show Thursday evening."

[Edited on January 13, 2012 at 12:02 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2012 12:02:37 AM

1/13/2012 2:01:02 AM

it wasnt funny the first time-

1/13/2012 8:24:26 AM

Illuminating the shear rediculousness that a candidate can be a business partner with someone running their super pac isn't funny? I thought he's done a spot on job of showing modern election issues.

1/13/2012 9:50:21 AM

^^ just didn't get it.

1/13/2012 10:18:00 AM

oh silly me.

im on a college-themed messageboard! i forgot that im FORBIDDEN from thinking steven colbert is unfunny.

nothing to see here!

oh yeah, except hes simply parading his brand for a ratings boost a la donald trump.

but dont let me impede you from reading to deeply into this stunt.

[Edited on January 13, 2012 at 10:29 AM. Reason : -]

1/13/2012 10:28:43 AM

Has he revealed how much his PAC raised yet?

I would love to see Colbert commercials alongside actual campaigns (it might be enough to keep sane through the coming onslaught)

1/13/2012 5:20:51 PM

^^ ha not even close.

I’ve always found it puzzling how conservatives seem to be unable to grasp sarcasm and subtlety. I bet there’s a neurological explanation for this deficit.

1/13/2012 10:01:50 PM

ive always found it puzzling how liberals never back up their condescension.

colbert is about as subtle as a hand grenade in a barrel of oatmeal.

your momma has a neurological deficit.

1/13/2012 10:37:15 PM

ohhhh

1/14/2012 12:48:53 AM

i, too, find colbert painfully unfunny

1/14/2012 8:44:55 AM

I think Colbert is really funny

1/14/2012 9:20:34 AM

Whether you find him funny or not has nothing to do with this.

1/14/2012 2:51:00 PM

The point is that the Citizens United legally allows colbert to spend MASSIVE amounts of money to wreak havoc with the election system.

And the SuperPACs and campaigns aren't actually separate like they pretend to me (and the law requires).

1/14/2012 3:30:30 PM

The superpac has released an ad:

1/15/2012 5:53:49 PM

^^ so, pass an amendment to correct it, instead of just shitting on the Constitution when it's inconvenient to you

1/15/2012 6:02:41 PM

Call it stunt, be cynical. But if he actually has a measurable effect on the outcome of the primaries and presidential election, while exposing the election system for what it is, and remains entertaining throughout the process, I will consider his effort a masterpiece of satire.

1/15/2012 8:24:56 PM

I got a few chuckles from that ad, I was impressed with the argument it made

1/15/2012 8:30:00 PM

Looks like he has vanquished Huntsman.

1/15/2012 9:49:18 PM

Quote :

"Call it stunt, be cynical. But if he actually has a measurable effect on the outcome of the primaries and presidential election, while exposing the election system for what it is, and remains entertaining throughout the process, I will consider his effort a masterpiece of satire."

Truth.... and also, if he DOES affect the election, who do we really have to blame?

1/16/2012 12:20:05 AM

Restore our future super pac ad:



Winning our future super pac put this out:



Make us great again did this one:



[Edited on January 16, 2012 at 11:00 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2012 10:50:34 PM

Vote Herman Cain!

1/16/2012 11:49:50 PM

Quote :

"oh silly me. oh yeah, except hes simply parading his brand for a ratings boost a la donald trump. but dont let me impede you from reading to deeply into this stunt. [Edited on January 13, 2012 at 10:29 AM. Reason : -]"

I don't feel his end game is ratings necessarily (or said another way, i don't think it's his sole end game).


however, i don't like radiohead, and my brain wants to explode everytime some asshole say's i 'just don't get it.'

[Edited on January 19, 2012 at 10:15 PM. Reason : ']

1/19/2012 10:14:57 PM

Quote :

"hes simply parading his brand for a ratings boost a la donald trump."

Stephen Colbert is making a mockery of the electoral process because it is deeply, deeply flawed.

Donald Trump is making a mockery of America, just because. Big difference.

1/21/2012 11:35:50 AM

Damn.

1/21/2012 4:59:36 PM

Colbert should be careful. If he begins to actually siphon votes he will be targeted by law enforcement.

1/21/2012 7:29:41 PM

^At best he embarrassed some of the weaker candidates into dropping out. But I think his highlighting concerns around Citizens United and Super PACs was worthwhile. Just recently announced his raised over a million.

2/4/2012 4:27:25 PM

Quote :

" Virtually everything Stephen Colbert is doing was legal before Citizens United. Although Colbert has often used the phrase “unlimited corporate money” in reference to his Super PAC, last Tuesday's disclosures paint a very different picture. Colbert’s PAC, which raised more than $825,000 through the end of the year, has raised almost no corporate money. Indeed, the only two corporate donations he reported to the Federal Election Commission amount to $714, total. In addition to barely raising any corporate money, Colbert's Super PAC accepted only one contribution from an individual (of $9,600) in excess of the $5,000 limit that applies to regular PACs. In other words, more than 99% of the money Colbert has raised to mock Citizens United and Super PACs is money that has been legal under the campaign finance laws for decades. While people with easy access to mass media have never had a problem getting their messages out, the restrictions overturned in Citizen United were a real impediment for people who were neither rich nor famous but still wanted to exercise their First Amendment rights. Yet Colbert and Lithwick apparently think we were better off when a political activists could be imprisoned for pooling their resources to criticize a politician on TV: There will always be those who use their free speech rights to advocate that others' be restricted. And it is surely their right to do so. But such people aren't—as Colbert and Lithwick seem to believe—cleverly using the tools of the Machine to attack the Machine. They're simply advocating censorship for speech they disagree with, and weakening the basis of their own rights in the process. "

http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/03/why-stephen-colberts-super-pac-joke-fall

2/4/2012 10:12:21 PM

its funny to watch REASON grasp at whatever straws it can to defend the interests that bankroll it.

Is anyone really suprised that a majority of Colbert's donors have been fans/normal people instead of the super rich/corporate interests? Why would the super rich donate to a PAC whose main goal seems to be to call attention to the system that is pushing campaign finance in their favor?

2/4/2012 10:35:09 PM

The rich were marginalized by Citizens United. Prior to Citizens United, the rich were the only people free to speak. A rich guy didn't need to form a PAC to spend money on electioneering. A rich guy with a TV show on Comedy Central was free to influence elections however he saw fit. It was the non-rich non-famous of America that could find themselves censored and in prison for attempting to influence an election. Colbert just hates the competition.

2/4/2012 11:50:42 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Are you serious? You are such a terrible joke.

2/5/2012 1:37:50 AM

That has to be a troll.

Even the media shills haven't tried that argument yet.

2/5/2012 1:44:31 AM

How can people complain with a straight face about the super pac shit when obama has 1 billion in campaign funds.

2/5/2012 1:52:49 AM

^source?

2/5/2012 2:02:03 AM

Let me completely clarify my position. I don't think SuperPACs should exist.

2/5/2012 2:24:08 AM

I was under the impression that he has to form a superpac instead of a regular pac due to using his show to constantly promote it was considers in-kind donations from Viacom from the hour a day of air time he was getting paid to promote himself

[Edited on February 5, 2012 at 8:50 AM. Reason : a]

2/5/2012 8:49:53 AM

Ok, first of all, grammar...? Jesus fucking christ. Second of all, I don't think regular PACs actually exist anymore. SuperPAC just denotes that they are allowed to make any commercials or campaign for a candidate in whatever manner they choose.

2/5/2012 11:35:07 AM

screw grammar, i was in a hurry.

2/5/2012 1:25:54 PM

Well when it's so bad I don't know what you're talking about then it's a problem.

2/5/2012 1:31:44 PM

Quote :

"SuperPAC just denotes that they are allowed to make any commercials or campaign for a candidate in whatever manner they choose."

Then you don't know what you are talking about. A regular PAC is free to make any commercials or campaign for a candidate in whatever manor they choose and have been free to do so since they were created by campaign finance law in decades past. The only real difference between the old PACs and the new SuperPACs is to operate an old PAC required collecting and filling a mountain of complex paperwork with the government, requiring the employ of entire accounting and legal departments, which meant only big powerful PACs could legally exist because only they could manage the paperwork involved. Now, any election lawyer can manage the formation of a SuperPAC.

Keep in mind what the case was about. A bunch of creative types decided to make a movie, only to be threatened with prison when they tried to release it for failure to form a Political Action Committee before trying to speak. Warren Buffet influences elections, so does Stephen Colbert, it was not they who were on trial for trying to speak. It was a bunch of no-bodies eager to tell others how much they disliked Hillary Clinton.

2/6/2012 12:28:00 AM