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.
When laws violate the Constitution, it means they must be challenged. This may be the perfect case for such a challenge.
He's being sponsored to cover the election. He's not a candidate promoting a product, just a man who really enjoys Doritos in his spare time.
Well? Is it? They might not donate money but they donate 24/7 spectrum to the Reps propaganda, which has to be worth quite a lot ...
He pretty much said so on the show. He joked that Doritos couldn't fund the campaign directly, so he would have to find some other excuse to accept their money. He has said in an interview (off his show) that he doesn't want to be President, he just wants to run for it. He is a smart guy, and he is backed by smart lawyers. I'm sure he'll stop before he crosses the line from legal to illegal.
Insert self-referential sig here.
We are lucky we live in the United States of America. We have a Constitution that guarantees that congress can make no law "abridging the freedom of speech". Errr....wait.....ummmmm. Well, I mean... except POLITICAL speech. I'm sure when they wrote the 1st amendment they didn't really mean political speech. I wonder why the supreme court just ignores this ?
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.
Politics in the US is outright pathetic. That may sound crass - but really, where is the candidate that doesn't have a stick up his ass and his hand in the cookie jar.
Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
right now it is all "speculation" about his rather obvious "sponsorship" by DORITOS.
But what if they are not actually doing anything except "playing along" and agreeing to let him "pretend" to have a corporate sponsor?
And if they are indeed paying "something", what if they are paying it to THE COLBERT REPORT?
Why can't the media be this interested in real shenanigans going on in politics?
is it because "real" politics does not have TASTY DORITOS? They are delicious.
I like microcars
Are you seriously suggesting that laws barring corporations from funding candidates should be overturned?
The system is corrupt enough as it is. We don't need Pfizer/Mobil for 2012.
The crazy thing is, I'd actually vote for Colbert, no qualms at all.. and I'm fairly serious about politics. (Watch his speech at the Bush dinner if you at all doubt his intelligence and capability). Even if some of the 'real' candidates look alright (Barack, say).. The last eight years have left me so disillusioned with politicians that I don't really trust any of them. Although I personally didn't support Bush in the least back in '00.. I could have in no way predicted that he'd be the power-hungry, numbskull, overarching leader he turned out to be. Sure his past was spotty (drugs, alcohol, some dumb decisions).. but not a whole lot worse than, say, your average college kid.
I'm reminded of a quote (can't find exact quote atm..) Anyone capable of being elected president doesn't deserve the title. Such is the state of money-dominated politics. I'd actually we randomly select a 'president' from a hat of all eligible citizens every six months or so — give 'em a short reign so they can't screw it up too badly.
Interestingly, I know some very bright guys doing research into randomized elections — basically you randomize the outcome somewhat to bypass the restrictions of Arrow's impossiblity theorem.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
Yeah, because we didn't get Halliburton/Enron in 2000? Hell at least Doritos isn't stealing peoples pensions to buy enormous yachts (that we know of).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If he wins, then it does not matter what illegal actions he has taken to win. The last two elections have established this sufficiently in legal precedence.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Douglas Adams.
No sig today...
How can it be criminal to run for a position for which every previous holder has to some degree or another, with cognizance, committed violence against the US Constitution?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." - Plato
Not that I'd endorse what the GP said, but how is this all that different from what we have now?
The Farewell Tour II
I call them clowns (i.e. comedians, not in a derogative sense) because that's what they would call themselves. Jesters are important, but making one of them president is like offering the chef position to a restaurant critic. It would only serve to show that knowing what someone does wrong isn't the same as knowing how to do it right (let alone doing it right). But if it would have to be one of the two, why Colbert? He appears to be limited to one (shallow) character. I don't think I've ever seen him say something interesting out of character.
With regard to the entry you linked to - ever notice how almost no candidate actually acts on the platform that they speak so much about during an election?
Now, with that in mind, why do you actually buy into what a candidate says their platform is? Looking at their past actions is much *much* more indicative of their actions if they actually get the office they are running for,
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Which, BTW I consider one of the most tragic things to happen to America in the last 100 years.
Which is more tragic: you get the permit to make use of a facility such as a convention center to hold a political event for you and your fellows, pay to make sure that police and rescue people are on hand to keep entrance and exit from the building safe, and then anyone with a length of chain or a giant puppet gets to shut down your event? Or, you get to exercise your First Amendment Rights just like anyone who goes to the same trouble to book that facility, get a parade permit, etc?
The most tragic thing to happen to the country in the last 100 years is that people of all idealogies actually get their rights defended and don't have to give up on their right to peacably assemble because someone else wants to shout them down? That, to you, is tragic? If you want to hold an event, you ALSO get to have it without it being shut down by the sort of people that throw bricks at bystanders .
You have it totally backwards. You can stand on a streetcorner any time you want and say anything you want. And you can go to the trouble of arranging for a larger event - including the protections needed for access to and from it - any time you want, just like anyone else can. As much as some peoople might WANT to disrupt your ability to speak, assemble, and hold events like political rallies, they don't get to. They don't get to block the street that you've arranged to use. They don't get to smash your vehicles or burn your signs. You don't get to do it them, and they don't get to do it to you. Equal protection means just that. If you're the sort that thinks it's UN-equal when you don't get to shout down someone else's speech or throw paint on their parade float or smash a Starbucks window just to show how cool you are and how righteous your point of view is, well, then you're just wrong and there's really no talking to. Luckily, you can't stop me from talking, and I can't stop you. Go ahead: book a parade venue, and see what happens when I go online to a couple thousand loony buddies and threaten to shut down your route. What happens is that your rights are protected.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
When I first heard of Colbert's run I thought it was a brilliant way to stage a protest vote. I believe (like apparently Steward and Colbert do) that the majority of Americans are much more in the reasonable middle than either the Democrats or the Republicans. If he were to get a "significant" vote in both the Democratic Primary AND the Republican Primary in South Carolina then hopefully the parties will realize how far on the fringe they BOTH are.
Unfortunately, even if Colbert is successful at this I do not believe the Dems or the Repubs(?) will have any sort of awakening. Regardless though... this seems to be a protest vote. Is there any sort of legal president for protest votes? If so, is it possible that protest votes may run afoul of the FEC?
He said "comedian," not "joke."
WTF? Have you seen the other candidates? President Colbert winning in '08 is the only thing that could keep me from moving to Canada.
Let me guess: people are civilized?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I hope he runs. It will drain the pool of idiot voters.
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.
Wait, Enron screwed over its employees because it didn't assist them them in illegal insider trading by dumping their stock onto some sucker before the financial weakness was public information?
No, Enron's employees fared much better than if their employer had offered a conventional pension. For one thing, if they chose to divert their 401(k) funds to any investment other than Enron stock (i.e. followed rudimentary diversification advice), they would have kept everthing short the company match (i.e. most of it). In a convetional pension, they either would have gotten nothing, or what the PBGC chose to award them from *other* workers' premiums.
The point is not that Enron's management was blameless, but that raiding a pension fund (i.e. withdrawing dedicated investment funds) is one crime they did not commit. And while I do feel for the the employees, we need to quit pretending they were passive bystanders in all of this. They thought they could make fast money and so ignored the boring diversification advice. Claiming that executives should say their own stock is overvalued, even if true, is unrealistic.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Here's my rebuttal: George W. Bush. Having a rich and powerful family is the only reason he is where is.
Campaign finance reform is a barrier to entry to keep the parties in control of government.
I'm sure striking down laws allowing rich people to automatically win the election is for the good of the nation,
..." groups. If campaign reforms worked at all the way they were intended, why have the candidates become ever less trustworthy and inspiring?
Actually the laws have the inverse effect. Instead of a potentially good leader being backed by (and owe favors to...) one or two super rich people, we have been left with poor leaders who are excellent fund raisers and who owe favors to many many people.
One of the most appealing things about politicians like Bloomberg or Perot is their freedom to do the job without oweing any special favors. The same or better could be said about a candidate that was sponsored solely by a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Everyone would know that the was a connection between the two and special favors would be glaring obvious and embarrassing.
The way campaign funding works now, I have almost no idea who the candidates really owe. Sure I could track down the long lists of info if I so desired, but it's a very long list for each and every candidate. I also have very how to direct my daily purchasing in regards to political spending, ie. If I buy a pint of Ben and Jerry's is the profit fro that going to go into a Democratic election coffer? What about Snapple, I heard somewhere that they donate Republican. Regardless the politicians owe more favors because the must collect from more sources.
The rich people still give lots of money, and still have disproportionate political influence, but now it is filtered through a dozen different "Friends of..." and "Citizens for
We are all just people.
So? It still worked better than what they have now.
So? It still worked better than what they have now.
Who said that? Post a link.
If you cannot, then you're beating a strawman. Which means you've already lost the discussion.
So? Saddam couldn't even travel his own country without a body-double. He was constantly in danger of assassination.
So why are you defending the plight of the average Iraqi now
Saddam was executed. He's dead. Isn't it time you moved on instead of trying to blame him for the anarchy and warlordism that is Iraq today?
He's dead. He was executed. Yet the situation did not improve. Are you going to keep blaming Saddam for the current situation?
Then we should just wait until the "their younger populat" becomes the government in 20 or so years.
They can ship all they want. Without Iraqi support, it would go no where.
The problem you don't want to face is that the Iraqi people do not seem to want our troops there. They're happy to attack them.
Again with the strawman. Is that all you have?
No matter how bad Iraq was, our invasion fucked it up even worse.
No matter how much the Iraqis hated Saddam and/or Iran, they prefer them to us.
No matter how much we spend (lives and money) in Iraq, when we leave it will be a civil war.
No matter how we re-define "victory", Iraq will end up with a Sharia-based legal system and strong ties to Iran.
You can blame anyone you want to. But all you're doing is trying to hide from the fact that you supported a fucked up invasion and the result is a lot more death and misery than Saddam inflicted. Yes, it is possible to say Saddam was a vicious 3rd world tin-pot dictator
I'm kinda with the parent on this one. I have zero respect for GWB but being rich and/or powerful does not automatically make one evil. Is Warren Buffett evil?
I'll grant you that GWB wouldn't have made it past college without his family connections. To me that's somewhat anti-American. Americans aren't supposed to condone or support the concept of a permanent nobility. We fought a revolution to free ourselves from it. That's one of the reasons why I'm always amused when people whine about the estate tax.
People like Paris Hilton are rightfully despised because they've never accomplished anything on their own and the only reason they are famous is because of their parents. I doubt I'll ever be rich but should I happen to make the right choices in life and wind up rich and/or powerful I won't be leaving millions of dollars to my kids. They should find success on their own.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If the submitter actually watched the show, he would know they've already covered this.
or else!
Um, no.
Publically traded companies have an obligation to present accurate financial information. Not only to their employees, but to everyone.
Insider trading would be if they only gave accurate information to their employees. 'Not lying' to everyone is not insider trading.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
"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?" -- I don't mean to speak out of turn, but have you ever worked in any sort of industry that has any sort of sales, marketing, or human resources department? I'd guess not, if you'd ask such a question... The entire world these days is spin management. Optics internally and externally are key focus items. BS is just an unappealing characterization of the typical activity performed by many parts of corporate infrastructure - marketing, legal, communications, HR, etc. Caveat Emptor applies to any corporate pronouncements. Only the terminally naive expect anything different and they habitually end up on the short end of the stick.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
while his supporters are allowed to line his motorcade route
Right, that's called freedom of assembly. A political party arranges for a parade, and they have the right to have that parade. They have the right not to have that parade shut down by someone else who doesn't think they should be allowed to have it. If Hillary Clinton, or B. Obama gets elected, should their political opponents be allowed to block that party's parade? Should someone be able to shout down John Edwards just because they think he's an oily car salesman of a politician? No. If his supporters book a venue, they should be allowed to hold their event without it being shut down by people who hate him. Hey, I thoroughly dislike him, but he and his supporters are certainly welcome to have whatever parades they arrange for without fear that someone looking to turn it into a media circus will try an organized rush into the road.
Are you seriously suggesting that the best solution is to allow the large organized groups that specifically say that their agenda is to disrupt someone else's assembly to do just that? Or, are you suggesting that there's no need to worry about it, because surely the police can keep them from actually blocking, say, a parade? And, how would they do that? Remember: we're talking about people who organize for months in advance, explaining how their intention is to shut down roads, block vehicles, and - as just happened in Georgetown - smash windows of businesses, etc., to make some vague point. How should your candidate's public event handle that sort of deliberate disruption in a venue that your candidate booked specifically for a peaceful assembly?
You can protest the president any time you want. You can even book the exact same venue that his own party books, and hold an entire event specifically and only to berate him. People do that all the time. Right now. When someone holds just such an event, should an organized group that doesn't like them be able to muscle in and shut it down by blocking the roads in and out? No? Then, should your group perhaps arrange for some law enforcement to prevent that disruption from happening? Or, do you prefer giant shouting matches, brawls, and unpoliced riots as your form of expression?
The shrill groups that complain about not getting to monopolize the parade route booked by their political opponents are essentially complaining that they're not being allowed to take over and shut down speech and assembly among people they don't like.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
People like Paris Hilton are rightfully despised because they've never accomplished anything on their own and the only reason they are famous is because of their parents.
Do you really think the rich pay the estate tax. I have a friend that I went to high school and college with. His grandfather built a poultry business into a national company. My friend's father and uncle sold the business. They took the money and set up a trust (actually, I suspect that the trust owned the business). My friend receives a regular "allowance" from the trust. This is the same sort of set up that the Dupont's, Kennedy's, Rockefeller's, and Bush's have.
The fact of the matter is that the estate tax actually increases the establishment of an aristocracy. If it wasn't for the estate tax, fewer wealthy parents would set up trust funds for their wealth. The trust fund decreases the chance that a child of wealthy parents will squander the wealth.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I always considered McCain-Feingold to be "incumbent protection."
When, in this election, they say you need 100 million to matter, it's pretty clear CFR failed miserably...
Here's an interesting question... how do you write-in a vote on a touch-screen? (nevermind that if your touchscreen is by Diebold, it will count as a vote for the Republican no matter what you do).
If they break other laws (disturbing the peace, etc.), arrest them for that. "Free speech zones" are prior restraint and should be abolished.
And that's the whole point that these professional/full-time protester types love so much. Given the opportunity to disruptively protest an event or moment that they know can only last for a short period of time, it doesn't matter if they get arrested, they've already shouted down that moment, and taken over the event. That sort of media monopolizing is what they're after, not debate.
If YOU book a venue, including for example a park, you DO have some say in how those grounds are used during your event. If you invite political supporters to that event, it's because you want them to be there. You've arranged for use of a space to assemble and have YOUR opportunity to speak and have a message come out of that assembly. Is it your contention that it's cool to trash such event with drum banging, screaming, etc., to the point where the event's scheduled timing (say, for broadcast, or because of limited traffic access, etc) means that it has now been shut down, because the person who's screaming or banging the drum has the same rights at the organizing group's event as the organizing group? Why should you accomodate people that have said in advance that their purpose is to gain access to this event specifically to disrupt it?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
...At least until the Electoral College gets ahold of it...
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
You know, it's funny how we got along just fine without FreeSpeechZones before Der Fuhrer came to power.
I don't give a shit if it's a Bush motorcade or a Clinton motorcade. It is CRIMINAL for the gestapo to round up peaceful law-abiding people from the public sidewalks and lock them in cages simply because they are wearing a T-shirt that says [Democrats/Republicans] Suck!
At MINIMUM such behavior by badge-wearing speech-police thugs should result in devastating civil suit awards against the government, big enough to hurt and make damn sure its not repeated, and more appropriately any badge-wearing speech-police thugs participating in such an act should be in prison for false arrest / unlawful detention / false imprisonment or somesuch.
If someone engages in an illegal act you arrest them. If someone anyone organizes in advance to commit an illegal act you arrest them for conspiracy to commit that crime or whatnot. You do NOT pull out a gun and lock up innocent bystanders on the public streets simply because you dislike their their T-shirt.
What the hell happed to protecting and preserving good-old-America?
Sure people who disagree are sometimes a nuisance. Sure sometimes some idiot among them does something stupid and illegal to get more attention. And we lock them up for it. We do not have gun-toting enforcers haul off the peaceful law-abiding people. Sometimes it's a nuisance, but it works and we've always managed to get by just fine that way. We've done it that way for over 200 years.
Why the FUCK do we suddenly have so many people wanting to destroy good-old-America and replace it with a God-damn police state?
Terrorist are not a threat to America. Terrorists can certainly kill a bunch of people, any drunk-ass moron can go postal with an automatic weapon in a mall jam-packed for holiday shopping and kill a couple hundred people. No, terrorists cannot destroy America, terrorists cannot even damage America.
No, the real threat, the only ones who can destroy America, are traitorous Americans advocating and defending things like "Free Speech Zones" and trading away civil liberties and gutting the Constitution piece by piece building a nice safe police state to protect us against the boogieman.
I'm not afraid of bin Laden and his goons. I'm not going to cower in fear of terrorists. But some of my fellow Americans have me scared shitless.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Sounds great. Now try to nail down "income" and try and collect 10% of it. Hint, look at US tax law. Taxing *income* is the problem. Try taxing something that isn't made by people and is relatively easy to measure. One good (IMHO) candidate is land. Some guy in the 18th century figured it all out. His name is Henry George. BTW taxing sales, bank transactions or flat taxes all have serious unintended consequences. Taxing land isn't perfect but it is about as equitable as you can get and it would *stimulate* productive activity. The other popular tax options *stifle* economic activity. Too bad it takes serious study to "get". Also, it is a very unpopular idea with wealthy and powerful people. I wonder why...
90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.