[Jonathan Adler, November 9, 2007 at 10:53am] Trackbacks
Lessons of the Colbert Candidacy:

Rick Hasen explains why Stephen Colbert's satirical candidacy, however funny, "raises some serious questions about the appropriate role of corporate money in the election process.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Lessons of the Colbert Candidacy:
  2. The Colbert Election Experience:
  3. Colbert's Campaign -- The Climax
  4. Colbert Is Campaign Finance Scofflaw, and So Can You:
KeithK (mail):
The fact that we can seriously discuss this illustrates how far off base we are with campaign finance regulation. The Colbert candidacy is clearly satire. Satire is clearly protected speech. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech". We're done.

Of course, political advocacy is also protected speech...
11.9.2007 12:52pm
bittern (mail):
KeithK, you haven't shown "that we can seriously discuss this." IMO the Bush presidency is "clearly satire," but I'm afraid I don't see how that proves what restrictions we might want on corporations paying for campaigns. Colbert is free to run his "satire" according to rules everyone else is subject to. Are we missing out on something funny, now??
11.9.2007 1:38pm
WHOI Jacket:
But, Colbert was the only candidate to take the growing bear menace seriously............
11.9.2007 3:01pm
Michael Poole (mail):
bittern: Satire is a very broad subject, but once you actually start doing what you're holding up to ridicule, the satire stops and pathos begins.

You're also missing the point: If the "rules everyone else is subject to" say that you cannot mock the sitting president, would enforcing that law be defensible? The rules would be uniform and at least as clear as the current campaign finance laws.
11.10.2007 11:22am