Is Colbert's "presidential campaign" breaking FEC laws?

Col-BUSTED? Comedian Truth-to-power-speaker Stephen Colbert is trying to get his name listed on the presidential ballot in his home state of South Carolina. Radar reports that if he succeeds, the existence of his television show, and the airtime Colbert gets on it as host, would amount to a violation of FEC laws.

Link. (thanks, David Cho)

[#1 posted by Shrdlu , October 19, 2007 9:32 AM]

Yet is is perfectly legal to have a company who is a major contributor to the GOP with a CEO who actively fundraises for George W. Bush make electronic voting machines. What a country.

[#2 posted by Micah , October 19, 2007 9:35 AM]

If he's only running in SC, couldn't Comedy Central just block out the Colbert Report in SC?

[#3 posted by Stacyj , October 19, 2007 9:54 AM]

Oh no, I hope they wouldn't do that! Those of us in SC need every ray of sunshine we can get!

[#4 posted by RugerRedhawk , October 19, 2007 10:26 AM]

Shrdlu: You are comparing apples to oranges.

[#5 posted by Joe , October 19, 2007 10:31 AM]

I hope people take the chance to step back and look at the carnival much of our campaign and election processes have become.

Colbert is skewering the political machine yet again, this time by using a tongue-in-cheek "If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach.

It's about time, too. After all, I thought that's what Fred Thompson was going for, until he put his serious face on for the debate.

Two television personalities in one election? Is this another example, along with the vigorous social media campaigns, especially by Obama, of "Politics 2.0"?

[#6 posted by RugerRedhawk , October 19, 2007 10:42 AM]

I'd vote for him.

[#7 posted by bort , October 19, 2007 11:08 AM]

i'll vote for him. unless somebody better runs. it's sort of like a "none of the above" vote.

[#8 posted by abb3w , October 19, 2007 11:34 AM]

Heck, I'd register Republican to support him in the caucuses. He's way better than their other clowns; at least he's funny.

As for a solution to the problem of the Colbert Report, have guest hosts in charge for the duration. Perhaps Robin Williams could be persuaded to pry loose an opening in his schedule to take over....

[#9 posted by ianm , October 19, 2007 12:05 PM]

ahem, Fred Thompson, Law n' Order 24/7. There have been mumblings about this as a possible violation, but little has been done about it.

[#10 posted by travelina , October 19, 2007 12:36 PM]

Have you seen what endangered animals would like to do to Stephen Colbert, according to National Geo's blog Pop Omnivore?
http://ngm.typepad.com/pop_omnivore/2007/10/what-endangered.html

[#11 posted by Dave Hecht , October 19, 2007 12:36 PM]

TV Watch a bit of further analysis into the Thompson situation. It also mentions something I heard on the radio this morning, and a few other blogs have made mention of - Pat Paulsen, of Smothers' Brothers show fame, ran in 1968 as a member of the "Straight Talking American Government Party, or the S.T.A.G. Party (NY Times obit). He ran into the equal time problem, but gave some good runs and lines like, "If elected, I will win."

[#12 posted by scottso , October 19, 2007 1:07 PM]

I would guess that the law in this matter is pretty murky. What makes it murky is that Colbert is planning to run in only one state. Since that's the case, the federal government has no jurisdiction over his campaign. It's a state matter.

We elect our president based on the results of 50 state elections (plus DC), and the states have tremendous leeway over how they treat candidates within each state. The feds only get involved once it's a multi-state thing, if I'm thinking about the law the right way.

So, Mr. Colbert, you may be in the clear!

[#13 posted by vsync , October 19, 2007 1:10 PM]

If Ron Paul wasn't running in this election, I'd vote for Colbert in a heartbeat.

[#14 posted by Crunchbird , October 19, 2007 1:23 PM]

Isn't he trying to run as both a Republican AND a Democrat, though? If he gets on both ballots, surely each half hour of his show would be its own "equal time" . . .

[#15 posted by Sensoz , October 19, 2007 1:55 PM]

He should definitely ally with Gravel.

[#16 posted by Shrdlu , October 19, 2007 3:39 PM]

Ruggerredhawk:

I LOVE oranges. Apples really piss me off. So what? I can't stop myself. Sorry.

Shrdlu

[#17 posted by oscarstrok , October 19, 2007 9:59 PM]

I'm pretty sure those campaign laws only refer to public airwaves. Colbert is on paid cable so I believe those rules would not apply.

[#18 posted by schmod , October 20, 2007 3:21 PM]

Say what you want about Gravel, but he's more or less the only one of the candidates with any sort of progressive ideas.

We need a pretty major shakeup to fix what happened over the last 7 years. Clinton was no angel either, and set up a horrible economic situation right as he was leaving office.

[#19 posted by Anonymous , October 20, 2007 4:44 PM]

The murky thing about it is that there hasn't been a decision rendered on cable programming. Until that does occur, there is no law incorporated into being.