Laelia wrote:
Yeah. I have no idea what allowing all this money in the system is supposed to accomplish. We have a system closer to what you describe in Canada (no corporate donations, individual donations limited to ~$1000 per year, and public financing to all parties based on the number of candidates they run and how many votes they receive), and we don't seem to be particularly lacking in democracy.
And yet, with all that democracy, didn't you guys just end up with a fairly conservative (for Canada, anyway) new government? Wasn't one of you Maple-syrup slurping hockey lovers lamenting that here recently?
Laelia wrote:
Before the recent court decisions were implemented, what he is doing would be completely illegal, which is his point. The media waiver he's applying for is only needed because in-kind donations (airtime) are difficult to value and Viacom doesn't want to reveal trade secrets by doing so. The Super-PAC, which enables these unlimited donations, was formed by literally adding a cover letter to the PAC application, no waiver required.
Maybe it's just me, and/or it's one of those weird quirks of America those of you from outside our borders don't get, but I don't think a TV personality, or anyone else for that matter, should have to jump through hoops in order to exercise their First Amendment rights. However, it appears that Colbert's point is that the court should have left campaign "reform" rules in place, and it doesn't lend a lot of credence to his argument when his media stunt involves by-passing or getting waivers for campaign "reform" rules.
Your Pal,
Jubber