Slashdot Mirror
Colbert's Run For President May Be Criminal
eldavojohn writes "Some of you may know about Steven Colbert's fake presidential campaign... although are you sure it's fake? Well, it had better be because if it is taken too far — such as if he actually gets on the Republican and/or Democratic ballot in South Carolina — his use of corporations & advertising to back his campaign could get the attention of the Federal Election Commission. Doritos & Comedy Central could be facing some problems as well, funding a man running for president." A million Facebook users have signed up for the "1,000,000 Strong for Stephen T Colbert" group in the last week — though the group could be read as a satire of Barack Obama's similarly-named group, which has fewer than 400,000 members after 9 months.
The other night Colbert talked specifically about this. He said that under election law he can use the corporate sponsorship money to produce the Colbert Report but he can't use it for his campaign. So he took the opportunity to satirize the law and point out that as Colbert the show host he is saying "eat the chips!" but as Colbert the presidential hopeful he is simply saying that he enjoys a nice doritos chip.
In any case he and his show lawyers aren't as stupid as they pretend to be and they will make sure they stay on the right side of the law in case this does get taken seriously.
You're looking at the wrong group then, the one I'm in is at http://ksu.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7406420086
It has 1,092,360 members.
My UID is prime... is yours?
Deleted
"Wouldn't Jon Stewart be a better choice if you want one of the clowns to become president?"
Clowns? Perhaps you should take a look at the real presidential candidates before you call Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, "clowns".
I dare you to NOT find a clown running for president.
Hillary was on the board of directors for Wal-mart. Romney was the CEO of Bain & Company. Giuliani founded Giuliani Partners, a security consulting business and is a partner of Bracewell & Giuliani, a law firm.
Someone save me from this sanity.
There is a big difference between 1,000,000 people and 1,000,000 Americans.
For all their crimes, that's one thing Enron and Halliburton haven't done. They didn't offer a pension, just a retirement account match. In Enron's case, workers lost whatever they put into Enron stock, plus their match (which was given in stock).
If you want to complain about pension funds getting raided to pay for yachts, I'd like to direct your attention to:
-American car makers
-American steel makers
-American air carriers
-every state and local government pension fund
-the US Social Security system (I know, getting way off topic here)
All private companies listed above offered long-deferred compensation that they never bothered to fund in advance to actuarially-accurate levels, making them vulnerable to those expenses in the future. Because they got cheaper labor (by deferring part of workers' compensation) they were supposed to set aside a fund, but instead it was spent on dividends and bonuses. It is exactly as if I took out a giant business loan, paid it out as a dividend, and then complained about "legacy interest costs". Until recently, that was all with the blessing of the SEC.
In the case of the government agencies above, they take money that should be used to fully fund the obligations and instead spend it on present fads.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
I'm not a registered republican
Why do you not change your party to Republican for the primary? Unless it is already past your states deadline to switch, if your state has a deadline.
You will vote for the man if he gets the the nomination but you will not help him get the nomination by switching parties.
If there is another race you need to vote your party for then please stay with your party and do what you think is best for those other races in your state. However, if you do not have any other race in your state that you deem worthy enough to vote on, then please, change parties and vote for the man.
Coluche (1944-1986), a cult French Comedian, tried to pull this off in 1980, for the 1981 French presidential elections. Everybody started to get freaked out when he actually showed up with 16% of intended votes in the polls...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coluche#Presidential_bid
They didn't offer a pension, just a retirement account match. In Enron's case, workers lost whatever they put into Enron stock, plus their match (which was given in stock).
Even if Enron didn't offer a pension, they did cheat their employees out of their retirement. I say this because the big wigs at Enron knew about their impending collapse, and did not warn the employees. The executives knew that the company was horribly overvalued and heading for ruin, and let the employees take the fall.
So while in the most strict interpretation of the term "pension", you may be correct, the power players at Enron were certainly aware that they were screwing their underlings, and seemed to have no qualms about it.
Frankly, I'm just disappointed that the biggest of the big wigs died mysteriously (and quite conveniently) not long after being found guilty by a jury of his peers. Amazing how of course that meant his money was distributed to his family rather than to those from whom he cheated it out of.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I honestly hope Colbert wins in SC. The only better guy for president would be Jon Stewart!. Either of them would spank those Dem/Rep around in a debate until they cried.
Heh, I'd love to watch this as well. I was curious about what the requirements were to get into the debates, so I did a little googling. I can't find the criteria for the 2008 Presidential election (which are presumably pretty different, considering a number of the candidates in the debate don't meet the criteria below), but for curiosity's sake here's the criteria used in the the 2004 election debates:
http://debates.org/pages/candsel2004.html
* Evidence of Constitutional Eligibility: yup, Colbert's >35 years old and is a natural born citizen (born in DC, actually)
* Evidence of Ballot Access: he needs to get on enough state ballots to be able to theoretically win the election (270 electoral votes). I'm not familiar with the requirements for each state, but I imagine this could be tricky.
* Indicators of Electoral Support: He needs to poll at least 15% nationally. He's already polling ahead of Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. He also got 13% in polls which pitted him against Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.
Most human beings are dumb; at least half of them are 100 IQ points or fewer.
What's so sacred about being human? YOUR FEAR?
Anti-Globalism
Enron had been cooking the books for some time before they collapsed. The powers in charge were concerned only about their own profits. If they'd have been forthcoming with their employees that the world was not all roses, they could have had a chance to get out without needing "illegal insider trading". Hell, some of them may have even had better chances at finding better jobs for companies that weren't morally and financially bankrupt, had they had even a slight amount of notice ahead of time.
They thought they could make fast money and so ignored the boring diversification advice.
They also followed the advice and hype that came from the Enron executives. They were told that their company was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sure, they could have sought advice from outside, but why should they expect their employers to be giving them a load of BS?
Claiming that executives should say their own stock is overvalued, even if true, is unrealistic.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then on whether or not executives are morally obligated to make decisions based on morals.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Unfortunately, the law doesn't make that particular distinction. In some countries, corporations have the same rights as human beings and in others, so long as they are performing certain legal functions - they are also considered the same as human beings. I believe the term is juristic person.
Could anyone enlighten me as to a detail in the US law? Do you HAVE to be nominated to run, or would a simple majority of voters writing your name on the paper be considered a legal vote?
I'm not an election-law lawyer or expert, but: You do not have to be nominated to run, but it can be difficult getting your name on the ballot in states without a party backing you. It doesn't have to be Republican or Democrat; Libertarians regularly get their candidates on most state ballots as far as I am aware. I don't think Perot had a party backing him the second time.
As to the second part: If, in 2008, 51% of people in states making up at least 270 electoral votes voted for, say, Bill Gates, then he would be the legal winner, on a ballot or not. A vote is legal regardless of if the person has a party backing them. The person may not be legally eligible to be president however; you have to be 35 years old and a natural born citizen (plus a few other requirements, like spending the last five or ten years with the US as your primary residence, or something).
Anyone can run, and anyone over 35/natural citizen can actually be put in office. And I can legally vote for anyone I want, and the vote counts.
Almost none of what you say applies to the Presidential election, though, since you have to find a slate of electors -- as in "Electoral Vote" -- to put on the ballot, so there can't be a write-in candidate.
You make some good points about the electors and who we as voters actually choose in an election, BUT...
You're wrong about getting Bill Clinton elected for a third term. Congress didn't just make a law about it, it's the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..."
Elrond, Duke of URL
"This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
Hate to tell you this but everyone knew who Paris Hilton was before that video also.