Vox News

Stephen Colbert (c.) and Jon Stewart (r.) hold hands during The Colbert Report, as Trevor Potter looks on Thursday in New York. During the episode, Colbert legally transferred his super political action committee to Stewart, his friend and Comedy Central cohort. (Kristopher Long/Comedy Central/AP)

Will Jon Stewart go to jail for running Stephen Colbert's super PAC?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 01.18.12

Jon Stewart does not want to go to jail. This is understandable – the bagels in prison aren’t fresh, and Wi-Fi access is extremely limited.

So – as he explained on Tuesday night’s show – he is worried about his new position as head of Stephen Colbert’s super political-action committee. He’s happy with the money, of course, and the power, and so on. He’s thinking of buying himself one of Elizabeth Taylor’s tiaras. (We’re not making this up.) But he heard Mitt Romney say on “Morning Joe” that he (Mitt) can’t coordinate with his own super PAC or he’ll go the “big house.”

“Which of your big houses do you go to? The beach house or the ski chalet?” asked Mr. Stewart, before mugging it up in mock horror at finally getting Mr. Romney’s joke.

“I don’t want to go to jail! I need guidance! Stephen!” said Stewart. Then Mr. Colbert himself walked out on stage and the audience exploded in glee.

Let’s back up for second here, shall we? For some time, Colbert has had a super PAC, a new kind of political money machine that’s allowed to accept unlimited amounts of money from private donors, and spend it on ads, or whatever, in support of its favorite candidates.

The only catch is that candidates themselves can’t run super PACs. If they did, donations would subject to low Federal Election Committee limits. And Colbert is now exploring the possibility of running for president of South Carolina. So he’s turned his super PAC over to Stewart. It’s now called the “Definitely not coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC.”

The point they’re making is that the line here is tissue-thin. The law says candidates cannot “coordinate” with super PACs. That means they cannot request, assent to, or suggest any super PAC activities.

But there is a loophole, or, as Colbert called it, a “loop-chasm.” A candidate can talk to his associated super PAC via the media. And the super PAC can listen, like everybody else.

“I can’t tell you [what to do]. But I can tell everyone through television,” said Colbert on Stewart’s Comedy Central Show. “And if you happen to be watching, I can’t prevent that.”

Stewart then played a clip of Newt Gingrich calling on his super PAC to scrub ads attacking Mitt Romney for possible inaccuracies.

Stewart and Colbert then talked to elections lawyer Trevor Potter – who is the attorney for both Colbert’s exploratory committee and the super PAC – through the same phone. Stewart said he’d bought air time in South Carolina, and so on, and Colbert just said he couldn’t coordinate, but smiled or frowned, depending on which city the ad time was in. Columbia, no. Charleston, yes!

Is this all legal, or are these comedians pushing the legal envelope and in fact risking jail time?

Nope, amazing as it sounds, they’re doing everything right. Election law expert Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California-Irvine, on his blog linked to clips from the show, and posted but one additional word: “hilarious.”

So which of the GOP candidates stand to benefit most from super PAC money? So far the Romney-friendly “Restore Our Future” super PAC has spent about $7.8 million on ads and other pro-Romney activities, according to an analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics.

“That’s far more than any other super PAC involved in the 2012 GOP presidential primaries,” wrote analyst Michael Beckel on the group’s “Open Secrets” blog.

The pro-Gingrich “Winning Our Future” has spent about $4.2 million so far. Groups associated with the other candidates have all spent much less, according to CRP.

Read entire post | Comments

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, greets supporters as he leaves a campaign stop followed by his wife Carol on Tuesday, in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Paul should watch out for Stephen Colbert, who may be trying to steal his voters in the upcoming South Carolina primary. (David Goldman/AP)

Ron Paul: Are his voters being stolen away by Stephen Colbert?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 01.18.12

Ron Paul should watch out: Stephen Colbert may be trying to steal his voters in the upcoming South Carolina primary.

Laugh if you want, but this is semi-serious, in the way that the chips in a chocolate chip cookie are usually semi-sweet. Talk-show host/political provocateur/hair model Colbert has formed an exploratory committee to look into the possibility of running for president of South Carolina, in case you haven’t heard. He took this action after a Public Policy Polling survey showed him ahead of at least one real politician, Jon Huntsman, in the Palmetto State race.

Mr. Huntsman’s since dropped out, of course, which Mr. Colbert says was the result of his (Colbert’s) possible candidacy.

But there is a flaw in the comedian’s ointment: South Carolina has no provision for write-ins on its ballot, and it’s too late for Colbert to enter the primary.

What to do? Flip the problem around, and adopt the name of someone who can’t get off the ballot, even though they’re no longer running: Herman Cain. Brilliant!

“Anybody who shares my values can show it by voting for Herman Cain,” said Colbert on his Monday night show.

And here’s where Representative Paul comes in: Colbert appears to be reaching out to the demographic that in Iowa and New Hampshire supported the Texas libertarian. That means he wants young people (a category in which Paul has done very well), independent-minded voters, and Democrats willing to cross party lines to vote for someone whose policies they admire.

As Colbert noted on Monday, South Carolina has an open primary, which means you don’t have to be a preregistered Republican to participate in the GOP vote. He said he’s fishing for “independents, Democrats, college kids, viewers of my show, people who attended my rally, my Twitter followers, my good friends on Reddit, young people of the Internet – stand up and shout!”

Doesn’t that list sound like people who are also attracted to Paul? Yes, it does to us, too. Paul won a plurality of 46 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 in New Hampshire, for instance.

Now, Paul is not expected to do as well in South Carolina as he did in Iowa and New Hampshire. Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy, in particular, does not always go over well in a state with many large military bases.

Right now, Paul is tied with Rick Santorum for third in South Carolina, at 14.3 percent of the vote, according to the RealClearPolitics average of major polls.

But you know how the media play the expectations game: If even a percentage point or two of Paul’s vote decides to bolt for the Cain/Colbert experiment, then the MSM will pronounce that Paul did worse than expected, and they'll pay less attention to him than they do now. Or something like that.

One last bit of evidence that Colbert is after Paulites is the new ad from the "super political-action committee" that he once controlled. Now named the Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, it released a spot this week explaining that a vote for Mr. Cain in South Carolina is really a vote for Colbert. And the "notion voter" they have pondering this choice is a thin, young man who appears to be a college student, probably spends a lot of time on the Internet, and so forth.

Sure looks like a picture of a Paul supporter to us.

Read entire post | Comments

In this photo provided by Comedy Central, Stephen Colbert (c.) and John Stewart (r.) hold hands during The Colbert Report, as Trevor Potter looks on Thursday in New York. During the episode, Colbert legally transferred his super PAC to Stewart, his friend and Comedy Central cohort. Dropping by from 'The Daily Show,' Stewart happily signed the documents and accepted the post. (Comedy Central, Kristopher Long/AP)

Stephen Colbert for president? What's his point? (+video)

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 01.13.12

Stephen Colbert is thinking about running for the presidency of South Carolina! He announced that he’s forming an exploratory committee to that effect last night at the top of the “Colbert Report," in case you haven’t heard. Yes, yes, we know – this is huge, something so big it may possibly upend the 2012 presidential race and democracy as we know it.

It’s as if a giant, smoking volcano that is not Newt Gingrich has burst out of the intersection of 17th and K Streets in Washington and is now threatening to spew lava over all it surveys. Or possibly not, since he may decide not to run, in which case, never mind.

Here’s the bottom line: Colbert has two bottom lines in this case, we think. The first is to get attention. We mean no disrespect by this – that’s what people in show business do. He’s seized upon an actual poll that shows he’s the choice of 5 percent of voters for the upcoming GOP primary in his home state of South Carolina and turned it into show-stopping comedy. That means better ratings for him and for Comedy Central.

Look, Colbert appears to love attention even more than your average spotlight grabbing funny guy, as a recent New York Times profile points out. Look at him at the start of his show, when the audience is chanting his name as he comes on – his face just lights up.

“I’m just a guy who likes to keep a low profile,” Colbert said last night at that moment. “Ask anybody who subscribes to the ‘Stephen Colbert 24/7 Low Profile Web Cam’.”

The second bottom line is to expose the absurdities at the heart of the US campaign finance system. Colbert long ago launched a comedic crusade against super PACs, organizations created in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 “Citizens United” decision. Super PACs are allowed to accept unlimited amounts of cash from individual donors, and spend same on ads that promote or attack political candidates, as long as they don’t coordinate with the candidate who benefits from their actions.

The “coordination” thing is a tissue-thin distinction, as Colbert rightly points out. Super PACs can be run by candidate’s ex-chiefs of staff, and so forth, and pick up ideas as to what to do just by following what their person says in the media.

Colbert’s main tool in this crusade has been his own super PAC, which he formed last year. Among other things, the Colbert super PAC has paid for an ad urging Iowans to vote for Rick Parry, with an “a”. It’s produced an ad that features GOP also-ran Buddy Roemer bemoaning that he has to appear in Colbert’s ad to get any attention (watch for Colbert on a unicorn at the end).

But candidates can’t overtly direct super PACs. So last night on the Report, Colbert handed over control of his beloved cash pile to Jon Stewart, his former boss and business partner. All perfectly legal! They did a handshake thing with special effects to dramatize the switch. They looked like Severus Snape and Narcissa Malfoy doing the Unbreakable Vow in “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.”

“From now on, I’ll have to talk about my plans on my television show and take the risk that you’ll watch it,” said Colbert to Stewart.

That’s not so funny, really – that’s how Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry convey their wishes to their associate Super PACs, which are run by former aides, ex-business partners, and so forth.

Anyway, now Colbert continues onward, presumably milking this for all it’s worth through the South Carolina primary on Jan. 21. It’s too late for him to get on the ballot – he’d have to be a write-in. There isn’t even a post of "president of the United States of South Carolina.” (Insert your own Civil War joke here.)

But Colbert is a dangerous kind of comedian, almost a performance artist. So we would not be surprised if he continues to find ways to insert himself into the actual political process. He testified before Congress on the conditions facing migrant workers, after all, following one day’s stint as an agricultural picker. He and Jon Stewart held that big quasi-political rally on the National Mall in Washington last year.

“With your help and possibly with the help of some outside group I’m not coordinating with we can explore taking this country back.... Thank you, God bless you, and God bless ‘Citizens United’,” Colbert said Thursday night.

Read entire post | Comments

A screenshot from kingofbain.com of the anti-Mitt Romney documentary, 'King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town.' (kingofbain.com)

'King of Bain': 6 questions answered about anti-Mitt Romney attack ads

By Gloria Goodale, Staff writer / 01.11.12

A much-anticipated ad campaign claiming that Mitt Romney helped to destroy businesses and kill jobs is set to hit the airwaves Thursday.

The ads, taken from a documentary called "King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town," have drawn criticism from some Republicans, who say they unnecessarily attack American capitalism and could help President Obama if Mr. Romney wins the Republican nomination. 

But they are seen as one way the divided Republican field could haul Romney, now the clear front-runner after wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, back to the pack before the Jan. 21 South Carolina primary.

Here are the basics about the controversial campaign. 

Question: Who is behind the ads?

Answer: A pro-Newt Gingrich super political-action committee, called Winning Our Future, bought the 27-minute "King of Bain" documentary, which is already available at kingofbain.com. While Twitter and other online social media are already pushing the digital message out, the TV and radio ad campaign – comprising various clips taken from the documentary – starts Thursday. 

Question: What is so negative about this film?

Answer: The documentary profiles four companies that it argues were stripped and sold by Romney's venture-capital firm, Bain Capital, leaving many out of work and little if anything of value behind. The film details the hardships of those who were allegedly put out of work by Bain Capital.

Winning Our Future's Gregg Phillips calls this "the Romney treatment," and he denies the film is an attack on capitalism.

“This is not free-market capitalism,” says Mr. Phillips, a small business owner who says he owns a software firm. “Romney destroys businesses by sucking the cash out of the system.” 

“This film shows just what he actually does,” he adds.

The four companies are KayBee Toys, a Florida commercial laundry-equipment company called UniMac, an Indiana-based office-supply firm called AmPad, and an electronics company called DDI.   

Question: Who made the movie?

Answer: The filmmaker behind it is Jason Killian Meath, who created ads for Romney’s failed run in 2008. He is a former associate of Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer, top Romney strategists, according to The Daily Beast. Mr. Meath did not return a call requesting clarification about why he made the anti-Romney film.

Question: How did the super PAC obtain the film?

Answer: According to Phillips, Meath’s associates reached out to Winning the Future this past week, offering the film for sale. After negotiations, “we bought the film on Thursday for an undisclosed sum," he says.

He denies reports that money from Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson was used to buy the film and would not discuss any donations to the super PAC by Mr. Adelson. However, according to Factcheck.org, IRS documents show that Adelson donated $7 million to a now defunct Gingrich super PAC called American Solutions for Winning the Future.

Media have widely reported that Adleson has donated $5 million to the current super PAC, making the $3.4 million ad buy in South Carolina possible.

Question: What does Romney say about the film? 

Answer: Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for the Romney campaign, said Saturday: “It’s puzzling to see Speaker Gingrich and his supporters continue their attacks on free enterprise. This is the type of criticism we've come to expect from President Obama and his left-wing allies at MoveOn.org. Unlike President Obama and Speaker Gingrich, Mitt Romney spent his career in business and knows what it will take to turn around our nation’s bad economy.”

Question: What are other Republicans saying?

Answer: Republican strategist David Johnson, who worked on Sen. Robert Dole’s 1988 presidential campaign, said this film could backfire for the Republican Party, while not helping Mr. Gingrich in his South Carolina bid.

“All this does is hand fodder to the Democrats for attacking Romney in the general election, and it reinforces the image of Gingrich as mean and too personal in his attacks on fellow Republicans,” he says.

Read entire post | Comments

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul is swarmed by members of the media after visiting a restaurant in Manchester, N.H., on Monday. (Stephan Savoia/AP)

Is Ron Paul getting too much media attention?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / 01.10.12

Ron Paul followers have long complained their guy does not get enough media coverage. They echo the words of comedian Jon Stewart, who last August pointed out that reporters generally ignored Representative Paul following his second-place finish in the Ames, Iowa, straw poll. “How did libertarian Ron Paul became the 13th floor of a hotel?” Mr. Stewart asked on his “Daily Show.”

Well, Paul’s the main lobby now. A media horde follows him everywhere. Is he getting too much press attention – so much that it's interfering with his ability to get out his preferred campaign message?

On one level, the answer to that is obviously “yes.” Paul’s appearances over the past several days in New Hampshire have been jammed, to the point where one crucial stop degenerated into chaos.

Paul seemed “overwhelmed” by the madness at a morning event at Moe Joe’s diner in Manchester on Monday, according to CNN political reporter Dana Bash.

Paul circulated some in the room, but eventually he and his wife, Carol, were forced to retreat because of the media scrum. Cameras followed them outside and surrounded their black SUV. One voter pounded on the vehicle’s windows, pleading for Paul to come back inside. A heckler called Paul “chicken” and played the chicken dance song on portable electronic equipment.

“The scene rendered Paul’s SUV immobile for about 5 minutes – until his security was forced to move everyone out of the way,” said an ABC News account of the incident.

Paul’s campaign apologized for the incident in a post on his website. The statement noted that Mrs. Paul got shoved by a cameraman and claimed that 120 reporters had created a moblike atmosphere.

“The campaign had planned to cover our normal degree of media interest, which is always ample. However, a significant increase in the press corps, largely driven by an influx of foreign journalists, exceeded all expectations,” said the Paul statement.

Should Paul really be blaming this on “foreign” journalists? And were they foreign in the sense that they’re from another country, or are they fresh troops reassigned from the Bachmann beat?

Anyway, the real point is that this is a bad time for Paul’s campaign machine to develop problems. Monday was the last campaign day in New Hampshire, where Paul is projected to finish in second place, and meet-and-greets have been crucial to Paul’s appeal everywhere.

As New York Times polling analyst Nate Silver notes on Tuesday, Mitt Romney’s and Paul’s share of the vote has remained stable in a volatile year – in part because of the skill of their organizations.

“Mr. Romney and Mr. Paul have built the best field operations in New Hampshire and other early-voting states, many Republicans say,” writes Mr. Silver on his FiveThirtyEight blog.

The harsh scrutiny of the media could be damaging to Paul on a more abstract level, as well. The press is like a searchlight: It has a narrow focus, but when it shines on you, it can be blinding. In recent weeks, media reports of racist language in old newsletters printed under Paul’s name have angered his campaign and reminded voters of an old controversy involving the libertarian.

Reports have also focused on Paul’s refusal to completely disavow any intention to run as a third-party candidate, or his refusal to promise to support any eventual Republican nominee in the fall. This has caused some conservatives to begin to grumble about Paul’s continued participation in the GOP process.

“Having thus used the GOP’s brand and standing to hoard a metric ton of attention for himself, the very least he could do, even if he could not bring himself to promise to support the eventual GOP nominee, would be to promise not to run against the GOP’s nominee under the banner of some other party,” wrote contributor Leon Wolf on the conservative RedState blog on Monday.

Meanwhile, Paul is continuing to do OK in polls. A new CBS survey finds a hypothetical race between Paul and Barack Obama as a statistical tie, with Paul the choice of 45 percent of respondents and Obama the choice of 46 percent. Among Republican candidates, only Romney does better: He leads Mr. Obama 47 to 45 percent in CBS’s findings.

Read entire post | Comments