Jubbergun wrote:
I don't think a guy expressing an opinion, especially one you already know he holds, on television should constitute a "donation." Keep in mind, this is a guy that generally does not agree with me politically. This isn't about the politics, this is about fundamental principles. If an advocacy group or politician has to report donations, that's one thing. However, these laws are based on a pretense that mediums that aren't in print somehow should be held to a lesser standard (because the First Amendment explicitly states "freedom of the press," none of these laws apply to print media). The idea that the freedoms of speech and press don't extend to modern mediums because the white slave-owners that wrote the Constitution failed to see TV, Radio, and The Internet in their crystal ball is moronic at best and sinister in the worst case(s).
This is fundamentally an issue of speech, which Mr. Colbert believes, based on his actions/words, should have remained constrained as it was before the Citizens United decision, and what makes this entire episode amusing is that he's having trouble making his case because he is currently being constrained by exactly the same kind of laws he supports.
This isn't about Colbert simply expressing his opinion. Nobody at all is telling him he can't talk about his PAC. The issue, as far as I can tell, is whether talking about it on his show is news coverage or advertisement. The exemption he's claiming to fall under would mean that covering his PAC as a news story, commentary, or editorial is not a donation. If it's an advertisement, the money spent on that segment of the show is a donation - it's still legal, but Viacom needs to do the accounting to declare it accurately. AFAIK, the same thing would apply if a newspaper donated space for a full-page advertisement to a PAC - it would be legal, but they would have to declare it as a donation. I don't see how that would be a violation of their speech rights. And again, none of this repudiates his views about the wisdom of allowing unlimited donations to influence elections - he's in a somewhat unique position of running a PAC and running a TV show. If he was doing this all behind the scenes without talking about it on his show, just as much money could go into influencing the election, it would just be a lot less transparent than he's trying to make it.
