E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSComedian Stephen Colbert sat down with Rock Center Special Correspondent Ted Koppel to talk about the influence of Super PACs in this year's election. While joking with Koppel, Colbert also got serious, telling the backstory of how he formed his Super PAC.
Tuesday is the day for the so-called Super PACS to file an annual report of donors. NBC News and msnbc.com will be scouring the filings, and posting details. We'll have updates on msnbc.com, and could always use your help identifying the economic and political interests behind the names.
TV political satirist Stephen Colbert kicked off the reporting by filing a statement showing $1 million in contributions to his group, Americans for A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. You can see his announcement and filing here.
"'Yeah! How you like me now, F.E.C?" Colbert told the Federal Election Commission in a cover letter. "I'm rolling seven digits deep! I got 99 problems but a non-connected independent-expenditure only committee ain't one!''
"We raised it on my show," Colbert told his fans, "and used it to materially influence the elections -- in full accordance with the law. It's the way our founding fathers would have wanted it, if they had founded corporations instead of just a country."
Colbert had fun on his show Monday night with some of the bogus names of donors listed on his report: Pat Magroin, Ibin Yerkinoff, and Frumunda Mabalz.
The political action committees must disclose by midnight tonight who gave them money, and how much they spent to support or oppose candidates in the presidential race, including the Republican candidates and President Obama as well.
The official deadline for filing is midnight ET (12 a.m. Wednesday), so reports may trickle in. And it wouldn't surprise us if some campaigns file late tonight as attention is focused on voting results in the Florida Republican primary.
Super PACS are known to the Federal Election Commission as independent committees, because they are forbidden to coordinate their activities with campaigns. Outside the limits of campaign finance laws, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals. They can use that money to advocate for or against political candidates.
Read more about the reports filed Tuesday:
After TV cameras leave, Romney PAC discloses $18 million
Spielberg, labor union are big backers of Obama Super PAC
Perry PAC's $1 million donor got help with nuclear waste dump
Major GOP Super PAC raised $51 million in 2011
Not 'Desperate' for cash: Obama lists his big fundraisers
Sugar Daddy: Huntsman's father gave $1.9 million to Super PAC
Leave a Comment:
Just goes to show how many fools watch and believe in the Comedy Channel. It's OK to watch and laugh, but people, its not real objective news. It's just a couple of comedy shows hosted by liberal comedians - REALLY!
And you identified one who doesn't...
Do you mean, just goes to show you how ridiculous these superPACs are? Unlimited resources to influence our elections. Hmmm. Something doesn't smell right here. Thanks to Colbert for attempting a ridiculous stunt that displays superPACs for what they are.
Dan G. I think people who watch this know all of this. They are sending money to show their disgust at the system. Hoping that through humor and satire change will be made. Another good comedian.. Glenn Beck. Oh wait I'm being told now that he was serious about all the stuff he made up..
It just exposes how silly our political landscape has become. A comedian just raised $1M not running for anything. Oh wait, he was running for president of south carolina. Super PAC's will be the final death blow to american politics. The average man's vote does not count for anything anymore. It's all about the best candidate that money can buy.
It you check it out totally, you'll find that more Americans learned about Super-Pacs watching Colbert and Stewart than by any other means. And if I had Mitts' money I'd bet you $10,000.00 that the $1,000,000.00 to that Super-Pac did more good than all the rest!
@BigJohn: That is why we need to get the two Popular Amendment Movement (faircampaignreform(dot)us) petitions circulated, signed, and turned into at least 3/4 of the Secretaries of State.
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Election Reform
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Election Reform:
1. Abolish the Electoral College (Repeal Amendment 12)
2. ONE NATIONAL primary date to be held on the Tuesday eight (8) weeks prior to the General Election day for Congressional offices and for the President. Candidate petitions must be filed with the local/state elections boards 60 days prior to the Primary Election date. Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a “contract with the voters” that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met.
3. NO campaigning allowed for any elective federal office more than 60 days prior to the National Primary Date.
4. NO campaign contribution shall be donated to any candidate of more than $200 from an individual or $500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.) No donations shall be made to a candidate more than sixty days prior to the primary date. No candidate shall contribute from their own funds more than 60% of the total donations from other private individuals.
5. NO campaign contribution from any PAC, corporation, union, non-profit organization, special interest group, etc. shall be allowed for any elected federal office.
6. NO third party campaigning (separate PAC ads, corporate ads, etc.) for/against any candidate shall be allowed at any time during or before the election season.
7. NO party conventions shall be held to select the presidential candidates. The selection must be done at the ballot box in the primary election.
8. The One Man/One Vote Supreme Court ruling shall be enforced by this Amendment, namely that NO federal candidate selection shall be by any means other than the ballot box on Primary/General Election Dates.
9. National Party Organizations shall NOT raise money for or donate to specific candidates of their party prior to the dates outlined above.
10. PAC’s shall NOT be granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, and any non-profit organization who uses their funding for political purposes shall lose their tax-exempt status.
11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Congressional Term Limits
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Term Limits for Congress:
1. Representatives to Congress shall serve no more than two two-year terms in the House.
2. Senators shall be elected to no more than two six year terms in the Senate.
3. No elected official shall serve more than six terms in office in any combined elected offices (House/Senate/Presidency.)
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
There's more truth offered up on Colbert and Stewart in their shows than all of the content offered on Fox and it's various international equivalents. Delivering it in the guise of humor doesn't diminish those truths.
Republicans are failures and so are Democrats. That's why SuperPACs exist. ANYTHING to get the power of government into the hands of the few.....
This is more of a sign at how disillusioned people are. And Colbert is showing in full color how much BS SuperPACs are.
Watch it! You'll want to vomit after you laugh and realize how gross SuperPACs are. If there was a revolution in this country, no doubt it should be over this.
Dan: you're actually COMPLAINING that political satirists on comedy central aren't objective news programs?? Geez, DAN, it must be a laugh a minute at your house.
oh Hun, its so much more than that. Its the truth
I don't know, an intelligent person can identify that the satire these shows present makes a real statement and can initiate real discussion. Sometimes, ridiculing or satirizing something that is wrong with our society is the best way to get peoples' attention. I think that is true throughout our history.
Sometimes "objective" news tippy-toes around making editorial comments that limits the value of their news to mere facts without much enlightenment. Sometimes, I find an episode of South Park has a lot to say about society that can be helpful for people to think about. There's nothing wrong with good satire to get people thinking.
Oh, and liberals do satire well. Conservatives just get fat idiots like Rush Limbaugh, who doesn't even know he's doing satire, and utterly boring writers like P.J. O'Rourke. But the conservatives have their satirists as well, they just tend to suck.
@ Dan G.: You just don't get it, do you? When did you misplace your sense of humor? And have you looked for it?
@ Dan g
I always hate it when an idiot go's first on these things so as a favor to me next time don't go FIRST!!!!
And the "No @!$%#, Sherlock" award goes to...
Gee, Dan. Did you figure that out all by yourself or did you get your mom to help you?
I'll bet you watch Fox "News".
"And have you looked for it?"
If it's not on the back of a milk carton, I'd say Dan's screwed ...
Teabaggers just don't get that comedians have been skewering politics since the dawn of man ... Teabaggers aren't known for their sense of humor ... how sad.
...I watch Fox and laugh...it is non-objective but from the conservative perspective. Big difference though - comedy central is supposed to be funny.
Jon Stewart cracks a lot of jokes on his show, but he's one of the most knowledgeable people on TV. If you don't believe me go watch his interview with Jim Cramer or last night's interview with Lou Dobbs, Stewart wiped the floor with both of them.
Lou Dobbs and Jim Cramer are both idiots. That is a low bar. But yeah, Stewart is very smart and knowledgeable. I'd vote for him if he ran for political office. In a heartbeat.
Wow really, I never would have known he is a comedian. Wow thanks for enlightening me! (thats satire too doofus)
Not real objective news? I suppose you think Faux News and the political attack ads are objective? Colbert is showing us what a scam these Super Pacs are, and those who don't get it, those who believe that the ads and the "foolminations" of Faux News are truthful, are the fools.
Actually, Greg, that's sarcasm, not satire.
@Imatthebeach - if you've noticed, conservatives rarely have much of a sense of humor. They crack themselves up coming up with names like "Odumbo" or "Obozo", but that's about as good as it gets for them.
Anti-trust proponent: Shouldn't happen. Couldn't happen, Wouldn't happen.
I would not want to live in a Country that allows only the big population areas to tell the rest of the country who our elected Federal officials will be. Popular voting will not work with all the different states we have. There would never be enough states agreeing to this to ratify the changes.
Perhaps we should reduce our Federal Gov't down to a bare minimum as it was designed to be and let the States do as they would like to do. That is how the Consitution was designed. Federal Gov't was only for creating a standing army to defend the USA and to work with other countries on behalf of the united states.
Many people forget that this is not the country of America. This is the United States of America. All 50 of us and a few Territories thrown in for good measure.
how can you have a sense of humor when your heart is filled with hate?
Thank God I am a liberal and get access to comedy and good music! Would suck being stuck with Fox for my comedy and country for my music.
The funniest (sad) thing I've seen on TV lately was Fox News asking viewers to email them reports of percieved media bias; and they totally kept a straight face!
Dan, how many lemons did you suck today? C'mon, lighten up a little, give us the John Boehner smile he is so famous for!
In my humble experience, people with narrow minds and/or self-serving political agendas rarely make -- or even understand -- the distinction between "comedy" and "satire." For some, the generalization is a deliberate rhetorical strategy; that is, placing satirists like Colbert & Stewart in the same category as "comedians" like, say, Larry the Cable Guy, makes it easier to attack/demean/ignore their opinions. For the rest, it seems the generalization is simply born of willful ignorance. In Dan G's case, I think it may be a little of both.
Let me guess, you don't think there is a liberal media bias?
Dan wrote..... Just goes to show how many fools watch and believe in the Comedy Channel
First Dan, I don't know what you mean by "believe in". It's Comedy. What's to believe in.
The Comedy Channel is what it is. A TELEVISION NETWORK CHANNEL FEATURING COMEDIANS FOR OUR ENTERTAINMENT. Stephen Colbert is a comedian who does a fantastic show based on political satire. It's just so very. very funny. You should watch it. Lighten up a bit.
But Colbert is probably one of the brightest stars of all. He is able to grasp the root of what is going wrong with our government and the way it operates and what has most Americans so angry. AND best of all, in his comedic way he has been able to illustrate for millions of us, exactly what the political campaign finance reforms have done to us. If he's taking sides with anyone, he's taking OUR side. You know, you and me and the rest of us suckers. He's been able to clearly show the way our politicians have set themselves up with a free ride paid for by special interests. You, me and the rest of us are not considered in anything they do. It's their special interests who are willing to buy them a seat in Congress, the Senate and the White House who are in control of everything. Doesn't that make you want to laugh a little? Even just to relieve the built up anger and frustration.
You're being redundant. We liberals knew that already. Didn't you?
@DelFairchild: How does this amendment 'allows only the big population areas to tell the rest of the country who our elected Federal officials will be?" Except for the president/VP (which even that office would NOT be determined by only the big population areas), all Congressional members are elected by their state/district and ARE elected by popular vote. The reason the amendment calls for the repeal of the 12th Amendment and the abolishment of the Electoral College is because it truly is not needed, especially with the SCOTUS one man/one vote ruling of several years ago. The highest office in the land SHOULD be by a majority vote of the electorate (just like Congress), not a bunch of "electoral college members" who can be bought off for their vote, since not all states force their members to vote per the popular vote of that state. Most states "elect" their members of the Electoral College, so with the gerrymandering of voting districts, one party or the other can control those elections, just like they do for Congress and state legislatures.
The main point of this amendment however is in Sections 5, 6, and 11.....the banning of ALL corporate, union, non-profit, PAC, Super PAC, etc. contributions and third-party advertising and the banning of ALL lobbyists from Congressional influence. Secondarily is the shortening of the campaign period for all federal offices.....including president/VP.....to basically a four month time frame. Get rid of these "campaign from the day you are elected" incumbents and the four-six year presidential runs. Why do we need 10-11 months of primaries? Put them all on one single day nationwide.
...Gee, thanks, Dan G! Shucks...and here I thought it was serious, objective, non-biased, no-spin news, like FOX- REALLY!
Dan G.-461155 says
"Just goes to show how many fools watch and believe in the Comedy Channel. It's OK to watch and laugh, but people, its not real objective news. It's just a couple of comedy shows hosted by liberal comedians - REALLY"
And yet their viewers still know more about whats going on in the world than Fox News viewers. As a matter of fact Fox News viewers know less than people who watch NO news at all. Awkward!!!
read this nydailynews.com story about the study that proves this
Fox News viewers less informed than those who don't watch news at all: study
MEENA HARTENSTEIN
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
If Fox News viewers want to be informed about current events, they might as well turn off the TV.
A poll released by Fairleigh Dickinson University on Monday found that people who get their news from Fox News know significantly less about news both in the U.S. and the world than people who watch no news at all.
In a survey of 612 New Jersey natives, Fox News fans flunked questions about Egypt and Syria when compared with people who don't watch the news. Fox viewers were 18-points less likely to know that Egyptians toppled their government and 6 points less likely to be aware that Syrians have not yet overthrown theirs.
Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News," Dan Cassino, a Fairleigh Dickinson professor who served as an analyst for the poll, said in the report. "Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions that those who don't watch any news at all."
Those surveyed also struggled with current events closer to home. Just 47% were able to identify the Occupy Wall Street protesters as predominantly Democratic, while 11% thought they were Republican. Here it was MSNBC viewers who got it wrong the most - watching the left-leaning network was linked to a 10-point increase in the likelihood of misidentifying the demonstrators.
MSNBC viewers did have a 10-point higher chance, however, of correctly identifying Mitt Romney as a frontrunner in the race for a 2012 GOP nominee. Fox News viewers didn't benefit -- or suffer -- in this category, a fact Cassino called "very surprising" given the amount of attention the network has paid to the candidates.
The most informative outlets were found to be the Sunday morning news shows as well as outlets like the New York Times, USA today and NPR.
Another powerful source of news was the "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."
Stewart's viewers had a 12-point higher likelihood of correctly identifying the Wall Street protesters, for example.
"Jon Stewart has not spent a lot of time on some of these issues," Cassino said. "But the results show that when he does talk about something, his viewers pick up a lot more information than they would from other news sources."
mhartenstein@nydailynews.com
Funny how everyone basically gave Dan negative votes causing it to collapsed the whole board.
Dan G.-461155 Comment collapsed by the community
I agree Dan! Any fool that watches FOXnews and thinks that any part of... oh... you weren't talking about FOXnews? Never mind.
@ anti-trust proponent
Here are the obvious-to-me problems I see with your first proposed Amendment:
Article 2) The "contract with voters" sounds like a nice concept, but in practice would be unworkable because politicians would just phrase everything "I will work on...", "I will attempt...", etc. Even if they actually did promise something but were not able to deliver because of obstruction or some extenuating circumstances, it would be an extremely difficult and expensive case to try. What amount of evidence proves that a candidate was trying to fulfill Campaign Promise #501? Are they really culpable for not reducing unemployment by a full 5 points if they reduce it 4.5 points? Or if all their proposed bills get shot down?
Article 4) The AVERAGE American family has 2.5 kids, and you want to limit the political contributions from a household to two parents and half of another person? What if they have two or more of their parents living with them? Elderly, retired people who cannot afford to live alone anymore? What if they have Mom, Dad, two grandparents, and two voting age children, all living under one roof? Obviously this is a simple change to the proposed amendment, it just needed more thought.
Article 5) You seriously believe that the teachers unions, United Auto Workers, ASPCA, NAACP, NAEA, and environmental non-profits should not be allowed to express their opinions about which candidates best support their interests by donating to their campaigns? How do you propose that they express their opinion then? Non-coordinating indepent committees? (SuperPACs... pretty sure you actually wanted to get rid of these). I completely disagree that at least these democratic expressions of groups of people, Unions (the people who brought us 40 hour work weeks, minumum wage, anti-child-labor laws, and the "weekend"), should be barred from expressing their political opinions when it comes to elections. Non-profits on the other hand, I might be convinced should not be allowed to contribute.
Article 6) Whoops, stepped in the same cow pie again... apparently you actually do not believe that any of those entities should be allowed to express their opinions. But who do you hold accountable? Obviously the candidate is not responsible for an independent agency putting out ads (assuming actual independence). Thus you cannot hold the candidate responsible. If somebody absolutely stupid ran, and the candidates were held responsible for the ads, then I could just run some ad supporting the candidate I hate and make him ineligible for office. If you hold the group that created the ad responsible, who cares? They will violate the law then pay the fine. It's a cost of doing business.
Article 11) More along the same lines... if we didn't have lobbyists for environmental issues, we wouldn't have as widespread adopted recycling programs, we would have more EPA Super Fund sites, and we likely wouldn't have protections for endangered species. No, what we really need here is a more democratic lobbying system. And honestly, any candidate and his staff should be able to set up such a system using the Internet. The real work would be in preventing fraud, and there are very intelligent people working on truly democratic processes through electronic voting... their work is directly applicable here. Honestly, the currently in place systems to allow you to email your representatives is something of a start, though not robust or secure in authentication that the person sending the email is actually that person and not just some bot using a legitimate mailing address pulled from Google.
And to DelFairchild-1968594, who was worried about anti-trust proponent's proposed amendment somehow giving large population areas power over low population areas, the election process has nothing to do with it, the actual structure of our government takes care of it. The Senate is the body you seek, exactly two representatives from each state, regardless of relative population, and no bill can become law without passing the Senate. And if you are just talking about during the election process, way to go buddy, you just told us that you think your opinion counts for more than other people... very democratic of you.
Let me guess, you do?
So what is the problem? If liberal morons (oxymoron) want to give their money to a comedian (don't you have to be funny to be called a comedian), then let them.
Unlike the left, I don't want to control how you spend your money.
That's called FREEDOM. Freedom to donate your money to any organization or candidate.
That's the basis of Democracy. You get to decide who you support, or if you are going to support anyone.
Think of what "Freedom of the Press" means. It means you can PAY MONEY to PRESS papers, pamphlets, buttons, yard signs, etc. What if Thomas Paine couldn't spend any money to publish his political ideas in "Common Sense"?
As for disclosure, why not disclose how every person votes? Let's make the process transparent. Oh, what, you don't want to disclose your vote? But you do want to disclose how other people use their money to support a candidate?
You can't have political freedom with restrictions on how people or groups of people spend their time or money on those causes or candidates they support.
Anti-trust proponent...many concerns with your logic. First, you can't compare a popular vote of senators and congresspersons to that of president. The point made by the previous poster is that very ___— (fill in the blank: liberal, conservative, uniformed, etc.) and concentrated areas could end up controlling the vote for president. If you only need the popular vote, you only appeal to the most populous places. While there is a degree of that for Senate campaigns which are run throughout the state, that is balanced by the districting of House elections. This also helps bring a balance to our legislature such that the poplulation is represented in the House and the states are represented in the Senate. However, if the POTUS were elected by popular vote, MOST states could be in favor of another candidate even though the total population votes more for the POTUS.
On term limits - while it sounds good on the surface, it's poor in practice. It lends to inexperienced people and frequently changing processes. Furthermore, the founders left that up to the states.
On condensing the campaign cycle. Also sounds good on the surface, but the real problem with that is you are handicapping the non-encumbent. Consider the current election cycle. The president has 3+ years to be out there in front of people. Is it fair to say that the challenger has to be limited in the time in which he or she can get him- or herself out there?
Campaign financing...now that one I would like to see more fleshed out. The winner shouldn't be the one with the most money...
In Stephen Colbert I trust!
Everyone who rants about liberal media bias... as someone who strictly reads my news from multiple sources and researches items... rather than listen to talking heads, it appears that reality has a liberal bias. Sorry, but most of the rights complaints seem to have more to do with emotions and opinions that actual facts. You wouldn't be able to make an argument against gay marriage, against letting Bush tax cuts expire, against ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. without avoiding facts and leaning on emotions (mostly fear, apparently). I really try to be open minded to both sides, and while both definitely have their own crazies, reality favors the "liberal bias" more so than the "conservative values".
Very few people in Hollywood identify themselves as Conservatives. The path to a career in print and television media is through Liberal Arts Colleges.
And they don't call them Liberal Arts Colleges because of their Conservative values.
What's more, you can simply look at the people in the media. Cronkite, Rather, Curic and many more.
The country is evenly divided. The media isn't. It is uniformly liberal.
That's why even a moderate media source like Fox is routinely derided by liberals and avoided by Democrats. They seem like the odd man out because they are the only reasonably conservative mainstream media source. Compare that to CNN, MSN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR. You can say: "OK, so the right has it's media and the left has it's media sources".
But when that is 1 vs. 6-7, in a 50/50 country - it's a no brainer to see the media bias leans to the left.
Prove your point with factual statistics Tom. I do NOT believe that only the most populous areas will elect a president.....if that is the case, where is the data to back that up? 2008 clearly showed that it was not just the "populous" areas that elected Obama. Maybe the 2000 election MIGHT fit your thinking since Gore did take the popular vote, but again from all across the country. Section 1 was added to the amendment shortly after the original document (five sections on primary dates and campaign limits) was created from comments by a small group of Newsvine posters.....through additional comments here on Newsvine, the amendment as it was published on the PAM website was finalized with the eleven sections. People really wanted that Section 1 and that was why it was made as Section 1.
Anyone bitchin and moaning about 'liberal bias' in the media should contact their representatives and ask to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. No? Then stop complaining.
Just saying...
Uh, unless it is a matter of National Security, Conservatives do not censor the media.
Only the Left would use Gov't to enforce it's own personal version of "Fairness" on the entire country.
That is not how the Constitution was designed, rather the design is to have checks and balances through-out government in which no one entity would do as they like. Read up on US history, and you will learn that the founding fathers initially tried to govern the country via state's rights and it was a dismal failure. Interesting as well is how conservatives get worked up about state's rights...until something like gay marriage is passed by a state, and then OH MY we need control at the federal/constitutional level.
The federal government is NOT just for a standing army. We would still have slavery in the south and a long list of horrible things if not for our federal government. Also, the standing army (which we have not always had, thus the draft) is by your definition socialism, along with public education, social security, though ALL excellent programs that can only be done well at the federal level--along with transportation, consumer protection, the EPA, the FDA that conservatives so abhor -- And the rest of sane citizens will never understand why. If you prefer anarchy, why you don't move to another country with minimal government and see how that goes? Where do you right-wingers get this crap?
I know, FOX Noise, Hate Radio, Drudge, chain Emails, yeh yeh yeh. Try the Colbert Report.
Just goes to show how many fools watch and believe in the Fox News. It's OK to watch and laugh, but people, its not real objective news. It's just a couple of opinion shows hosted by Neo-conservative talking points messengers - REALLY!
These so called comedy shows do what main stream media fails to do. Weigh the the statements and actions of politicians and point out the the absurd and hypocritical. Main Stream news tends to weigh all statements and assertions of fact as equal when in fact they are not. Agenda driven news like Fox and MSNBC tend to weigh facts in favor of their own political leaning. Those comedy shows are as likely to take after Democrats as well as Republicans when they find the scale of hypocrisy tipping to one one extreme or the other.
@ true patriot. true that, you hit the nail on the head. not only was it a dismal failure, there was a segment of them called FEDERALISTS, meaning they wanted the federal government to be stronger. and in addition to the standing army comment, the founders wanted militias to do the fighting instead of a standing army. the war of 1812 let us know what a horrible idea that was.
HAHAHA! You seriously think "liberal Arts" has something to do with teaching liberalsim?? Seriously?! Wow, and I thought Colbert was funny.
@ckelley116, yeah. Or Obummer or Obammy...........they haven't progressed much, have they? Yes, I've observed them to be humorless, almost without exception.............seem to have a fondness for "puns", though. It's weird.
In reply to Anti-trust Proponent post 1.33
I am not quite sure I understand what you are saying here and perhaps you can clarify? You said: (sic) and the four-six year presidential runs." as part of the amendment proposition you spoke of. Are you saying we already have four-six year Presidential terms instead of the two-four year Presidential terms? You said runs instead of terms so maybe I was just reading this wrong? S'plain it to me, oh won't you please? :)
Colbert has opened a large number of Americans eyes to just how f— — — — — up our Political system has become.
The fact that this many people are sending him and John Stewart's PAC cash is a testament to how angry Average Americans have become about these Super PACS and their assault on our system!
As for the guy above that is Equating Political Liberalism with the Liberal Arts, wow! Guys like that show us how the GOP and their money men are shoving crap like super PACS down our collective throats!
Did folks catch the great interview Jon Stewart did with the law professor who taught both President Obama and Justice Roberts? In regard to Citizen's United, the professor said everyone and every entity (including corporations or what ever organization) has the right to speech. What they don't have the right to is lack of transparency. If company XYZ has to take public responsibility for what's in an ad, it isn't likely to be as negative. Kinda like anonymity here in these forums...
...except the ads reach and influence large numbers of people without rebuttal and change election results, and therefore are detrimental to democracy. End Citizen's United!
@Ryan in Texas,
The reason you don't like Colbert or Daily Show is you see your distorted world view displayed back to you in a way that makes you understand why you are wrong, and no one's ego likes that.
On a side note Ryan, the "Right" are all about censoring, hell they want to censor what a woman can do with her body, and you think that they wouldn't censor a newspaper, they tried to censor the whole world with SOPA (in fairness, some dumb dems were all for that too). They have tried to pass more "censorship" laws under the guise of "I know what's best for everyone" or "think of the children" than any other group I know.
I mean the very definition of "conservative" is that you want to keep things as they are, or limit change. You try to limit change by ignoring that change is needed.
It's funny, because if you look up the word "censor", conservatives fit that definition perfectly.
I mean "censor - any person who supervises the manners or morality of others", fits most of you like a glove.
Dan G.-461155Restored
So the conservatives hate comedy now??? Wow it must be a horrible existence being so miserable so often.
It is so weird to me that all of the libs on here think that every conservative is a 60 year old rich guy who is racist and has no sense of humor and lets not forget their favorite show, FOX NEWS. I hope you all know that you sound as ignorant as any extreme conservative. I am conservative and I don't watch Fox News or the same thing but opposite end, CNN. They all are the same with the same agendas, just the other end of the spectrum. Get over yourselves and vote NEWT! haha
AirThief
Well Ryan is from Texas, where ignorance is considered a virtue by all too many of its citizens.
liberal arts plural of lib·er·al arts (Noun)
Noun:
Let me guess, Ryan in Texas - you flunked out of school, right?
You'll get more truth from Colbert and John Stewart than you will ever get from FOX NEWS.
Get rid of these super PACs and get rid of the unions as well.
Oh. Free speech? We are stuck with both.
Sorry, folks. You could vote for the guy who doesn't engage in those kind of politics but hey...let's be serious here!
Super Packs, just another process of legalized theft, that is used by the political system in this country. There is no disclosure required of from whom, where or how the moneys will be used. Now you wounder why the people in this country should trust any-one in the political arena. This people is what you would call a DUCK.
Colbert is doing what real new organizations like Faux News should be doing.
And in doing so,.....would that bring them more in line with the non-corrupt, selfless, good hearted benevolent compassionate Neo-Pagan/Pseudo Liberal camp?
sorry, I meant News Organizations. Looks like I'm slowly becoming Rick Perry.
I was once told that "good humor is 90% truth and 10% surprise" this is why Colbert is both funny and a good source of info.
I mean 90% truth......you don't get that from msnbc or other news groups
Yes, because donations are the same as theft. Someone quick, arrest the Red Cross!
It does not cease to amaze me how much more truth I get in ONE HOUR watching Comedy Central than I get from watching so called News Channels. And I challenge anyone who really knows what is going on to do this comparison and not walk away from the TV set and agree.
What Colbert, Stewart and their writers do day in and day out is make sattire and comedy of the reality our country is faced with. The saddest thing to me is that they don't have to work hard to make it funny. Our political system, our country is that much in shambles.
What Colbert has done is nothing short of brilliant. He has exposed a system that is broken. With no real agenda, his agenda is clear. Corporations are NOT people.
All you right wingers... Wake up. You have brains. USE THEM. Like that song says... "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery!". It is not about Liberals and Republicans... it is about a country... OUR COUNTRY. What do you want for it????
The Supreme Court's finding in favor of Citizen's United is the best scam of the century, so far....even better than the shenanigans on Wall Street because it is the politicians that set up the rules that the pirates of finance are allowed to use to cause fiscal mayhem on a global basis....and of course those swashbuckling hearties reciprocate into the PAC’s to re-elect their lick-spittle toadies, sycophants and yes men....all very cozy, eh?
the worst part is politicians dont even try to hide some of their corruption anymore.
@Romney = (Corporate) Welfare Queen - Fox News is the Original SuperPAC, didn't you know?
This guy is hilarious. Priceless when he punked congress. Might as well make him prez as BO or Romney will probably screw up. Might as well laugh while we go down the old fiscal toilet.
RON PAUL is the only choice worth going to the polls for.
Ryanb21-It's been going on for years but it's the information age.
Colbert should have skipped the Super PAC, and just ran for president
I'd pick Colbert over Paul.
You got that right Busted! In fact Colbert could swap jobs with Obama right now!
If you’re really not satisfied with the poor choice of Republican candidates for President; make your statement and send a protest vote for Herman Cain; he will be on the ballot in November.
Colbert and Stewart have exposed the system as flawed and proven that the Supreme Court is bias and don't really make their decisions based on the constitution. There is no way a corporation should be treated as a citizen because that would give the CEOs and the corporate board two voices in government. Theirs and the company. With artificial intelligence just around the corner the next thing we know they will allow robots to vote.
It always amazes me that two comedians doing a fake news cast are able to do a better job at exposing our political system's faults than established news organizations and even more amazing, they actually care to do the research to back up their stories. Most news outlets tend to report stories without checking the facts. They just read or print the stories they get off a news feed or repeat what another news organization reported.
The super PAC story was brilliant. They were able to show what a sham these Super PACs are and make us laugh at the same time.
colbert would be so much better than that clown we now have in the white house.
...stewart....mmm, not so much
So we want transparency in politics?
OK - Then you will support the Gov't disclosing how every person votes.
Right?
After all, shouldn't you know how other people vote?
Oh, you don't like that idea?
So you are against transparency in politics?
Face it - you can't have it both ways.
There is no Constitutional Authority given to the Federal Gov't to block people or groups of people from spending their money on a cause or campaign.
Just because someone forms a corporation, does not mean they lose their free speech rights. A corporation is an organization like a church, union, association (AARP) or political party.
Can you imagine if the Supreme Court said: "Only individuals have free speech rights." So then Republicans could pass a law that silences the Democrat party or visa-versa - and it would be completely legal.
Political Freedom means no restrictions on how or who you support.
Don't like political ads on TV? Change the channel.
You could show me Obama ads CONTINUOUSLY through November, but I'm not voting for him.
You can't have a Gov't that regulates everything, spends trillions a year - and then expect no money in politics.
The Governed want a say in the process - it's called Democracy.
Remember "No Taxation Without Representation"?
Last time I checked, corporations were taxed.
Doesn't mean they paid any.
About 1/2 of the US population pays no net taxes.
(Total taxes paid by an individual - Total Gov't expenditures spent on an individual = Total Net Taxes)
Yet they still get to vote (if they are over 18).
Love the ad identifying Mitt Romney as a serial killer... XD
@Ryan in Texas,
Your kidding right? OMFG! So you honestly think that if you let businesses pay any amount to a politician, that that politician isn't going to do their bidding? Politicians nowadays only want one thing, to be elected/reelected, and that means TV and Radio ads, and that costs one thing, MONEY.
I bet you think deregulation is a good thing too? Right? So if you are right, then I could never find an instance of a business breaking a regulation (put in place to protect US citizens from fraud or wrong-doing). Oh wait, I can find millions of examples, so your logic is flawed, because you think that with deregulation they are going to do the right thing, and I can show you that even if we put laws in place they STILL try to screw us over. Imagine there was no law for them to break in the first place, they would be screwing you over just the same, only it would be legal.
Do you think they stopped putting lead in paint out of the goodness in their hearts?
Do you think that they stopped dumping manufacturing waste into rivers because it suddenly became cheaper to put it in containers and pay someone to treat it?
Do you think they stopped selling radioactive water, because people stopped believing it was helping them?
Some people and companies will do just about anything to make $1 more, anything, and regulation is the only thing keeping them at bay. People that want no regulations should be forced to live in a country with none.
Think about why you wouldn't go get your next surgery in Boliva, it's an eighth the price. You know full well why you wouldn't trust a doctor from there, is called standards, and standards are set by regulations. And you only trust ours. Hypocrite.
"(1/2) don't pay taxes"
OMFG 2, you do know that is because they are at or below poverty, right?
If you add up their (1/2), it equals to about what one company should have paid, only we have almost all the companies doing it. So it's not really the same thing. Exxon made $30,000,000,000 last year in profit, and you are bitching about $6,000,000 combined from the 1/2 in poverty.
@MacGyver
I think I love you. ROFLMFAO.. Seriously tnough. GREAT RESPONSE.
Why does everyone hate on someone getting ahead in the world. Hell yeah Exxon make 60 billion this year. They pay engineers and business leaders good money, but the people out there that do robot jobs doesn't deserve top dollar. It's called a free economy and it's great because I know if I put in the work I could become a millionaire one day too(not saying money makes you happy but it helps). Go live in Europe if you want to be a socialist.
I don't suppose the term non sequitur means anything to you. Resounding logic fail.
@googlesmart,
"I know if I put in the work I could become a millionaire one day too"
Keep telling yourself that, that is the proverbial "carrot on a string, at the end of the stick, that they are holding in front of you, to make you walk forward."
The truth is, that the odds of winning the lottery or being the next Mark Zuckerberg are about the same, 1 in 250 million. Every now and then someone will come along and find a niche that hasn't been filled yet, but how many Facebooks can you think of, or better yet, can you think of more than 1 a year? So at one a year, with the US population at 300 million, that would put your odds at 1 in 300 million. And that's with you trying.
That's not to say that you can't make a great living if you work hard. That doesn't mean everyone should give up trying to be a millionaire, it just means, don't keep giving these leeches a pass because you think it will be your turn soon.
The way most of them make money today, is to use the money they already had to make even more. The money they already had came from their family or it's connections. That's not to say that I don't think someone in Mitt Romney's family actually worked for their money at some point in the past, just that's not what he is doing today.
If you don't have 10 million to even play in their game, how exactly are you going to win?
The problem is that you think it really is a free economy, and it is sort of, it's just that in this game of Monopoly they started out with $20 million and the rest of us only had the standard $500 dollars. You might think that's fine and fair, but they get to go first, as they move around the board they are able to buy every property they land on and put up 2 hotels before you roll land on them, not only can you not buy anything (you're too broke paying them rent, and it's not for sale anyway), but you have no way of earning more money (other than passing go, if you make it that far), so you pay and pay until are broke, and then you lose. Only in real life, all it takes is one bad illness or injury and you can't work for a month, and then you miss the rent, and then you lose your house, and then you are living on the streets.
It's about scale, most people in the US are living paycheck to paycheck, how many years do you think Mitt could live in your house and pay your bills on his current savings? It is most likely in the neighborhood of hundreds of thousands of years, so you miss a month of work and loose everything, but he could quit right now and live just like you in your house for a hundred thousand years.
Sure sounds like a fair, free economy to me. /sarcasm
I believe that they'd make better use of my money than Mitt the Ripper or Newt the Womanizer would. Especially if they're using my money to help them expose just how much lunacy is involved with these Super PACs.
Or maybe, obumba, the BOZO! Don't forget him and his crooked contributors
obumba?
smh/sigh
JCH-Obama got most of his contributions from the citizens of the US and the internet during his election campain. So I suppose you are calling all the people on the internet who gave small donations to his campain crooked contributors.
Nice Alpha Centuri reference in your screenname.
Not only did I love that game, I always plays as Prokhor Zakharov!
check George Soros for donations, come on libs. Bam gets money from every big wig on wall street and soros. they all do the same thing, both parties. the difference is one party is for Big Gov, unions and a nanny state and the other is for smaller gov, corporations, and taking responsibility for yourself. make your choice! stop with who does what. they all do the same things!
obama got his money from wallstreet and unions in 2008
...goldman sachs alone gave him 790k
shhh don't confuse them with facts it drives them crazy
Unions, unlike corporations, actually ARE people...
unions hijack the workplace and bilk workers for the DNC.
...unions are a super pac for the democrats.
@JCH
I know that you are waiting for Faux News to provide you with the list of those 'crooked contributors'. When you do get it from them, please be sure to post it here. Also, and while you are there, make sure you also get the list of contributors for the Bush administration and Mitt and Newt and Cain and whoever. Because I am sure those lists are full of model citizen contributors (and yes.. I am also including corporations here).
And, please... let's not try to over think this. I have no clue what individuals you are actually speaking about, but I am sure there are a ton. BUT, I can assure you that your candidate, <Insert Name Here>, is in the same boat. Getting money from questionable sources. The point here is that I am smarter and more objective than you. I can actually appreciate your comment and agree with you. You on the other hand, are an idiot and a drone. Your brain is wired to what your favorite Democrat hater has to say. You have no idea what is going on because you cannot think about what is going on.
deleted
Colbert, a gag candidate, gets more press coverage than Ron Paul...
Yes, but that's because he's more electable.
Who's also a gag candidate.
Colbert has a better chance of being elected than Dr Paul!
Wait, are you saying Ron Paul isn't a gag candidate? Really? Well, I didn't know for one and clearly Ron Paul missed his calling.
The people that own every media outlet in this country do not give Ron Paul coverage because they do not want him elected. He is for small government and will put war profiteers out of business and if these things ever happened it would ruin all their fun. That is why he doesn't get donations from lobbyists too by the way, they don't waste time on people whe can't be bought.
They do give him about as much coverage as any 4th place marginal candidate. Ron Paul gets plenty of coverage, really more than someone so far outside the mainstream ought to get.
Meh, I'd vote foe Stewart over Colbert any day... unless Dr. Paul was his Vice President. That would be too good to pass up.
....and rightly so....he is a far more satisfying alternative to all those overly rich, egotistical, less than qualified clowns that currently are making fools of us around the world.
Well at least Colbert has drown attention to these super-PAC's. I would also like them to disclose where they get their information, since most of it appears to be false. None of these super-PACs seem interested in providing information on their chosen candidates idea's or agenda. They only seem to be interested in attacking the other candidates.
Between Stephen Colbert and Ron Paul, Paul is clearly the bigger joke.
Ron Paul doesn't want to be President. He just wants his ideas discussed and debated. He's a present-day Harold Stassen.
hmmmm interesting point!
Actually Colbert said on-camera he likes Ron Paul because Ron Paul is the only one who is not a lying turd that changes his views to match the audience in front of him and that includes POTUS
Florida Dem
The "mainstream" is what is killing this country, haven't you noticed? Ron Paul does not get money from lobbyists and big entities because he is for the people and can not be bought. Yes, he is definatley NOT "MAINSTREAM" the media tries hard not to provide coverage on people who refuse to play their game.
Ron Paul doesn't get money because it would be like betting on a dead horse. His ideas are insane and have been all the years he has run for President. When will he learn this country isn't interested in his outlandish ideas.
The only saving grace regarding Ron Paul is that he is too old and probably senile to ever gain enough votes to be elected to be anything other than the old skinny guy in the corner. His ideas are 2 centuries too late.
He is the definition of crazy. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. It is pretty sad.
Hurray for Mr. Colbert. The next 9 months should be a big comedy of the absurd. ;) nk
JBURNS
There is nothing sad about sticking to your principals. BTW more people are actually waking up to the fact that there is no REAL difference between Dems and Repubs any more, both want wars and big government and that is why Ron Paul's numbers always increase becuase there are some that have taken off the plolitical party hat that has been blinding them. WHat is sad are people who think that think following the constitution that our country was founded on is crazy. What is sad is people who roll over and give up their constitutional rights without a fight.
Well, all I gotta say is you people keep right on voting for your "political celebrities" aka BS artists w/teleprompters. I just hope some of you are still around to see how your choices have affected your kids and grandkids.
JBURNS- Some of his ideas are good, like putting control back in the hands of states, reducing spending on foreign aid. Others are tried and found lacking, typical ideas like extending the bush tax cuts. I'm glad he isn't getting a chance to run against Obama.
What is sad is people that have 2 of a kind to choose from and think they actually have a choice:
Obama & Romney are BOTH for:
Stripping the american people of their civil rights (Obama signed patriot act 2x after campaigning he would get rid of it then stripped us of the right of due process in the NDAA which Romney supports)
Expanding government
Continuing sensless wars that are destroying our country financially in order to keep war profiteers happy
TARP
Bailouts
Raising the debt limit continuously
They are the same on what really matters
Minerfourtyniner,
You and all the other Dems that support Obama are glad Ron Paul is not running against him becuase he is the only one who is different.
Sorry 96, but any candidate that opposes the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act would never be able to beat Obama.
Toasty McGrath post 5.21
Sorry 96, but any candidate that opposes the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act would never be able to beat Obama.
What are you on about? And just how do you know this? Enlighten me please.
His own words and voting record.
Or did you mean how do I know that America wouldn't vote for a racist who opposes the Establishment Clause?
I do not find this to be at all "funny." Are people giving their money to this because they are stupid, because it is a tax write-off, because they think it to be funny or, and????
When I think of what some groups could really do with just a fraction of this sum.......People like Focus Adolescent Services, Focusas.com and others who refuse to suck up tax-payers dollars and will never become a so-called non-profit a 501c3. These people are saving the lives of the children of America and I hear to date not a dollar to many, but a cool million to this. Does this make you happy to live in the land of free? It makes me sick...
I don't believe it is considered a tax write off if you donate to a Super PAC. Their contributions are different than direct and limited contributions to a candidate.
Mr. Cool - I wonder if you find much to be funny.... If this does anything to draw attention to the despicable legal approval of Super Pacs it's money well spent. Plus, I hate to tell you this, it isn't your money and you don't get to spend other people's money for them. Sorry.
oh for heaven's sake...lighten up. It's a way for people to show their disgust at PACS. He'll donate it to charity and the Republic will still stand.
This is America...why not gripe to Mr Romney? He has more money than he can ever spend...bitch to the rich!
People are contributing to show their disgust with our political system and having a laugh at the same time. Sheesh, Dan, lighten up.
Lighten up. For chrissake. Man. I bought a cup of coffee today too that cost $2, I'm not going to wring my hands because I didn't give that $2 to charity.
Hellfire and damnation, I am mad and sad. All these millions and soon to be billions. How many millions do I need to give to be the Ambassador to the Court of Saint James or China; I like their food...
I still am able to get out and about. I know first hand that there are American's who are in need of food and warmth but for their own personal reasons refuse to take a government hand-out.
Shorty after the Iowa caucus I wrote to Rick Perry; the professed "Christian." I still have ties to Texas as some relations are considered to be what they call their "Favorite Sons." No C.P post 6.1, I am unsure of the laws, however after today I will damn sure will know them. I suggested to Rick that he pack it in and do the Christian thing. That would be, I said, to pack it up, no way to win, give the war chest to the hungry children in our country. The s o b did not even reply to me. So Ricky, if you are reading this please call....
As I said above, a small fraction of that money wasted, gone for good could have be given to a group like Focus Adolescent Services and any number of others. Did he say "Christian?"
All this money to be the candidate and the president........ for the love of god my fellow Americans how insane is this?
No, they are giving because they are angry and want to make a statement about our corporate Supreme Court, that it is wrong to postulate that corporations are people, in order to overcome the will of the people to reform campaign laws. I believe this will be the last national election where the ruling of Citizens United is the law of the land.
MrCool,
What color is the sky on your planet?
Mr. Cool, you have completely missed the point.
I feel extremely confident that all money donated to the Colbert Super PAC is going to charity. The "ads" that he's putting on the air are likely paid for entirely by Comedy Central.
Lighten up Francis!
MrCool,
In answer to your questios, Super PACs are not 501(c)3 entities. Gift to these groups are not tax deductible. So yes, people giving to Colbert's Super PAC are either stupid or just trying to be funny.
MrCool, the donations are because people think GOP, FOX News, MSNBC, Democrats and the entire process are A JOKE!!!
If you are complaining and disappointed that people donated $1 million to a comedian then where is your outrage at the 100s of millions the Oil companies/etc are throwing at the GOP???????
Mr Cool
You're very important..now shut up
Money is speech - so donations to the Colbert SuperPAC were a form of speech, a form of protest; are you against protest?
MrCool...needs to smoke some weed and get naked with a good looking woman.
Good grief. Get over yourself and have some fun.
Mr Cool,
Why not reconsider and send some money to Colbert and his Super Pac?
It will make you feel so much better; knowing you've made a difference in people's lives....
Im very sure that people donate to Colbert's super pac in hopes of creating a better tomorrow, tomarrow. Most of you are over thinking, and under understanding..
money donated to PAC's or political candidates is not a tax write off.
Actually, MrCool, you're absolutely right. The money that's being raised is probably being squandered as part of a huge joke (with an undercurrent of political protest). People like it, so they try to defend it as being high-minded, but it's just a glorified punch line, and Colbert a glorified comedian.
That said, it's pointless to get so worked up about the real good this money could be doing. If you were to get offended at every egregious waste of cash for the sake of people's egos, you'll exhaust yourself. We're in an election year, after all, with millions to billions of dollars being shoveled into the ditch that is our political process.
And that's not even considering all the other massive wastes of funding that we live with every day. My brother works for the government. The stories he tells me...
Or, like me, contributed as a protest agains the superPAC's. It's either laugh about it or cry.
Thanks to the right wing nuts on the Supreme Court America is now for sale to the highest bidder.
Not just the court. Congress gets their "fair" share.
Dude. Alpha Centauri was the best. game. ever.
What Stephen Colbert has done is exposed how flawed the election system has become, especially at the federal level.
When Corporations can be classified as people/persons we as a county have made a wrong turn. I love this quote!
“As a friend of mine from Texas says, he will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one”.
Bill Moyers, January 11, 2012.
ROFLMAO ---- That's a good one...
MNDW6 - someone who gets it - but what concerns me is that the voice of reason is so faint that it can not be heard above the television programing. Colbert has attempted to raise awareness, but sadly no one is really listening. Indeed the system is broken, but where are the good citizens proposing a fix? Is there no fix? Is the corruption so ingrained that we have become comfortable with it? Can it be that the survivalists are right, that my country is doomed to implode?
We can vote everyone on the "hill" out, but what to replace them with? Where have the good candidates, the honest candidates gone? It is too weep.
This is why Moyers can't seem to make retirement stick. We need him too much.
Days like this, I really miss Molly Ivins.
Kate- How about we put regular working people into the house, not rich people who take money and use the decision making power to increase personal wealth with insider trading. Use a jury duty selection process to pull candidates for the house from the pool of voters and pay 1,000,000 dollars for service. Think about how much money is being spent on every election and that money is going to media. How can the two be unbiased and coexist, it can't. Open voting records from service will allow those who serve the opportunity to move on to presidential candidates.
I'm not happy with SuperPacs. corporations are not 'people'. HOWEVER, a g** d*** union isn't a person either and I hear NONE of you criticizing the billions they infuse into the political process.
@dirt: Unions are FAR more "people" than a corporation. And they had real rules on what they could and could not do (until the CU decision). First, union dues can not be used for campaign donations; any and all donations were made from a pool of funds that was voluntarily given by the membership. That is, the union was only "bundling" money. A corporation can siphon off profits for donations, in effect stealing from investors. Big, huge, difference.
Unions are a group of people. Corporations are a piece of paper in a lawyers office.
Here's an idea; never vote for the candidates who've raked in millions of PAC money from big corporations or donors. Look for the guys with the small donors in greatest numbers.
That would be Obama, so yeah, I'm with you. He's got my vote. Anyone who thinks that both sides haven't sold out to big money interests is delusional, but anyone who doesn't realize the GOP is far worse should be committed.
Of course, if you want real populism of the insane kind, there's always Ron Paul.
If you all want to see a candidate who is not taking ANY PAC money look up Buddy Roemer.
The fact of the matter is, large or small, all candidates are for sell. They find their way through loopholes in the laws, allowing themselves to be bought. Take for instance your President, he takes money from bundlers which are "supporters who contribute their own money to his campaign and solicit it from others". So far, more than $5 million has been contributed to his campaign through this sleight of hand. So while, I guess technically his contributions come from small town America, he's just as much for sell as the next guy.
MNPat: While I agree with you, the problem with voting for the 'little guy', the one with small campaign dollars is, the media won't brodcast their message - so we, the public won't hear from them.
Colbert has exposed how crazy our elections have become. He cut to the chase making the idiotic intricacy of super PACS understandable.
Not only that, Candy, but Colbert exposed how idiotic the Supreme Court was for making this 'law.'
Corporations "speak with money" so loudly that the voice of the people is drowned out. The Constitution has been replaced by capitalism as the concept of representative democracy is being replaced by the worst government money can buy. Wall Street already has more representatives than Main Street.
Affinity1; This is the best comment I've read on any blog. Thank you.
Amen to that Geff - we need more voices like Affiity1 -
Affinity, you do know that we are actually a constitutional republic and not a representative democracy, right?
hard to "look" for these smaller and more trustworthy candidates since they're being silenced by corporately funded media and lack the hundreds of millions of dollars that the bad ones do. I wouldn't normally make this claim...but we should have a spending cap on campaigns like Mexico does. Pretty sad that one of the most corrupted governments (or should I say openly corrupted?) has at least one law that makes more sense.
Too true hmd28! Campaign contribution limits, term limits for Congress, outlawing lobbyists, abolishing the Electoral College, Campaign time limits, and doing away with party conventions to select presidential candidates would be great amendments to have pass, BUT this will never happen since there are too many politicians that get fat wallets from these activities. I mean what other job can you hold for 4 years and retire with full benefits? What other position can you hold for 4 years where your kids get free health care for the rest of their lives? What other company (I say company because the government has turned into a HUGE corporation with a Board of Directors and shareholders) can you be employed with for a 4 year period that will continue to pay you your salary plus inflation for the REST of your life? Where else can you work and should you choose to quit before your contract is up you are still able to draw ALL of your benefits? How many jobs do you know of where the starting salary is $400k? What other company do you know of that allows their employees to vote themselves a pay raise every year?
I'd add replacing first-past-the-post voting with instant-run-off voting. And a rule that NO party gets automatic placement on any ballot—they all play by the same rules of having to gather the same number of signatures to be on each and every ballot for each and every election.
Pssssst HellOnHeels... The starting pay for Congressmen is $174k not $400k
SouthernBelle I was referring to the President. Thanks for the addition though. I don't know of many jobs out there people with masters degrees can get that have a starting pay of $174K. It just seems very skewed. These people are supposed to be public servants, yet they don't serve anyone other than themselves.
Colbert is a satirist and a good, smart one. He or Stewart would make as good a President, if not better, than any of the other clowns out there who insult the credibility of the USA.
I hope you folks are looking at the big picture. The president is the guy that has the job of signing the bills that get to his desk. Up or down is his choice. The real problem is how to get the blocking votes in congress to compromise and get something/anything done. The business world, as it is, isn't doing anything until they have some degree of confidence in the law makers. All we have since the Right Wing went to extremes to try to get the T Party extremist to join their side, is NOTHING. The block every bill with a super majority vote, and delay anything that would work and they can't block it. Take the banking bill for example. They couldn't stop it so they took the teeth our and delayed it to start for a year. That gave the banks the time to raise all of our credit card interest rates and push in all the new fees. Happy days for banking. Screw the regular folks, again.
Lets clean out the extremist on both sides and if a candidate lacks the confidence to compromise for the people, he doesn't belong in government. I don't want to sound political, too much, but; President Obama, won the election and we the majority were convinced that if our government worked together, at the end of four years we'd be better off than when he started. We wanted him to be able to do the things that he said would help. We did not expect that the Pledge takers, extremist, would stop anything so the GOP would get to screw us some more. Bush and party showed us how the Republican tax breaks for rich, doesn't work. Every time in the last 40 years that a republican was in the White House, as a construction electrician, I was looking for jobs. The whole T-Publican stuff does not work for the people. It doesn't work for businesses. Under Clinton, we has balanced budget, we had jobs, and we weren't hated around the world.
Lets clean out the extremist. CLEAN HOUSE
I agree with you 100% Geff! ☺
Stephen Colbert 2012!!!
count me in
Colbert/Stewart or Stewart/Colbert. Okie dokie.
Agreed
Oh yes, and the "Occupiers" look sooo intelligent these days......murdering, raping, getting stoned to the max, living in excrement......you're right.....they truly extoll the virtues of the left. lol
Not so far fetched afterall, "who's President in 1985?" "Ronald Reagan... the actor?"
"We're going to send you back to the future"...and I suppose Stephen Colbert is President in 2016...
He would do better than Obama!
Wow Texson. I wonder why the murdering, raping, living in excrement portion of the occupy movement never get any press? It's because those things AREN'T HAPPENING. Great job going entirely off topic. It's even better when the point you're trying to make is completely made up. It's funny...no...sad that there are people like you who would rather stick up for the corporations and policies that got our economy into this mess than to take pride in the fact that there's a grassroots populist movement taking a stand against them. Anyways, thanks for showing us the 2 things republicans are best at : lying, and being completely out of touch with reality.
Colbert & Stewart 2012-I WISH! (They are too honest to get into politics)
Colbert has elevated satire to another level, above the previous level, which itself was already another level ... to which he had elevated satire.
At what point does a joke become social protest or political action?
What he's doing here, for anyone not getting it yet, is making a mockery OF the mockery that Citizen's United, the insane, "corporations are people" Roberts Court, and the resultant "Super Pacs" have made of our election system.
It's a live thought experiment. If Newt or Mitt or Obama can attempt to govern the country based on the support of anonymous billions, why not a comedian? What if he won? Or even knocked out one person? Or seemed like he might be able to? What if China decided to anonymously contribute $100 billion to Colbert's "election" efforts?
If it seems scary or crazy, or completely disconnected from any reasonable way to go about selecting the leaders of the "free world," that's the POINT.
The really sad thing about this is that Colberts' satire is one of the few sources of the truth in media today. When we watch, we can be happy for a few minutes because we hear the underlying truth, while at the same time decompress a bunch of stress.
Has anyone had a look at the public disclosure, there is an awful lot of personal information for those that donated in their own names
1. Full name,
2. Full address,
3. Employer & occupation,
Hopefully this information is not misused
Pretty hard to misuse information like this:
Full Name: General Electric
Full Address: 3135 Easton Tpke Fairfield, CT
Employer & Occupation: GE, Greedy Corporation
The GOP STILL says corporations are people. This goes against EVERYTHING America stands for.
Vote every one of these evil demons OUT in 2012.
Soylent Green is People, corporations are not... ;-)
072862:
Thanks for the giggle....
072862
Soylent Green is People, corporations are not... ;-)
A bumpersticker worthy of a place on my car!
The bull / bear market is borne on the backs of the people, and aided by a herd of circus elephants willing to trample on them.
Really? When you near retirement and wish you had participated to America's economic success and you are trying to get by on Social Security, I'm sure you'll find comfort in those words.
Well, I participated in its success, and in its failure as well. My 401 went south along with the economy in 2008, and I'll be eating cat food before my investments recover. If they ever recover.
I'd vote for Colbert.
I guess I'll be eating cat food if it otherwise means put my money in the stock market!!! I personally advocate for all Americans to pull their money out of the market, buy silver and gold, and stash it in the ground someplace close by but unknown to others. Talk about power to the people ... imagine if every single person did that on a given day?!
Metals or other "hard" commodities only go up in value in realtion to other forms of exchange, e.g., the dollar. If the dollar gows down your gold is more valuable, but only in echange for some other thing you need more. Like food. You can't eat gold, so it's only worth what someone else would trade you for it at the moment. It has no intrinsic value of its own.
I'm in.
RISE UP COLBERT NATION defeat the Corruption sponsored by the SUPREME COURT! Go to Get The Money Out .com and sign the petition for a constitutional ban on corporate donations
Frankly this might be such a bad ideal. I think at least Colbert is a different breed of candidate then what we have seen lately. If you want change, you really have to change and not just vote in new politicians.
If everyone who said "I would vote for Ron Paul, but he is unelectable." would actually vote for Ron Paul... He would be elected!
rEVOLution!
I wonder to what candidate Mr. Colbert will give his efforts? Most likely .......... (Fill in the Blank).
I applaud Colbert's effort to demonstrate how wrong the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United was and how it will further corrupt (hard to believe) the presidential election campaign fund raising system. I hope he will use the money to support legislation to approve a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Court's ruling and ban corporations from making these types of donations. Contrary to some candidates' opinions, corporations and banks ARE NOT PEOPLE!
@DAN: Everybody who has already piled on you have already said it best. You got to lighten up, open you eyes and learn something. Mr. Colbert has proven once again that he is one of the smartest and brightest poltical humorist out there -- together with Jon Stewart -- they are this generation's "Will Rogers" (goggle that folks). Mr. Colbert has once again exposed the conrruption and one-sidedness that is power/big money politics in this nation today. He used a systen againist itself to make a brillant point. I don't know what he will do with the money raised (hopefully something postive --I am sure he will not keep it for himself). As noted here before -- there is some "humorists" on the right -- but they are far and few -- and most are more mean then funny -- and jokes onto themselves --by taking themselves way too seriously --thinking they are the most important thing --and getting rich from it in the process.
Not a big fan of John McCain but he did try and reform campaign financing. The Supreme court will need to revisit their ruling since it is had been decided that Corporations are NOT people.
Pat you are, in my opinion, entirely correct. All focus is on politicians and corporations when in fact it is the Supreme Court slithering around in their robes behind the sceen that has allowed the outright mockery being made of our democratic electorial process.
trazmo
Perhaps we should petition the Supreme Court with millions of signatures from across this country asking them to retire and publicly apologize for their decision to put our country up for sale!
and hopefully they will decide that a union is not a person either.