Home > Articles, The Colbert Report > Colbert May Get FEC Exemption To Launch SuperPac.

Colbert May Get FEC Exemption To Launch SuperPac.

Comedian Stephen Colbert’s plan to launch a “SuperPac” moved one step closer to reality today, as the Federal Election Commission issued a pair of draft opinions allowing him to use his TV show’s resources to promote the group.

The Comedy Central star has been awaiting the FEC’s ruling on whether he could plug his group, “Colbert SuperPac” on the air under the “media exemption” to federal campaign finance law.

Regardless of which draft opinion is adopted, Colbert would be allowed to create his SuperPac and use his show’s resources to produce advertisements for the Committee as long as they are only used on the show, without parent company Viacom being required to reveal its donations to political campaigns.

The FEC drafts conflict over whether Viacom would have to disclose work its employees did on the SuperPac that are not explicitly for the broadcast.

The commission’s ruling in this case has the potential to tear down the boundaries between entertainment and politics on TV. The FEC’s ruling would also apply to any other media personality looking to promote independent expenditure groups on TV, for instance Karl Rove .

The FEC is accepting comments on the drafts until this upcoming Tuesday. The full commission will then consider them at its meeting on June 30.

Read the draft opinions: [Here]

Source: Business Insider.

(Thanks to Karen for the link)

  1. somuch2kno
    June 26, 2011 at 11:46 PM

    This would be MASSIVE! I hope he starts keeping tabs on this on Monday’s show. I’ve tried to find a way to comment on the drafts, but haven’t been able to find anything. I wonder if contacting the FEC on Monday would be fruitful.


  2. carolineny
    June 27, 2011 at 1:35 AM

    While this will probably be good for the show, I think the FEC will be making a terrible decision (if they confirm the draft ruling). It will make politics even less accessible for people without their own Fox TV shows or millions of dollars.

    I’m glad Stephen has drawn attention to this, though, and I’m sure he’ll have a lot of fun with it on the show.


    • June 27, 2011 at 2:22 AM

      Sadly, I have to agree with you. I am glad it will help TCR, and SC will do a lot with it, but overall, are creating more loopholes for PACs beneficial to our country?


  3. mrarkadinnfz
    June 27, 2011 at 3:22 AM

    Anything that will benefit Karl Rove (and corporations) makes me unhappy. So I guess I should be against this. However, doesn’t Rove already have this ability to promote his Pac now? Would a pro Stephen ruling make that much difference?
    If someone has the smarts and inclination please let me know.


    • susan209
      June 28, 2011 at 12:23 AM

      Hey, I replied to this earlier and it’s disappeared… Has the new format gobbled me up? Well, anyway, I said something to the effect of it being unfortunately a sad fact that it’s already too difficult for a regular person without a fortune or news show to get involved in politics and I think that Stephen’s PAC, if anything, will shed light on how ridiculous the current loopholes & laws already are. I think a lot of people have no idea that politicians can actually, truly be purchased in order to favor corporate interests. Let’s hope Stephen gets his way and more light gets shed.


      • susan209
        June 28, 2011 at 12:29 AM

        Oh, and I also meant to say that I think “Stephen,” and for that matter, Stephen, is Karl Rove’s worst nightmare. ‘Cause right now, while Rove may be able to promote his own PAC, not enough people realize what it is that he’s doing. Stephen (and “Stephen”) will hopefully make things a bit clearer. I just wish “Stephen” could be nominated for Supreme Court Justice, because that’s where the light should really be shed. Talk about purchasing political favors. This is just me talking, but the Supreme Court was, for awhile anyway, starting to look like Judges ‘R Us. Buy one, get one free. Blech. Go Stephen! We’ve got to start somewhere. But again, this is just me, and I’m not really sure I do have the “smarts.” “Inclination” is another matter!


  4. somuch2kno
    June 27, 2011 at 3:59 AM

    Maybe I’m being a little polyanna-ish, but I don’t think Stephen’s receiving approval for his Super Pac will make this horrific situation any worse. It might, possibly, maybe, bring the point home of the stupidity of the Supreme Court’s ruling to enough people to begin to effect a change back to a bit of sanity. Corporations are NOT people, and it’s time that actual people take their rights back. (Rolls eyes at herself and sheepishly gets off the soap box.)


    • karenatasha
      June 27, 2011 at 5:54 AM

      I so agree with you, SoMuch–stay on that soapbox if you want ! The situation is what it is, which is awful, and Stephen’s mischief-making can only make that crystal clear. I think that’s his point. If that’s what the government allows, why shouldn’t he take advantage of it?


  5. colbaby
    June 27, 2011 at 4:05 AM

    “The commission’s ruling in this case has the potential to tear down the boundaries between entertainment and politics on TV.”

    Hasn’t that ship already sailed? My understanding was that a ruling against Colbert PAC puts the PACs of people like Rove and Palin in jeopardy. But a ruling for Colbert PAC changes nothing, but does bring much needed attention to the insanity of the laws regarding PACs and the Citizens United ruling. No?


    • lockhart43
      June 27, 2011 at 11:41 PM

      But a ruling for Colbert PAC changes nothing, but does bring much needed attention to the insanity of the laws regarding PACs and the Citizens United ruling. No?

      That’s what I gather from it, yes. The media exemption that the Colbert PAC is banking on is already in existence. They’re just trying to do the same things that others have already gotten away with. I hope the FEC grants the exemption; I feel like the entire point of the PAC is to expose the loophole, not create a bigger one. And ‘boundaries on entertainment and politics on TV’? What boundaries? I think those against the idea of the Colbert PAC are just hoping the FEC doesn’t grant the exemption for the simple fact that they don’t want the public to continue to ask questions about Citizens United, calling for its repeal, and spoiling all of their shouldn’t-be-legal fun.


  1. No trackbacks yet.

And that's the Word

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: