Satire, super PACs and why you should care

Throughout the course of the past few months, I’ve been following the creation of Stephen Colbert’s super PAC with great interest.

During these months, he has managed to explicitly illustrate the most fundamental flaws of our current campaign finance laws. Interestingly, he has done so simply by staying in character.

Let me begin by taking a quick step back. For those of you who aren’t familiar with campaign finance laws, super PACs are political action committees that are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for the purpose of campaigning.

These super PACs do not have to release the names of their contributors to anyone but the Federal Election Committee, nor do they have to release the amount of money they have on hand.

One of the few rules governing super PACs is that they are not allowed to “coordinate” with any of the candidates’ official campaigns.

Theoretically, this would prevent candidates from being unduly influenced by the nameless donors associated with the super PACs.

That rule should give you no solace.

Last week, while Colbert was pondering a presidential run in the South Carolina primary, he decided to transfer authority of his super PAC to his longtime friend and executive producer of his show, Jon Stewart, so as to avoid the problem of being a candidate and the supervisor of his super PAC. 

All it took to transfer control was a signature on a single sheet of paper, and Stewart was allowed to keep all of Colbert’s staff working on the super PAC material so long as Colbert himself did not officially “coordinate” with Stewart about the super PAC’s plans.

Oh, and if Colbert were to explain his plans on his show and Stewart happened to hear, that’s not considered coordinating.

If Stephen Colbert can give control of his super PAC, now titled the Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC, to his longtime colleague and business partner while maintaining the exact same staff and announcing his own candidacy, there is clearly something wrong with the way our laws are structured.

As amusing and outrageous as the Colbert stunt is, every one of the primary Republican candidates has a super PAC behind him.

Mitt Romney’s super PAC is run by his 2008 campaign manager, Rick Perry’s was run by a longtime friend, and Newt Gingrich publicly asked the super PAC supporting him to pull a controversial ad.

This, of course, is not coordinating because he said it publicly at a press conference.

While the candidates might not be explicitly “coordinating” with the PACs, they are without question intertwined with candidates and have enough shared background to warrant some serious misgivings.

In essence, we are currently relying on the honor system to ensure “non-coordination” between super PACs and campaigns, but that’s not even the worst of it.

The worst part about the entire system is that super PACs exist at all. By allowing them to take and spend unlimited money from sources that don’t have to be named, we’re veering dangerously close to selling elections to the highest bidder.

If you believe money is equivalent to free speech, you probably don’t have a problem with this. I, for one, find the whole setup nauseating.

I’d like to thank Colbert for shining light on the dark recesses of campaign finance and encourage everyone to  look at what he is doing.

Their satire has identified a glaring problem in our system. Once we realize and accept that, we can start pressuring our representatives to change the way we do campaign finance.


­— jontodd@indiana.edu