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.
Yeah, I'm sure striking down laws allowing rich people to automatically win the election is for the good of the nation, and exactly what the Founders intended.
i had suspected that the colbert group would easily have more users than the obama group. sad that our choices for president are so fucking awful that a joke candidate gets more support. obama is a chump.
Oh yeah, and you don't think CNN and MSNBC is doing the same thing with the "Dems"??? Wake Up!
Rirelobql xabjf gung EBG-13 vf gur yrnfg frpher rapelcgvba rire, ohg jbhyq lbh jnfgr lbhe gvzr npghnyyl qrpelcgvat vg???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulsen
Pat Paulsen ran many times for President and even got some write-in votes. It's conceivable that Colbert could get a lot of protest votes.
I don't know the law well but there are some places where write in votes count. If that were the case here, Colbert could win without being on the ballot. That would be really funny. If you're not on the ballot, how can you be charged with campaign violations?
(Yes, I know about the Electoral College etc. etc.)
why shouldn't they? They are taxed separately than the individuals they embody so shouldn't they be represented as well? Or do you believe in taxation without representation? They are part of the economy, they are taxed, they are regulated, they are subject to laws. How exactly are they different?
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Say Gulliani has been paid by the Mexican government (for consulting on crime) and he is using his wealth to fund his campaign - is that Illegal because it amounts to foreign support for political candidates?
Apparently Stephen earns the money he makes by appearing as "Talent" on a show which sells advertising. The shows sponsors are paying him for attracting viewer - rather than advancing a political agenda. I don't know that Stephen's "Campaign" is directly funded by the people who pay him to do his job.
Aik
How many non-rich people have been elected President in the last 250 years? The same people that succeed in their private endevours are the same people that succeed in politics because they have the connections and the ability to make them.
In a Republic, it is the business of every free citizen to participate. Most, however, do not. If you don't like it, participate. But that means more than just voting, and that means starting early. If you don't have a record of success, if you don't have the connections, you'll never make it. You can't blame people for succeeding when you don't.
Its tempting to think that some "normal" person can become President, but I'm not going to vote for a random IT worker or the town druggist for anything more than town council or congressman. Why? Because if they had the chops that it takes to be President, then they would have done more with their life than that. Everyone has to start somewhere, but you can't jump straight into the big game.
This is similar to a book by Arthur C. Clarke called Songs of Distant Earth. On a low-population planet, the method of electing a leader is basically a randomized computer ballot. Anyone that wants to become leader is automatically eliminated as an option because they are assumed to have ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the population. Of the remaining candidates, the leader is selected at random (or at least as randomly as the computer can).
Aikon-
Let me first say... the constitution was meant to protect individual rights. The problem with your viewpoint is that the corporate philosophy is largely dictated by the corporate leadership (often influenced by a single person or those that sit on the board). Applying constitutional rights to corporations in turn gives a limited number of people in charge of the corporate world significantly more power and influence over our government (and its officials) than the ordinary citizen. As a result of this consolidation of power, individual rights are diluted when a few people have vastly more influence over the government than the remaining 99.999%, which is what the constitution is meant to protect against. For example, this consolidation of power in the higher echelons of society leads to the problems that we currently face in our electoral system... candidates pandering to the middle and lower class to get elected, then spending tax (or bond) money to make up for promises they made to obtain (and to continue obtaining) campaign funding from the corporate elite, meanwhile running the government as if it were a business that has the luxury of being able to print money (and issue bonds) when it gets into a bind (debt which ultimately must be paid for by either the tax payer via higher taxes or the consumer via higher prices on consumer items).
Secondly let me say... your notion that corporations pay taxes, and therefore should have constitutional rights is false. We, the consumer, pay corporate tax debt through consumption of higher prices goods. Individual workers are ultimately the only taxpayer in our system whether we pay taxes directly to the government, or whether we pay taxes via corporate tax debt passed on to us as consumers through higher priced goods. As such, individuals are the only entity that should be afforded constitutional protections (in my view anyway).
Finally, if things continue the way they are, let's at least insist that our political leaders wear corporate sponsorship stickers plastered over their suits much like a NASCAR pit crew. You know, corporations that donate $10K get to put a sticker on the coat tails where no one sees it, donate $100K and you get to put a sticker on the shoulder of the candidate, ones that donate $10M get a prominent sticker on the candidates chest.
Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
There's an even bigger difference between 1,000,000 people and 1,000,000 American registered voters.
Well then, Mr Coward, how is it any different from all the other self-serving bills put forth by various government officials "on behalf of" the deep pocketed corporations that lobby them ?
I mean, Halliburton is a nice, community-focused, law-abiding facilitator of world peace... rrright ?
What I like about Canada is up here, we have sponsorship scandals. In the states, it's just business as usual. I'm not saying the Canadian government is devoid of corruption, geez, we've got a bunch of asshats too! The thing is, when any law prohibits some activity, people find ways around that law. People with money are typically better equipped to find, establish and employ those workarounds. Me, law or no law, I couldn't get any TV show to promote my campaign because I'm a broke ass geek.
Most everything follows the same pattern... copy-protection: no-cd patches, DVD CSS: decrypters, Laws: loopholes. The reason they all fail is because of the human factor. People make them, and people will break them.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I don't think I've ever seen him say something interesting out of character.
I'd suggest you give last week's "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" a listen. The segment where he was being interviewed was purely Stephen Colbert the real person, not the TV show pundit.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7406420086
seems not to show up in the normal search.
Randomocracy is a very nice idea in my opinion. It is a combination of direct democracy and statistics.
Also, while the average person may not be the brightest, they aren't that much worse than most politicians. If anything, I think that a random selection of common people have a larger knowledge and experience base than a random selection of politicians.
Actually listening to politicians, it is obvious that they aren't brighter than the average person. Or do you think that saying that "The internet is a series of tubes" expresses some kind of superior intelligence. If politicians are good at anything, it is the art of being elected, which has little to nothing to do with making decisions in goverment.
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?
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
If the laws written by those with money and power are meant to benefit that same class then they must also, by necessity, benefit those who are making them wealthy and powerful. I was poor and non-powerful once, and still spent some of my Earned Income Credit on Doritos. Food Stamps too.
I'm actually warming up to the idea of corporate sponsorship of political candidates. "The Stephen Colbert Presidential Candidacy, brought to you by Doritos". Yeah, that has a nice ring. Political candidates have to seek approval, at most, once every couple of years. But Americans are voting with their dollars several times every day. They vote for who will be rich and powerful several times a day based not on what's philosphically agreeable to them, but on what they actually want - with a direct negative impact to their bank account. Political votes are free and voluntary. Capitalist votes (with dollars) are also voluntary, but not free. That's the beauty of capitalism - when a transaction is finalized, both parties say "Thank You" - because I wanted the Doritos more than I wanted the dollar, and they wanted the dollar more than they wanted the Doritos.
Mutually agreeable is a good thing, no?
So why not let those whom we've already voted into power have a large impact on elections?
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Colbert is doing in this campaign exactly what he does on the show--an exaggerated version of the stupidest stuff that is done by the people he parodies.
The purpose of TDS and TCR is not to be a real news show, but to make really clear the stupid stuff that takes away the integrity of real news shows. Similarly, the purpose of this campaign is not to be a real campaign, but to expose the corruption and falseness of real political campaigns.
If he actually does win, it will only go to show that nobody gets his point, but that they're just a slightly different bunch of sheeple.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Warren Buffet is Satan himself! No, no, I kid. No human being is entirely good or evil. Even Hitler was sweet to his dogs. And as mega rich guys go, Buffet is one of the better ones, by far. I admire much about him, but let's not quite give him sainthood yet. While I certainly applaud many of the public stances he has taken, I think it's accurate to say that Buffet has been primarily motivated by desire for profit, and not by improving the life of his fellow human bings.
And in the quest for that profit, Buffet has been a part of some business ventures that aren't exactly wonderful. Buffet made lots of his money in insurance. My experience with insurance companies, and the overwhelming majority of anecdotal evidence that I've encountered, is that they are complete and utter bastards. The goal is always to deny the claim, not matter what. The insured then typically has to endure a bureaucratic nightmare trying to get the money that they rightfully are owed. So is that not evil?
Buffet also made a lot of money by owning Coca-Cola stock. I consider them to be pretty evil. They use a massive marketing budget to promote a product that is unhealthy and contributes massively to making the world overweight. So what's evil, if not profiting from the suffering of your fellow humans? Yeah, they're not exactly a tobacco company, but they're not really far off in my mind. To me, the Coca-Cola corporation exemplifies everything that is bad about American culture - fantastic marketing, no nutritional value.
And, to somewhat tie this rant back to the Colbert story, it's not like Buffet is a self-made man. He has far more in common with George W. Bush than he does with Colbert. Buffet is a child of privilege, like so many other rich people. His dad was in Congress. That's a nice head start in life. My dad is a meth dealer. So yeah, the playing field was not quite level there. Buffet had enough money to buy a gas station when he was 21. Did you? Me either. The Buffet worshipers should keep that in mind.
But to get back to the original poster's question: yes, rich people are all evil. As you get more and more rich, it's harder and harder to stay away from evil. I'll just quote my main man JC here: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God".
What is so wonderful to me about Colbert's candidacy is how he is lampooning the system by becoming part of it. Yes, he faces some serious legal issues. And that's wonderful. He's gone into Andy Kaufman territory, where a big part of the joke is the fact that no one can be exactly certain where the joke ends. Colbert likes to say that he's in now way qualified, but is he really any less qualified than Fred Thompson? Or for that matter, Dubya? I'd bet a kidney that Colbert would beat Dubya on a teast covering basic knowledge of current events. Colbert a really sharp guy. Bush is not. So who is qualified?
One thing I could respect about Clinton was that whatever you could say about him, good or bad, he wasn't born with silver spoon in hand... he wasn't no Senator's son, no, no...