Forums

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap

• Joke or not, Comedy Central is taking Stephen Colbert's presidential candidacy - or, at least the legal implications of it - very seriously.
  
  The network has consulted a top Washington election law firm and appears keenly aware of the strict election law provisions that could be triggered by Colbert's satirical campaign.
  
  Comedy Central this week issued a confident statement rejecting assertions by election law experts that the network, Colbert and his eponymous faux news show, "The Colbert Report," risk violating the tricky laws governing what types of money can - and can't - be spent influencing federal elections.
  
  
  "Based on the law, prior rulings made by the Federal Election Commission and advice of expert outside counsel, Comedy Central is very comfortable that the network, 'The Colbert Report' and Stephen Colbert are operating well within federal campaign election laws," the statement said.
  
  The expert outside counsel in question is the Washington law firm Wiley Rein, whose lawyers have represented the Republican National Committee and the first President Bush’s campaign. In 2003, the firm won FEC approval for a reality show about a mock presidential campaign called "American Candidate," which aired on Showtime, at the time a subsidiary of Comedy Central's current parent company, Viacom.

Politico

• Stephen Colbert launched his native son candidacy for president in South Carolina today -- and drew comparisons with Christ while earning the wrath of another native, former Sen. John Edwards.
  
  Columbia, S.C., Mayor Bob Coble presented the "Comedy Central" hero a key to the city, declared him South Carolina's "favorite son" and officially proclaimed it Stephen Colbert day. Some in the crowd held signs with images of Colbert and Jesus that read, "Colbert. Christ. Favorite Sons '08."
  
  Colbert said he was honored to receive the key to the city and said he "loves South Carolina, almost as much as South Carolina loves" him.
  
  Meanwhile, The State newspaper in Columbia this weekend published a side-by-side comparison of the two native sons -- drawing a reply by the Edwards campaign contesting the findings.
  
  For one thing, Edwards' hair was described as "naturally fluffy" while Colbert's is "very stiff." But trouble started when Colbert was quoted on his opponent: "John Edwards left South Carolina when he was 1 year old. He had his chance. Saying his parents moved him - that's the easy answer."
  
  This prompted the Edwards campaign to send out to the media the following:
  
  "RHETORIC VS REALITY: STEPHEN COLBERT - PLAYING LOOSE WITH THE FACTS.
  
  "CLAIM: Edwards abandoned South Carolina when he was one year old.
  
  "FACT: Edwards was born in South Carolina, learned to walk in South Carolina, learned to talk to in South Carolina, and will kick Stephen Colbert's New York City butt in South Carolina.
  
  "Stephen Colbert claims to represent a new kind of politics, but today we see he's participating in the slash and burn politics that has no place in American discourse. The truthiness is, as the candidate of Doritos, Colbert's hands are stained by corporate corruption and nacho cheese. John Edwards has never taken a dime from salty food lobbyists and America deserves a President who isn't in the pocket of the snack food special interests."
  
  Colbert, at the campus of the University of South Carolina today, told several hundred sign-waving fans that he'll take care of the rival state to the south. "I promise, if elected, I will crush the state of Georgia," Colbert said to the cheering crowd.

Editor & Publisher


I know. I'm getting a little obsessed. I'll stop now.

Gattigap

One of the things I find interesting about the Colbert candidacy is that he spent nothing (as far as I can tell) for any of those double digit percentage points you posted last week. Guliani, Clinton and Thompson have been spending out the nose for every single percentage point they have. It seems to me that this faux candidacy could end up being as strong an argument as any for public funding of airtime for candidates' air time.