Is Stephen Colbert Breaking The Law ?

[lauriejim]

Is Stephen Colbert Breaking the Law?
How Colbert '08 could run afoul of the FEC.
By Juliet Lapidos
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2007, at 4:21 PM ET

Stephen Colbert
TV satirist Stephen Colbert told his audience on Oct. 16 that he would "seek the office of the president of the United States." Over the next few days, he signed papers to get on both the Democratic and Republican primary ballots in South Carolina, and he unveiled a campaign Web site. If the Comedy Central host follows through with his bid and continues to use his show for political self-promotion, does he risk violating election law?

Yes. The Federal Election Commission prohibits corporations from making "any contribution or expenditure in connection with a federal election." A "contribution" includes "anything of value," including airtime. Thus each time Colbert promotes his candidacy on The Colbert Report, he'll be accepting an illegal "in kind" contribution from Comedy Central's parent company, Viacom. The FEC does exempt news programs (including satires like the Report) from the "in kind" airtime ban, but not if a political party, political committee, or candidate (like Colbert) controls the show's content.

Viacom might also run afoul of the Federal Communication Commission's equal time rule. By law, radio and television stations must treat political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away airtime. There's some debate as to whether this provision applies to all television networks, or just broadcast television. Nevertheless, cable channels generally abide by the equal-opportunity guideline to avoid a precedent-setting legal case. Each of the 16 presidential hopefuls could therefore demand as much time on Comedy Central as Colbert gets—about 20 minutes a night, four days a week. Faced with a similar situation earlier this year, NBC decided to stop airing Law & Order reruns featuring Fred Thompson. The cable network TNT, on the other hand, is risking the FCC's ire by keeping its Thompson-heavy rerun schedule in tact.



Chances are the government won't commence legal proceedings unless someone files an official complaint. But if the FEC does get involved, Colbert's campaign and Viacom could face stiff financial penalties. His only safe option, therefore, is to spoil the joke by dropping out before someone complains. Back in 1994, radio host Howard Stern made a bid for the governorship of New York and discussed his agenda on-air. When it came time to disclose his finances, he rescinded his candidacy, thus avoiding legal complications.

[happygobrokey]

could he argue:

1) the content on the show is the full body of work of a number of writers, and not of any one political entity itself?

2) the "campaign advertisements" segments are just comedy and fully planned as fiction and not to report actual real world scenarios?

the entire show just takes one topic after another, and after the introduction, the rest of the news report is pure comedy (produced by a number of writers) and scripted ahead of time to be funny, not actually an emphatic journalistic report of actual events. the only thing that truly gets advertised are the books a guest may have out, and the things that air during commercials. i don't think you can say that stephen's campaign segments and his other segments that might promote a candidate can be taken as true endorsements or advertising.

[lojo]

Stephen may be trying to do a stunt to draw attention to a very much needed reform in American campaign finance.

As long as money buys votes (campaign coffers) we will rarely get the right 'man' for the office.

The only fair thing would be a comprehensive reform that gives candidates equal footing by only allowing x$ to be spent on campaigns. Also the destruction of equal air time by Reagan admin needs to be repaired.

The 'swiftboat' kinds of disinformation need to be dealt with criminally and civilly (put them in jail and take their money)

Of course fox and cnn and msnbc, etc would have to restructure their entire marketing (pubs watch faux, dems watch cnn, mostly, glenn beck notwithstanding) and the likes of dobbs and oh,really would have to to change their tactics and declare themselve the shill-pundits they are.

/rant

/blather

[swampwitch]

Let me see...Colbert could be in trouble for pulling what is obviously a genius piece of satirical theater...yet Ann Coulter continues to walk free after committing voter fraud in Florida. I guess Stephen will have to sleep with an FBI agent also....

[lojo]

Originally Posted by swampwitch

Let me see...Colbert could be in trouble for pulling what is obviously a genius piece of satirical theater...yet Ann Coulter continues to walk free after committing voter fraud in Florida. I guess Stephen will have to sleep with an FBI agent also....

I guess if we are going to talk about satire, we'll have to look at the chief justice of the supreme court who got appointed because he effected the florida results that got us our current president... wait a minute, that's irony... nope, that is satire and a mockery of America.

[fcat]

Originally Posted by lojo

I guess if we are going to talk about satire, we'll have to look at the chief justice of the supreme court who got appointed because he effected the florida results that got us our current president... wait a minute, that's irony... nope, that is satire and a mockery of America.

I'm not sure the supreme court, nor the president of the united states understand satire.

[lojo]

Originally Posted by fcat

I'm not sure the supreme court, nor the president of the united states understand satire.

And that is a good reason to state; ANYBODY but a republican until the supreme court is almost balanced again (because 'the rule of law' has already been compromised)

Wouldn't it just freak 'them' out if we actually recreated a system of checks and balances and each held the other accountable? Scary, almost sounds like freedom

[fcat]

Originally Posted by lojo

And that is a good reason to state; ANYBODY but a republican until the supreme court is almost balanced again (because 'the rule of law' has already been compromised)

Wouldn't it just freak 'them' out if we actually recreated a system of checks and balances and each held the other accountable? Scary, almost sounds like freedom

Scary because that's "supposed" to be our constitution.

[lojo]

Originally Posted by fcat

Scary because that's "supposed" to be our constitution.

But there are weaknesses in it that can only be corrected by voters.

If a 'conservative' is elected this time, the Court may be loaded for generations to come, and no president or congress (acting within the Law) will be able to reign them in (unless we have a constitutional convention and that would be a VERY bad idea)

[fcat]

Originally Posted by lojo

But there are weaknesses in it that can only be corrected by voters.

If a 'conservative' is elected this time, the Court may be loaded for generations to come, and no president or congress (acting within the Law) will be able to reign them in (unless we have a constitutional convention and that would be a VERY bad idea)

That's why it's so important to vote in this election. I'ts not just having a republican in office, it's the supreme court that matters most. Justice ginsberg and stevens especially, I think are getting ready to retire, leaving 2 spots open, which would make it a slam dunk for certain laws to be overturned. As a woman, I don't want the government to tell me that I can't have an abortion, take away the miranda ruling , etc.