Category Archives: election law “humor”

This item appears on the CLC Blog.

As I suspected would happen…

My Dearest Email List, Last month, my friend Ham Rove passed away in a very unsuspicious fashion. On the same day, Colbert Super PAC’s money, $773,704.83, was squirreled away in a fashion that was extremely suspicious, but entirely legal. I thought that’s the last I’d hear from Ham Rove, particularly because a dog ate him. But Ham Rove had plans beyond his death, and I was recently surprised to find myself on the board of the Ham Rove Memorial Foundation. I was equally surprised to learn we received a $773,704.83 donation. Where did that very specific amount of money come from? There’s simply no way to know. Tonight, I am honored to announce First and Final Annual Charitable Donations by the Ham Rove Memorial Fund. Hurricane Sandy was much like Ham Rove: Cold, cruel, salty, and the cause of untold devastation. In his honor, Donors Choose, Team Rubicon, and Habitat For Humanity will each receive $125,000 to assist with their Sandy relief efforts. We’ll also be donating $125,000 to the Yellow Ribbon Fund, which serves wounded soldiers and their families. My attempts to get a matching donation to the Blue Ribbon Fund, which serves me frosty cans of PBR, were not successful. The remaining money will be split between two pro-transparency groups who fight against the corrupting influence of outside money in politics. Luckily, they were both fine with the corrupting influence of outside money in their offices. As per his wishes, the Center for Responsive Politics has officially renamed their meeting space “The Colbert Super Pac Memorial Conference Room.” And the Campaign Legal Center will, from here on out, be home to “The Ham Rove Memorial Conference Room.” It is the highest compliment that I can pay when I say I miss Ham Rove almost as much as I miss that money. I wish he could have stayed with us a little longer. Because now I have to plan a whole new Christmas dinner. Yours Givingly, Stephen Colbert Accidental Chairman, The Ham Rove Memorial Fund Paid for by Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. www.colbertsuperpac.com

The Borowitz Report.

The question not answered by this piece is what he’s doing with the money he raised.  Colbert writes on the Super PAC’s website: “Due to Ham Rove’s timely passing, I am announcing that Colbert Super PAC is shutting down effective immediately. During this time of mourning, we ask that you respect our privacy, and more importantly, the privacy of our money. It wishes to stay out of the public eye, so please don’t go trying to find it. Rest assured, you won’t. We have a really good lawyer. “

“Call Your Zayde,” the latest video from the Jewish super PAC that brought you Sarah Sliverman on voter id and Samuel L. Jackson’s WTFU.

For non-Yiddish speakers, a pushka is generally a charity box, but in this context I believe it refers to a 501c4.

The Daily Show takes on President Obama giving $5,000 to his campaign.

Of course, under Buckley v. Valeo the President could spend unlimited sums of his own money on his campaign.

McSweeney’s (via Nick Confessore).

I kid you not.

Politico reports.

ProPublica: “With 300-plus super PACs and counting, it would be easy to miss CREEP. But last Thursday, a new super PAC ingeniously named the Committee for the Re-Election of the President registered with the Federal Election Commission. The committee is based out of a post office box at the Watergate Complex—an homage, of course, to the other Committee for the Re-Election of the President, the fundraising committee for President Richard Nixon that became embroiled in the Watergate scandal.”

Watch:

More about 501c4s and super pacs on the rest of the episode.

The Supreme Court, issued a rare weekend opinion in a case out of Montana.  From Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion:

Just two years ago, this Court held that the First Amendment prevents the government from enacting laws limiting corporate spending in elections. We stated that the identity of the corporate speaker does not matter, that independent spending can neither corrupt the election process nor cause the public to lose confidence in the fairness of elections. We also held that the government’s “antidistortion” interest in preventing the wealthy from drowning out the voice of others is an impermissible end for government regulation. We made a huge mistake.

Since 2010, election spending has increased greatly, through the emergence of “Super PACs” and misuse of the 501(c)(4) organizational form reserved in the Internal Revenue Code for “social welfare” organizations. This Court’s opinion in Citizens United, coupled by developments in the lower courts and the Federal Election Commission, means that a large percentage of the money spent in elections will likely be unreported, and it has become child’s play for individuals, corporations (and potentially–and illegally–even foreign individuals and corporations) to hide their identities.

“Enough is enough.” Cf. WRTL II (opinions of Roberts, C.J.) The government has a strong interest in the integrity of its elections and the prevention of corruption. Recent experience shows that independent spending can indeed corrupt and Congress (and states) may rightly conclude that the inevitable conflict of interest stemming from obscenely large amounts of money in our elections justifies reasonable limits on campaign contributions and spending. As we explain below, Citizens United and that portion of Buckley v. Valeo barring spending limits in elections are hereby overruled, leaving open the possibility for the government to demonstrate that narrowly tailored campaign contribution and spending limits which allow for robust political debate from multiple diverse voices are consistent with the First Amendment.

Justice Scalia, for himself, and Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas issued a brief dissent, which begins:

Are you kidding me?

Politico reports.

(Blowback) I’m Your Super PAC  (The Clash they’re not) (via Ken Vogel)

Smart politics. And nice death hug with Newt.

Vicious.

CNN reports that Stephen Colbert said “I’m proud to announce I plan to form an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for my candidacy in the United States of South Carolina” and that because of legal problems with a candidate controlling a Super PAC, he is turning over control to Jon Stewart.

I had wrongly predicted he would not want to give up control of the Super PAC and would instead endorse Buddy Roemer.

Since it is too late for Colbert to get on the ballot in South Carolina and the state prohibits write-in votes, it is not clear what a candidacy means here.  Nor is it clair what it means to be a candidate “in the United States of South Carolina.”

Perhaps after getting no (legal) votes in South Carolina he will suspend his candidacy and then retake control of the super PAC.

I’m sure all these machinations will keep Colbert’s lawyers plenty busy, and all of us entertained.