September 15, 2009 Comedy Central The Colbert Report
The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching
Corporations do everything people do except breathe, die and go to jail for dumping 1.3 million pounds of PCBs in the Hudson River.
The Colbert Report last night featured one of the most subversive and brutally honest half-hours of television in recent memory. It's a sad commentary that it takes a comedy program to provide more news and information on one of the most critical subjects in American politics that anywhere else in our broken media and political landscape, but I'll take this argument wherever I can get it.
Colbert spent two full segments of his show focusing on the Citizens United Supreme Court case, which could - and probably will - lead to deregulating the entire campaign finance process, allowing corporations to give unlimited money to any candidate of their choosing. This severe step backwards with enormous implications has been barely discussed in any traditional media setting, but Colbert went after it vigorously, discussing the consequences and even the flawed legal rationale, a true third rail of American politics, corporate personhood.
Colbert explained that the 1886 case (Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad) that conferred 14th Amendment equal protection rights onto corporations wasn't even in the original ruling. But when the Chief Justice made an off-hand comment that the Court wouldn't hear an argument on whether the 14th Amendment applied to these corporations (saying, "We are all of the opinion that it does"), the court reporter wrote it into the ruling opinion, and the precedent has held ever since. And that reporter of the Supreme Court didn't only have ties to the railroad barons, he used to run one.
These are subjects you just never hear about in the American media, precisely because the American media is owned by giant multinational corporations, who benefit from the corporate personhood rule and would stand to benefit more from deregulating elections so they could use their "speech" to buy candidates and fund their own with unlimited resources. And despite being on a Viacom-owned network, Colbert says, skewering the immorality and psychopathology of the corporation, "Corporations are legally people... they do everything people do, except breathe, die, and go to jail for dumping 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River."
There's some backstory to that remark. Colbert actually worked with Robert Smigel on the "TV Funhouse" bits from Saturday Night Live (he's one-half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo), including the infamous episode from March 1998, Conspiracy Theory Rock. Here are some of the actual lyrics (remember this aired, albeit one time, on NBC, whose parent company is General Electric):
It's a media-opoly
A media-opoly.
The whole media is controlled by a few corporations
thanks to deregulation by the FCC.You mean Disney, Fox, WestingHouse, and good ol GE?
They own networks from CBS to CNBC.
They can use them to say whatever they please,
and put down the opinions of any one who disagrees.
Or stuff about PCB's.What are PCB's?
They come from power plants built by WestingHouse and GE.
They can give you lots of cancer that can hurt your body,
but on network TV, you rarely hear anything bad about the nuclear industry [...]But the bigshots don't care.
They're all sitting pretty.
Thanks to corporate welfare.
What's that now?They get billions in subsidies
from the government.
It's supposed to create jobs,
but that's not how it's spent.
They pulled this cartoon from the rerun broadcasts and it never aired again.
Colbert didn't just provide this lesson in corporate control of government in his "The Word" segment, but then had Jeffrey Toobin on to explain how the expected Supreme Court ruling would impact elections:
COLBERT: If this goes through, if they decide in favor of the corporations here, what's going to happen to elections?
TOOBIN: Well, they will be essentially deregulated. Corporations will be allowed to give money, corporations will be allowed to broadcast programs that are in favor of one side or another, it'll basically be no more rules about what corporations can do in political campaigns.
COLBERT: Now when I ran for President in 2008, as the Hail to the Cheese Doritos Stephen Colbert campaign for President, I was told that I actually couldn't do that, that I was breaking federal election law by being sponsored by that corporation. But if this goes through, if this court case, if they win, does that mean that I retroactively won the election?
TOOBIN: I don't think it means that.
COLBERT: But could you do that? Could I actually just wear a NASCAR suit and just have logos all over me and run for President as the sort of Gatorade Thirst for Justice campaign for President?
TOOBIN: You definitely could. No question.
Robert Wexler is a surrogate that Barack Obama should be grateful to have on his team. The Florida Congressman squared off against Republican Eric Cantor yesterday on "Late Edition" and did what every surrogate should do whenever the issue of campaign finance comes up; namely point out that John McCain is breaking his own campaign finance laws as we speak.
Download | play 
Download | play
CNN:
And one other thing -- Senator McCain's not in the position to speak about this. He used his public financing as collateral to get a loan, and then, low and behold, he didn't use it, and he broke the law.
I didn't watch all the Sunday news shows last week, but I'm pretty sure Wexler was the only person -- surrogate or otherwise -- to make the observation that John McCain has absolutely no standing to lecture others on "failing to keep their word" on the issue of campaign finance reform. Why Democratic spokespeople aren't on top of this talking point is beyond me.
McCain's Media begins its march against Obama. I've been saying they will support McCain in the general all along. Listen to the tone of Gibson's voice as he makes a strong statement against Obama's money advantage over the uninspiring John McCain. Something that never seemed to bother the Villagers before. Heck, Bush 41 and the Saudis look really cool as friends... He feels oh so awful about the fact that McCain is getting trounced in the fundraising department by Obama. The poor little guy who makes sure the media has plenty of doughnuts on his campaign bus. I'm sure that if McCain had the online support that Obama has---the story would be something like. "Will John McCain's excellent fundraising advantage lead him straight to the oval office?" They would be amazed at his fundraising prowess. John McCain: The Internet Maverick!
Download | play Download | play
"Let me ask you a question about basic fairness: People in this country like to believe that people play on a level playing field and that a campaign will be about ideas and personality; if you start with that much more money, is it basically fair?"
There was real emotion in his voice when ABC News anchor Charles Gibson used Friday night's newscast to stand up for little-guy McCain against online-fundraising powerhouse Barack Obama.
To me, the good news is that a network anchor was giving prominence to the plight of underfinanced candidates.
The bad news is that it's taken years to see an anchor make such a stand. And that Gibson (like other media voices in recent days) is making his stand for "fairness" against a candidate who has attracted 3 million contributions from 1.5 million donors giving an average donation of $91. In other words, against a candidate who is arguably less beholden to big-moneyed interests than McCain.
Thanks to Silent Patriot for the video and screen cap. Full transcript below the fold with a little added tasty treat:
And why do "Democratic strategists" -- who are supposedly on to balance them out -- let them do it? While discussing Barack Obama's decision to air his first national campaign ad in traditionally unfriendly states, Republican strategist Joe Watkins advises McCain just to be his McMavericky self, because people appreciate someone who won't go back on their word, obviously alluding to Obama's "broken promise" on accepting public financing. What Joe neglects to mention, and what David Shuster and Morris Reid forget to remind him of, is that John McCain is breaking his own campaign finance laws as we speak.
Download | play Download | play
To his credit, Reid mentioned McCain's flip flop on the Bush tax cuts, but calling out his blatant and perpetually ongoing hypocrisy and lawbreaking on his signature issue would be far, far more effective. Josh Marshall sums up the case against McCain quite nicely:
[...] McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC's rules, we're still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)
I want to return to this subject though because this is not hyperbole or some throw away line. He's really doing it. McCain opting into public financing, accepted the spending limits and then profited from that opt-in by securing a campaign saving loan. And then he used some clever, but not clever enough lawyering, to opt back out. And the person charged with saying what flies and what doesn't -- the Republican head of the FEC -- said he's not allowed to do that. He can't opt out unilaterally unless the FEC says he can.
I understand that it's difficult to stay on top of every nuance of every issue, but this is undeniably McCain's biggest vulnerability right now. It's simply astounding that McCain is allowed to hold others up to standards (aka laws) that he himself is violating. Even worse, it's Democrats on TV who are letting him do it.
In other words, the media narrative is now that Barack Obama is a "flip-flopper" for opting out, and John McCain is a "straight-shooter" for opting in, then out, then in again, all the while breaking the law by spending more than he's allowed to. Damned liberal media.
It appears that we hit too close for comfort with the McCain campaign when we brought up the topic of the "Sugar Momma Express" use of Cindy's private jets for the campaign, because now they're lashing out. Too bad they have to make up things to complain about. Greg Sargent:
In an email blasted out to the media this morning, the McCain camp noted that the DNC had sent to reporters this article about Mrs. McCain.
"When will Sen. Obama do as he promised and `speak out against' Howard Dean and the DNC for their attacks on Mrs. McCain -- or at least demand they stop?" McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers asked in the email.
I received the DNC's email this morning, too. And nowhere in the email does the DNC attack Mrs. McCain.
The article that the DNC drew attention to reported that the McCain campaign had failed to reimburse Mrs. McCain for a flight in her company's private jet to New York City, where she attended a fund-raiser for her husband. The article quotes two Republicans criticizing the campaign for this.
The entire email from the DNC consists of criticism of the McCain campaign -- not Mrs. McCain.
