Stephen Colbert tried to run a corporate-sponsored campaign for the Presidency in 2008, only to be foiled by election laws. In teh wake of the Citizens United ruling, he’d like to try again, Politico reports. But if he plans to run another “hail to the cheese Stephen Colbert Nacho Cheese Doritos 2008 presidential campaign” he’s in for a bit of a surprise. While Frito-Lay could air ads in support of Colbert’s candidacy, it still can’t fund his campaign directly or coordinate its expenditures with the Colbert campaign, nor can Colbert promote a real candidacy on his show, as that would entail direct financial support from Comedy Central’s corporate owner, Viacom. So much for leaving the other candidates in the dust, the “nacho cheese dust.”
geokstr says:
I’d rather see Dave Barry make another run as he did in 2000. His campaign slogan was something to the effect of “This country needs a strong intelligent president who can root out corruption, turn America around, and lead us once again to greatness. And until we can find somebody like that – vote for me.”
January 29, 2010, 9:41 amcboldt says:
He’d never come close, even in the comedy department, to meeting the campaigns of Pat Paulsen.
January 29, 2010, 9:43 amDaniel Chapman says:
This reminds me of all the nonsense flying around /. from people who think they have even a minor understanding of election finance laws or the CU decision itself. They just end up looking foolish to anyone who knows better, but unfortunately most people don’t know any better.
My guess is no one who was involved in setting up this bit on his show even read the opinion. (Not like I did either, but I’m not out trying to make political points on national television)
January 29, 2010, 9:59 amArthurKirkland says:
Colbert, I trust, is ahead of the legalistic pack on this one.
A strong argument would enable Frito-Lay to continue to purchase advertising and promotional considerations from Colbert’s employer — as it has done before, during and after any campaign period. Colbert, meanwhile, could continue to direct independent (and justified) editorial praise toward the intoxicatingly delicious Doritos . . . all without creating any “direct” or “coordinated” connections.
Similarly, Stephen Colbert could continue to employ his traditional journalistic method — interviewing or debating himself, in some cases simultaneously (and, it must be noted, hilariously) acting as interviewer and news source — without violating any post-Citizens United law.
If you’re reading this, Stephen, I volunteer to provide legal services to your campaign. I might start with recommending a vicious, widely publicized nastygram to anyone who labels Stephen Colbert a “faux conservative.” That sounds as bad as a faux libertarian, and I see no reason for Stephen Colbert to tolerate such unfounded opprobrium.
January 29, 2010, 10:07 amMCM says:
Of course, given that presidential candidates typically spend 1/3rd to 1/2 of all their contributions on media buys, don’t you think that Frito-Lay’s ads might make it easier for Colbert to spend money on other things, like travel and administration?
It may not be “direct” funding but I really fail to see how it differs in the end. Every dollar Frito-Lay spent would be one less dollar Colbert would have to spend. Pretending otherwise is childish.
January 29, 2010, 10:16 amAssistant Village Idiot says:
Well, we’ve established that Arthur is smarter than Colbert, which we sorta knew anyway. Yes, there are ways to disguise corporate donations to campaigns, under just about any system, actually, and I’m sure Steve or his people would figure some of those out if they were going to try and make this a serious running indictment of campaign finance.
But that’s giving Mr. Colbert credit for an awful lot of thinking about this comedic bit that we have no evidence for. His joke matches the popular misconception, and indeed trades on it. The most parsimonious explanation is that he or his writers believe something very close to the idea that evil corporations, having been held at bay from overinfluencing elections by wise laws and precedents to date, have now been enabled by those screwy conservatives to buy elections.
No mention of union contributions, BTW.
January 29, 2010, 10:27 amShag from Brookline says:
All Stephen Colbert has to do is “cut the cheese” to demonstrate how odorous is Citizens United. It’s a good time to invest in Airwick, at least politically.
January 29, 2010, 10:29 amzuch says:
Hell, we had former media personalities (and comedians) Reagan and Palin….
Oh, yeah, and perennial candidate Pat Paulsen, who made more sense than both the major party candidates combined….
Cheers,
January 29, 2010, 11:05 amThales says:
I was partial to Jello Biafra’s campaign for president, in which he proposed a maximum wage.
January 29, 2010, 11:37 ambgates says:
I agree with the people at ABC, NBC, and MSNBC that corporations should stay out of politics.
January 29, 2010, 11:57 amSuperSkeptic says:
If he makes it out of the South Carolina primary, he’s got my vote. I’d like to have a beer with him – can’t do worse…
January 29, 2010, 12:16 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Presidential campaigns spend millions of dollars on their commercial strategy and messaging; they don’t just air random powerpoint presentations or footage of the candidate. You think that the ads Frito-Lay puts up are the same sort of ads that Colbert would put up (if he were a real candidate, I mean)?
January 29, 2010, 12:47 pmJeffB says:
What Frito-Lay should do is simply run for President itself.
After all, they’re a legal person endowed with the full panoply of Constitutional rights, per Citizens United. They’re over 35 years old, “born” in America.
Why not?
January 29, 2010, 12:59 pmteh says:
“teh”?
January 29, 2010, 1:15 pmArthurKirkland says:
I made no such assertion, believe no such thing (OK, that part was mainly for Stephen’s benefit).
It is scurrilous to imply that the Colbert campaign could not attract union support. The speedskaters’ union, for example . . . the Amalgamated Bear Slayers And Silent “T” Makers . . . New Colbert Setbuilders Local 41 . . .
But I doubt all of the aggregated union money could match the support Stephen would receive from a single corporation:
Prescott, of course.
January 29, 2010, 1:31 pmShelby says:
What, Al Franken can’t get any love?
January 29, 2010, 1:56 pmAvantRetard says:
“I was partial to Jello Biafra’s campaign for president, in which he proposed a maximum wage.”
January 29, 2010, 2:05 pm…A maximum wage? Bet Jello would go right against that little notion if “Alternative Tentacles” exploded and starting selling millions of records… Suddenly Mr.Biafra wouldn’t have a problem with people making (EARNING) money.
But hey, “there’s always room for Jello!”
disintelligentsia says:
Well, Murray Hill, Inc., a liberal marketing firm, has announced that it will be running for Congress – so go for it Frito-Lay! It’s about time we had a delicious President!
January 29, 2010, 2:07 pmJeremyKidd says:
A corporation might be able to run for president if the Constitution only required that candidates be “persons.” Unfortunately (President Frito-Lay has a nice ring to it), the Constitution requires that the president be a “Citizen.” (Art. II, Sec. 5.) I may be mistaken, but I’m not aware of any precedent establishing that corporations are considered “citizens” of the United States. In fact, the Constitution expressly distinguishes between “Person” and “Citizen.”
January 29, 2010, 2:19 pmC says:
Colbert wasn’t foiled by election laws. You can run a corporate sponsored campaign so long as you don’t spend over a certain minimum, which is what he did.
January 29, 2010, 2:41 pmJorgXMcKie says:
Hey, let’s not forget the current funniest comedian in government: Joe Biden.
January 29, 2010, 2:59 pmdisintelligentsia says:
Yeah, the Constitution requires House and Senate Members be citizens as well. Oh well. Hey, maybe they can be czars!
January 29, 2010, 3:01 pmArthurKirkland says:
A corporate candidate — or elected official — would have distinct advantages. Only a controlled amount of political capital would be at risk!
I still prefer Colbert, however — Stephen, you haven’t called!
January 29, 2010, 4:12 pmtim maguire says:
Typical that hColbert’s rehashing an old bit. He was brilliant when Bush was president, but now he’s just a tired, boring Bill Maher wannabe. The guy’s still telling Bush jokes, for god’s sake!
January 29, 2010, 7:18 pmzuch says:
Huh?!?!? If you want someone that might (wrongly, but arguably) be considered a “Maher wannabe”, you’d have to go with Stewart before Colbert. Colbert’s a conservative!!!
Cheers,
January 29, 2010, 8:32 pmtim maguire says:
zuch, Colbert’s biggest joke on Conservatives is that some conservatives don’t get his biggest joke–they actually think he’s one of them. Watched Colbert in the last couple years? Apparently you haven’t watched much Stewart lately either. When it comes to critiquing the left, Stewart is the most courageous man in journalism.
January 30, 2010, 8:39 ambluecollarbytes says:
So let me get this straight, if Colbert runs, every bag of Doritos I buy subsidizes more one-note comedy? Time to switch to generics.
January 30, 2010, 8:46 amJettboy says:
I hope corporations do run and win (although I don’t see how that can work if they were elected). At least they have been proven to make and save money or they wouldn’t be successful. The United States needs to be run as a corporation rather than a charity with no donors; or forced donations. I can’t help thinking of Romney, even if there are things I don’t like about the political side of the man.
January 30, 2010, 9:48 amOff Kilter says:
Jettboy: “I hope corporations do run and win (although I don’t see how that can work if they were elected).”
Jettboy, THAT’S THE BEST PART!! They CAN’T serve!!!
January 30, 2010, 12:53 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Colbert in 2012? -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by selectiveecho, Bruce Avellanet. Bruce Avellanet said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Colbert in 2012?: Colbert in 2012? Jonathan H. Adler • January 29, 2010 9:2… http://bit.ly/cOR2Nb [...]
January 31, 2010, 11:13 pmzuch says:
Wow. Really?!?!? Guess I forgot my snark tags. Sorry, it won’t happen again. ;-)
Cheers,
P.S.: I agree with you on Stewart. He’s not only the most courageous, but the most factual as well. But you have to give Colbert props for his Press Correspondent’s Dinner speech. That was masterful … which is why the M$M ignored it.
February 1, 2010, 7:09 pmBrandon says:
If Colbert was elected. That would be the best thing that ever happened to this country.
May 3, 2010, 4:01 pm