Remember when I said that Stephen Colbert’s PAC and Super-PAC were nifty satires of the political process but that he will never do anything serious with them to affect the race? Remember when I got grief from the naive Colbert-slurpers who insisted that their hero would really do so, really really 'cause he’s not just a television comedian, he’s so much more?
It’s a hard-hitting slap at The Man and his Rules. Unfortunately, The Man is David Stern and the Rules are the ones that keep Mark Cuban from commenting on the NBA lockout.
Mark Cuban for President?
Guys, get real. Colbert is a Viacom employee. Viacom will never do anything that will affect the presidential race. Expect satire from a safe distance. Nothing more.
Satire is great, though. I love satire. Why isn’t that enough?
I don’t really remember the thread being quite the way you described it, Exapno Mapcase. Could you link to it?
I think there were two main points made against your argument; 1) that Colbert probably wouldn’t worry about affecting the race because a) he’s just a comedian and b) making use of the PAC to create and run advertising will have some inevitable effect on political races even if it’s not predictable, and 2) Colbert’s intent is to draw attention to certain flaws in campaign financing rights & restrictions, which may result in increased public awareness/dissatisfaction (not at all incompatible with satire).
The purpose is not to directly influence the race by supporting or opposing specific candidates. He’s demonstrating how completely screwed up our campaign finance laws are that allow SuperPACs in the first place.
The actual thread. It’s somewhat deficient in posts that say what you’re saying people said. You did get around to saying that the show wouldn’t be allowed to affect the race, and one person disagreed with the “allowed” part. Nobody said anything like “Colbert will really affect the race cause he’s so much more than just a television comedian.” I think you’ve already established that you don’t like the joke.
Meantime, Colbert changed the PAC to a 501(c)4, a different type of organization that can participate in elections. Unlike regular PACs, 501(c)4s are not required to disclose the identity of donors at all. I don’t think this is something people were aware of and it’s a funny way to bring it to people’s attention. The satire focuses on campaign financing and the new ways that groups can use their money to get involved. I hope there’s more to come, but I don’t think changing the GOP race or the general election is the goal.
When Colbert opened the new ‘corporation’ that takes the (now private) donations before forwarding it to the SuperPAC it meant that he no longer needs to disclose the people that are making the donations to his ‘campaign’.
Mark Cuban was a guest last week and he is not allowed to speak out about the lockout. He is, however, allowed to make a donation to a corporation that does not have to disclose its donors. The fact that an ad appeared, paid by a SuperPAC, commenting on the lockout from what could conceivably be Mark Cubans view is a demonstration of the failure of the ‘transparency’ of fundraising for political campaigns.
It shows that anyone can set up these SuperPAC relationships to allow anonymous donations and still give the donors the ability to advertise/push/lobby their own agenda.
No, Colbert is not directly influencing the Presidential race, but he is pointing out the failure of the system to enforce what it was set up to do. It’s another example of the game players making their own rules to suit their own agenda.
Yeah, I’m seeing this as a pretty lame attempt at a “gotcha!” by the OP. Maybe I’m missing something, but nothing in the original thread seems to support what you’re claiming the point was.
This is a sore point point with me that goes all the way back to the fake entrance into the primaries in the run-up to the 2008 election. I get slammed then for pointing out that the entire purpose of the stunt was ratings rather than Colbert really caring about the issues. More. Some bozo gave me my one and only pitting for that. No, I’m not going to search for or link to any of that. That they did it was embarrassing enough without my naming names.
That attitude persists. As I said repeatedly in the thread Marley linked to, I get the joke. It’s all the people who think that he can do more than just joke who don’t get it. They’re out there and it depresses me. Most things do. It’s a dumb eat dumb world.
What has Colbert done since the “Parry” stunt? Nothing. Nothing about politics that is. He skirted too close to the edge and apparently got told to back off from anything overt. That’s why this new kind of PAC that doesn’t require the naming of donors was such a huge gift to him. (That arrived after that earlier thread, BTW.) He gets to keep hitting the button of that hypocrisy with a huge hammer. That’s perfect for him. It’s great satire. And he’ll be allowed to keep milking it as long as he does nothing political with it. That’s why he’s picking on David Stern. He can imply that Mark Cuban donated the money and that’s why shadowy figures are doing in the real world of politics without actually stepping even a toe in the real world of politics. That’s critical.
Get it? Satire about politics without affecting politics. Comedy. Comedy, we need to remember, that’s written by his umpty zillion writers with an unknown contribution from him beyond the performance of it. He’s not Will Rogers, or Mort Sahl, or even Art Buchwald. He’s a television talking head. A superb television talking head whom I’ve watched since the very first show, but not a political figure in his own right.
Get it right. He’s smart comedy, which is why I like him so much. Give him credit for the things he can do and does well. Just don’t think he’s going to undermine the system. That’s dumb, and he would hate it as much as I do.