Colbert punks … self?
posted at 12:17 pm on May 19, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
Satire is notoriously difficult to do well. If anyone doubts that, just ask Esquire, which might face a lawsuit for libel over its clumsy attempt to skewer WND this week on the birth-certificate controversy, although I share James Taranto’s skepticism that the case will succeed. Even those who make a successful career out of satire, like Stephen Colbert, they eventually miss badly as well when their stunts backfire. The Wall Street Journal explains how Colbert started off trying to skewer the Supreme Court over the Citizens United v FEC ruling, and ended up getting a lesson in its necessity:
Comedy Central funnyman Stephen Colbert, like most of his friends and allies on the left, thinks that last year’s Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC is, literally, ridiculous. To make his case that the ruling invites “unlimited corporate money” to dominate politics, Mr. Colbert decided to set up a political action committee (PAC) of his own. So far, though, the joke’s been on him.
The hilarity began last month, when Mr. Colbert began to have difficulty setting up his PAC, which is a group that can raise money to run political ads or make contributions to candidates. So he called in Trevor Potter, a former Federal Elections Commission (FEC) chairman who is now a high-powered Washington lawyer.
Mr. Potter delivered some unfunny news: Mr. Colbert couldn’t set up his PAC because his show airs on Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom, and corporations like Viacom cannot make contributions to PACs that give money to candidates. As Mr. Potter pointed out, Mr. Colbert’s on-air discussions of the candidates he supports might count as an illegal “in-kind” contribution from Viacom to Mr. Colbert’s PAC.
That didn’t quite work out, either:
On May 11, Mr. Potter returned with more bad news: Viacom didn’t like Mr. Colbert’s plan because his on-air commentary might still amount to a contribution from Viacom to his Super PAC. It’s difficult to place a dollar value on airtime, so a reporting mistake could put both Viacom and Mr. Colbert in legal hot water. Isn’t campaign-finance law funny?
“Why does it get so complicated to do this? I mean, this is page after page of legalese,” Mr. Colbert lamented. “All I’m trying to do is affect the 2012 election. It’s not like I’m trying to install iTunes.”
Well, that’s pretty much what the nonprofit group Citizens United said to the Supreme Court in the case that Mr. Colbert is trying so hard to lampoon.
Indeed. Colbert can thank Congress for the “page after page of legalese” concerning political contributions, especially the McCain-Feingold Act that the Supreme Court partially struck down in the Citizens United ruling. That ruling, in practice, does not allow for corporations to run the debate, at least not without navigating a minefield of regulations that the FEC itself can’t effectively manage. They routinely take months to settle disputes, usually after elections when the issues that triggered the intervention are made moot.
In fact, as the WSJ notes, the existing legal labyrinth is so daunting that Colbert has now applied for a special waiver to conduct political speech. I’m not sure that’s what the founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, but I do believe that it’s the best possible satire Colbert could have created from his efforts — and it’s in the exact opposite direction of what he set out to prove.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Menendez – Looks like we don’t have the votes for that immigration bill after all
America in decline – Bars selling rubbing alcohol as “scotch”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Except when it’s the health care monstrosity, in which case it’s the Supreme Court’s role to ignore public opinion.
aunursa on March 27, 2013 at 8:08 AM
Oh good! I was afraid we weren’t going to have a sodomy thread today.
I think the consensus is clear but only among the leftists. They’ve decided that they will do everything in their power to legitimize sodomy despite the fact the public at large isn’t with them. If California voters didn’t accept putting sodomy on a par with normal marriage, then it is clear that the public is divided. I’m just sick and tired of these gay people whining about how life is so unfair for them. I’m sick and tired of the activists pretty much suggesting that all gays mate for life (only anecdotes they use involve gays who have had the same partner for decades) instead of being honest about how much SSM would fundamentally change our laws and society. I’m disgusted that gays would even infer that their situation is akin to blacks in the 1950s South. Gays of 2013 are in no way like those who championed civil rights in the middle of the last century.
Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 8:08 AM
How are the Supreme Court Justices wise enough to be able to distinguish a long term trend from a fad? And if they were that wise wouldn’t they spending their work time buying and selling in the stock market?
thuja on March 27, 2013 at 8:15 AM
Ssm proponens lost the battle and now want the court to over rule the will of the people….ala roe v wade…no?
cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Dude, there are oral arguments at the Supreme Court today on gay marriage. There is no way there won’t be multiple “sodomy” threads. Come back tomorrow if you are tired of it.
thuja on March 27, 2013 at 8:17 AM
I am predicting two more Senators come out for SSM today: Carper(D-DE) and one of these three, Kirk (R-IL), Hagan (D-NC), or Murkowski (R-AK).
thuja on March 27, 2013 at 8:19 AM
After Obamacare I’ll be the first to admit I know nothing about the law. It seems to me, however, that marriage has always been left to the states so, for the 9th Circuit to get involved was pretty ridiculous. If the Supremes want to do the right thing, they should say the citizens of California have spoken, with their referendum, and if they want to change that they should go through the political process.
RIght now, you have a vocal minority getting very loud, trying to make it look like opinion has changed. I doubt that. I do, however, believe that there should be legal avenues for gay couples to go through, such that they are recognized in every state as a couple, without changing the definition of marriage.
bflat879 on March 27, 2013 at 8:24 AM
What about the subject has not already been said? Multiple times.
Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Thug…murkowski will be the first from your list
cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 8:26 AM
Marriage is by its nature public (assuming the new, arbitrary definition precludes marrying yourself).
And so is adultery (parallel caveat . . . auto-sexual gratification).
Axe on March 27, 2013 at 8:26 AM
Democrats have made sodomy a tenet of faith. Their announcements are completely meaningless. You can’t be a Democrat if you don’t consider dudes having sex with dudes as normal and just the same as normal relationships. And once you break down barriers and make it all about love then there is no reason why society can bar polygamy, pedophilia, or any other kind of sexual relationship. If Adam can screw Bruce with societal approval then there is no reason why a man can not express the love that is only shared between he and his goat.
Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 8:29 AM
Ecclesiastes 1:9
But today the gay issue is what is discussed. Half of my Facebook “friends” have changed their photos to equal signs to show support for gay marriage. I’m planning to put up a photo of a greater than sign to mock it.
thuja on March 27, 2013 at 8:31 AM
The social media thing is pretty intense. :) The group-think vise is squeezing. It’s not always easy (for normal people) to push back, either.
Axe on March 27, 2013 at 8:35 AM
BTW, North Korea just broke its last line of communication with South Korea. Don’t you think that is a bit more important than yet another day of homosexuals whining about life is so unfair for them? The Eurozone is about to implode. There Middle East is on fire.
If all you are concerned about is dudes screwing dudes then something is wrong with you.
Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 8:35 AM
*Doh! Implicit “abnormal” meant me, not you. :) Sorry.
Axe on March 27, 2013 at 8:35 AM
Being the adult is always harder than being a spoiled selfish child.
Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 8:36 AM
I think what happens here is pretty important. Besides, your first paragraph describes every other day.
Axe on March 27, 2013 at 8:40 AM
Bummer.
Axe on March 27, 2013 at 8:41 AM
In the snippets of oral arguments I heard nothing about homosexual sex being unnatural. It boggles the mind to have arguments about SSM at the highest level and this issue never come up. SSM proponents want to project the image of SSM as, well, “gay”, a pure, beautiful sexual love. I don’t buy that image, not at all. Until we call a spade a spade, how can we have a thoughtful decision on putting SSM at the same level as real marriage?
Paul-Cincy on March 27, 2013 at 8:44 AM
If a Martian were to land in America this morning, he would think that sodomite marriage was the most important thing our society is dealing with. Yes, this is important but hardly groundbreaking at this point.
And frankly, I’m not against civil unions (a legal construct) but the discussion changes completely when gays demand that I accept their relationships as marriage and a legitimate and normal lifestyle choice.
Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 8:45 AM
In asking Ted Olson “when” it became unconstitutional for the states to limit marriage to monogamous, heterosexual couples, whether in 1791 or 1868 or sometime later, Justice Scalia was identifying the only constitutional issue: Did the people, when ratifying the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, circumscribe their own authority to so limit marriage through their state laws? Olson choked on the question because the answer is clearly “No.” To hold otherwise would mean that each ratifying state intended to invalidate its own marriage laws at the time of ratification. As Justice White pointed out in Bowers v. Hardwicke, every state to ratify the Bill of Rights, and 31 of the 36 that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, criminalized sodomy. Moreover, every state in those two instances recognized only monogamous, heterosexual unions as marriages. There is simply no way for any intellectually honest justice to conclude that the states were deprived of such authority by ratification.
But twice now Justice Kennedy has authored opinions that has so circumscribed state authority: Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. Without the “consent of the governed” as established by the ratification votes of the people, he and his colleagues decided matters sexual left to the people through their state legislatures. It is Justice Kennedy’s personal public policy desires, dressed up as constitutional interpretation to which Olson and Boies are appealing, not the limits of the Constitution as actually ratified. This is why Justice Kennedy was squirming around looking for a way to avoid the consequences of his own unconstitutional actions. The pitard upon which he is about to be hung is clearly one of his own making.
Mongo Mere Pawn on March 27, 2013 at 8:46 AM
Pro-SSM propaganda would suggest that the gays mate for life. Every anecdote involves some old person who has had the same partner for decades. Usually with some sad story about being unable to be part of the decision to pull the plug, get the same benefits as normal relationships, or whatever.
The reality is that what you see at gay pride days is far more indicitive of the homosexual lifestyle than these cherry-picked anectdotes of a cold society denying pure beautiful sexual love. It is the hypocrisy of the whole debate.
Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 8:50 AM
As much as anybody can tell about these things, the SCOTUS clearly doesn’t seem in the mood to make a broad sweeping ruling. I suspect they are more comfortable with the idea of striking down DOMA.
Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Awesomely Awesome Feelgood Story of the Day – Alternative Title: ESAD, Fred Phelps!!!
Resist We Much on March 27, 2013 at 8:54 AM
Our civilization standing at the point of decision between becoming a rational, enlightened society that defers to the truth as it finds it, or an irrational and superstitious society that enforces whatever convenient “truth” it needs. Yes, the Martian would think gay marriage was the most important issue of the time, since it sets the fundamental basis for our civilization indefinitely.
I know you don’t see it that way. I’m about typed out “tonight” so — you can steam roll me if you feel the need. But I think that’s what’s happening, and most of the “this again” stuff is probably discomfort with the issue or fatigue.
. . . there was a day when I thought if I saw AP put up another Rubio QOTD, I’d explode . . .
Axe on March 27, 2013 at 8:55 AM
Consensus, especially among the young, is also becoming more pro-life. Will we see an effort based on consensus to overturn Roe v. Wade?
My hope is that some of these youngsters heard pro-marriage arguments yesterday that they hadn’t considered before. Every child deserves a mother and a father is a pretty powerful argument. Ted Olson said there were 37,000 children being raised by gays in California. How many of them originated from previously heterosexual marriages?
monalisa on March 27, 2013 at 8:56 AM
Why it’s all about sodomy? I suggest we start an illustrated lesbian thread.
Archivarix on March 27, 2013 at 8:56 AM
I think you are beginning to get the idea here. :) Skip the first part do you can base the second on a fiction.
Axe on March 27, 2013 at 8:58 AM
*so
Axe on March 27, 2013 at 8:59 AM
I think you are right happy nomad @8:52
cmsinaz on March 27, 2013 at 9:01 AM
It actually started when California voters passed the earlier Proposition 22 (back in the 1990s), which was thrown out by the unelected, black-robed tyrants of the California Supreme Court, which led to Proposition 8.
Steve Tsouloufis on March 27, 2013 at 9:02 AM
I admit to being stunned when Ted Olsen stood before the court and equated gay marriage with the court’s striking down of laws against
inter=racial marriage. Those are light years apart, and not relevant.
Laws against inter-racial marriage needed to be done away with. People are born with different ethnicities, and that can’t be changed. However, no one is born gay. Not a single peer-reviewed paper has been able to prove the existence of a “gay gene”.
This ties in, though, with the entire gay movement trying to equate their “problems” with the civil rights movement. Nothing could be more outlandish, nor more disgusting, than to equate someone’s chosen lifestyle with that of a person’s ethnicity. The one is chosen, the other is a result of genetics.
Society has every right to regulate this issue, and as DOMA is the law of the land, it would be improbable for the SCOTUS to rule any way but in support of Prop-8.
TKindred on March 27, 2013 at 9:02 AM
:) — But they already thought of themselves as God’s Firewall. Now they are going to feel like they are thuper special and being targeted for their righteousness.
lol — the paint. The paint sort of takes it home.
Axe on March 27, 2013 at 9:06 AM
It IS a fiction. It’s a manufactured fiction of a homosexual union, that leads to such things as 6 year olds on the news saying they think gays should be able to get married because it’s wrong to discriminate against people who love each other. As far as I’m concerned the entire SSM crowd is a bunch of 6 year olds who are putting a happy face, a false face, on a serious moral issue. Glossing over reality, over biology.
I’m not discounting the reality of the sexual love two men or two women have towards each other. I’m not going to go there. But that doesn’t mean we should elevate that sex act to that of heterosexual sex.
Paul-Cincy on March 27, 2013 at 9:11 AM
Olson seemed unprepared for this, especially with Clarence Thomas sitting there. Wished he had chimed in on the subject.
But I thought Cooper could have responded to Kagan in a better manner on the question of why should gays be excluded from marriage? He should have responded that they are explicitly not excluded…because the definition by gender of one man and one woman is the most inclusive definition.
monalisa on March 27, 2013 at 9:13 AM
I’ve always regarded the SSM lobby’s argument that it’s an equal-protection matter as bogus. On one hand, you have race, ethnicity, gender, and religious belief. On the other hand, you have voluntary behavior.
The last vestiges of criminalizing sodomy were overturned in 2003. But now we’re considering enshrining it in public policy as equivalent to marriage? Gimme a break.
BuckeyeSam on March 27, 2013 at 9:13 AM
One would think our Supreme Court Justices would make the statement, “I cannot believe we are even discussing the definition of marriage”. Surely the founding fathers never thought the country would be so dumbed down to even wonder at it’s meaning. Let’s not stop with the founding fathers, but civilizations throughout the history of the world too. Can’t people see how ridiculous all of this is?
Some are predicting the court will punt and claim they won’t become involved at this time. It’s not “ripe”. I say too late. The Justice branch is already involved when the lower and appellate courts got involved. The correct thing to do would be to throw all of the courts decisions out and tell California to obey the will of the people who voted the amendment in known as Prop 8. If Californians want it changed, have the them revoke it through the same process.
The court should rule based on the current culture? Been there done that. The Bible claimed thousands of years ago that the earth was round and it revolved around the sun. Yet, there were periods when the people became so enlightened they changed them around to suit their misguided beliefs. It didn’t make it so. Just like redefining marriage. They can pontificate, take all the polls they want and pass all the laws they want but a truth is a truth. Marriage is one of those indelible truths that man cannot change.
iamsaved on March 27, 2013 at 9:21 AM
A little sideways, but it reaches my concern and argument. A blast from the past from over in the colonies. Heh — my comment over there was b!tching about the same thing. :) Embarassing. No one can accuse me of not showing up, anyway:
There’s a price to pay for living inside the asylum.
Axe on March 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM
“How, exactly, do they intend to protect the conscience rights of those who — for religious reasons — do not believe in a new definition of marriage? Or do their First Amendment rights simply dissolve by judicial fiat? After all, if gay marriage becomes a constitutionally protected right, how can the conscience rights of true religious objectors be accommodated?”
Eric Erickson lays out the argument elegantly here http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-and-religious-freedom-are-not-compatible/.
“Emily Brooker’s federal lawsuit, filed on her behalf Monday by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, claims the retaliation against her Christian beliefs violated her First Amendment right to free speech.
The lawsuit names the members of the university’s Board of Governors, school President Michael T. Nietzel and four faculty or administrators of the School of Social Work.
In the complaint, Brooker said she was accused of violating the school’s Standards of Essential Functioning in Social Work Education.
She said one of her professor’s, Frank G. Kauffman, accused her of the violation after he assigned a project that required the entire class to write and each sign a letter to the Missouri Legislature in support of gay adoption. Brooker said her Christian beliefs required her to refuse to sign the letter…
The lawsuit is part of a growing trend of Christian students objecting to teachings in college classrooms that conflict with their beliefs, said David French, director of the ADF’s Center for Academic Freedom…
Brooker said she was called before a college ethics committee on Dec. 16, where she was questioned for two hours by faculty members. She alleges they asked her questions such as “Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?” and “Do you think I am a sinner?” She said she was also asked if she could help gay and lesbian people in social work situations.
Brooker said she was required to sign a contract with the department pledging to follow the National Association of Social Work’s code of ethics, which does not refer to homosexuality. She alleges the contract requires her to change her religious beliefs to conform to social work standards to continue enrollment in the School of Social Work.
Allison Nadelhaft, of the association’s national office, said the code does not ask prospective social workers to give up their religious beliefs but to recognize and respect people of different backgrounds, including sexual orientation.
“We understand social workers come to their professions with various perspectives,” she said. “Maybe the faculty was interpreting the code differently. There are plenty of conservative social workers. There’s even a Christian social workers association.”
French said Brooker was called before the ethics committee because she complained about Kauffman to her adviser and challenged a grade she had received in another Kauffman class. Kauffman allegedly said Brooker was often late to class and didn’t participate in class discussions.
The complaint alleges that Brooker was told by faculty that she would have to “lessen the gap” between her personal beliefs and professional obligations to the national ethics code.
Nadelhaft said the association would never ask someone to do that.
French said Brooker signed the contract so she could complete the program.
“She was bullied into signing the contract. She was fearful of her ability to graduate. She was given an ultimatum,” French said. “Students are not lawyers. They don’t know where their rights begin or end…”
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-02-gay-adoption_x.htm
More cases at this link:
http://www.redstate.com/dloesch/2013/03/26/the-argument-for-marriage-equality-is-not-a-conservative-one/
workingclass artist on March 27, 2013 at 9:38 AM
I sure am glad we have the 14th and 15th amendments to tell us that discrimination is abhorrent. How else would we have known…
Lehosh on March 27, 2013 at 9:39 AM
Brooker’s problem is deciding to pursue education in social work. I’ve never met a social worker who isn’t an angry radical leftie. In their world, gays are normal and Christians are the deviants. And female social workers tend to be man-hating if not committed lesbians.
Happy Nomad on March 27, 2013 at 9:46 AM
Sorry, you use something that is “unconstitutional” in your comment. That something is common sense and that has no place in the law today. There is a solution but that will not satisfy the vocal minority and therefore the Supreme Court. This will be decided in a split decision which means that one or two justices will determine the law of concensus is in control. That’s how we ended up with the ACA, more commonly known as Obamacare. Sorry I should not use the word “Obamacare” which is now disappearing in the MSM since it does not use the persuasive name AFFORDABLE Care Act. The TAXES, as CJ Roberts terms them, will sink most people and cause decent health care to be UNAFFORDABLE for the masses. Just as SSM will cause the further deterioration of the family and society.
Pardonme on March 27, 2013 at 9:47 AM
Diminishing, diluting and perverting our Constitution is like losing the rudder of a ship, we’re wandering aimlessly towards the reef.
Speakup on March 27, 2013 at 10:02 AM
Societal Consensus on the issues seems to be evolving…
“A bill proposed in the student senate at Texas A&M University in College Station last week would let students choose not to pay the portion of their student fees that would otherwise fund the school’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Resource Center.
Specifically, reports the Houston Chronicle, the measure would permit “students who object, for religious purposes, to the use of their student fees and tuition to fund this center to opt out of paying an amount equal to their share of the Center’s funding from their fee and tuition bills.”
“While it can be argued that the GLBT Resource Center is a worthy use of funds in order to provide a welcoming environment for vulnerable populations at Texas A&M,” the bill further states, “it is reasonable for students to object to a use of their own money that is in direct opposition to their own religious values.”
The GLBT Center, which has been operating since 2007, describes itself as “a resource and referral center for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Aggies and their straight supporters.” It’s unclear exactly how much money the Center stands to lose if the bill passes.
The polarizing bill has supporters and detractors.
Supporters argue that students who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds shouldn’t have to pay for the GLBT Resource Center.
The bill’s opponents say the bill is discriminatory…”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/27/under-texas-am-student-senate-bill-students-could-opt-out-of-glbt-center-fees/#ixzz2OkU0BKCd
workingclass artist on March 27, 2013 at 10:03 AM
So the SCOTUS should be rubber-stamping laws so long as there is popular support for those laws?
Good to know. I guess we now don’t have to worry about the Obama administration winning any more of their lawsuits challenging states’ voter ID laws — since there is broad popular support for such laws.
The public knows best, right Bloomberg?
AZCoyote on March 27, 2013 at 10:07 AM
This so called “supreme court” is nothing but another political entity bending with the wind.
rplat on March 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM
LOL– I actually think it is funny.. Some of the most politically oblivious people are on the political bandwagon and have those signs. I have a picture of a Supreme Court Justice with the caption that says: Before we make a Ruling, Did enough people change their facebook page.. Chicks on the right had it on their website.
melle1228 on March 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM
“The Supreme Cairt follows th’ iliction returns.”
–Mr. Dooley (given voice by Finley Peter Dunne)
Gene Hunt on March 27, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Our Supreme Court became a joke with Roberts’ Obamacare decision. Nothing they do now is meaningful in terms of real Constitutional authority. The U.S. Constitution DIED on that Obamacare hill.
Now, of course a Supreme Court verdict will allow ANY lunacy out of Washington to stand, but that doesn’t make it “constitutional”, not really. One can’t read the document and then ascribe authority to the federal government for forcing citizens to purchase an insurance product. It’s just not there, Roberts’ contortions on the subject notwithstanding.
So… it doesn’t really matter where the Constitution stands on “gay marriage”. The subject will be decided by the “concensus” of Washington politicians and their rubber-stamping judges.
Murf76 on March 27, 2013 at 11:43 AM
The social media thing is pretty intense. :) The group-think vise is squeezing. It’s not always easy (for normal people) to push back, either.Axe on March 27, 2013 at 8:35 AM
:Reposted for another thread:
50 percent of America has been pushed from opposition, past tolerance to open acceptance, the indoctrination will not cease until at least 75% has had it’s resistance is broken down and it finally openly accepts homosexuality.
SWalker on March 27, 2013 at 11:51 AM
The strategic tactics of the left can only be used by the left, they may never be used against the left. The left only has one moral or ethical value, that value is, that The End Justifies the Means.
SWalker on March 27, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Except that it’s not really about “popular support”. It’s about consensus among the political elite, each of which only needs as much popular support as it takes to get reelected. And as we’ve observed, that doesn’t always reflect the broader consensus of the public.
Murf76 on March 27, 2013 at 12:04 PM
Bloomberg is gay.
Schadenfreude on March 27, 2013 at 2:19 PM
It is amazing how a right to privacy means that my daughter can keep the fact that she is having an abortion from me but I cannot keep the fact as to whether or not I have health insurance from the government.
Theophile on March 27, 2013 at 6:45 PM
The entire SCOTUS should have been impeached after the Obamacare ruling. (If not the Boumediene 9/11 case much earlier.)
Incompetents or go-along careerist drones.
profitsbeard on March 28, 2013 at 2:26 AM