Stephen Colbert's SuperPAC, the FEC and Citizens United (John Samples)

[thombone]

Nice try, cato but no cigar... unless you want the one leftover from the Clinton days?

[stinaisawriter]

That awkward moment when someone thinks that a comedian is attempting to actually change something instead of pointing out the hilarity of the system itself.

[Madfoot713]

@stinaisawriter The awkward moment when you realize that Colbert's gone full political activist.

[SirBrettley]

I see the Colbert Clown Corps is here to display their butthurt. :D

This video nails it: people like Colbert are incensed that now everyone has the same power to talk politics that they have always had.

[azothdaco]

"Fascism is the merger of State and corporate power." Extreme left - Extreme right...2 sides of the same corrupt coin. Always profits over people. Corporations are not people! The People are One...

[bmcgrew2]

First sign of propaganda seconds into this video.... The whole point is to wake people up to see how the system is screwing you....Way to go Cato lol. Maybe hire some propaganda psychologists before making a video you transparent fools!

[rickcain2320]

Those clowns at the Cato Institute are so pathetic.

[Synapticsnap]

Even Colbert can trip over a Right idea every once in awhile. Although I'm pretty sure it was accidental, he wasn't watching where he was walking, he only looked left before crossing Pennsylvania avenue and the idea struck him from the Right.

Thank you thank you, I'll be here all week, try the veal...

[redakdal]

the whole point of the super pac, from what I understand, from the beginning was to see if colbert could actually outwit viacom, and make money from a superpac, he was trying to show that he could be political and he could indeed get money from donors without getting into trouble

[Ironhawk86]

Is there anything more hypocritical than leftists whining about CU v. FEC? They sure don't have any problems with corporate $ in campigns when it benefits them. And some of the worst examples corporate corruption of the govt have happened throught them (GE anyone?). Taking nazi blood money via Soros doesn't bother them either.

[a4finger]

Limiting freedom of speech is fascism.

[thomaserossi]

@a4finger - No it's not. Fascism is collectivism. It's the belief that rights and morals belong to groups. Such as the right to property which should be guided and directed by the state.

[tmac9938]

citizens united is shit. why is he defending corporations legally being on the same plane as a human being. can a corporation serve jail time? no, it can only pay money. therefore it is not the same, not equal. a corporation is the cumulation of people that make it up vs 1 human per 1 body. definitely not the same. a corporation is a government granted (charter) entity. a human being is natural.

cato disappoints me right now. especially with the name calling in the beginning of the vid.

[merkavabuilder]

@tmac9938 You are confusing the common definition of "person" with the legal definition.

[tmac9938]

@merkavabuilder every human being has a corporate representation of them known as their "PERSON" as created by a birth certificate, SS card, drivers license, etc... is that what you mean?

[marmac83]

@tmac9938 A corporation is for all practical purposes a person from a legal stand point. Being that a corporation does not inhabit a physical body, that would be impractical to send one off to jail. As far as common-law precedent goes, corporations are counted as legal entities like people.

[tmac9938]

@marmac83 "Being that a corporation does not inhabit a physical body, that would be impractical to send one off to jail."

exactly why i have a problem with them automatically inheriting "natural rights" when in fact they are an *artificial* entity. see what i mean? not apples to apples. therefore can't treat them to same. yet we do.

[marmac83]

@tmac9938 We treat them the same as far as is practical. An artificial entity is for all intents and purposes a person. It's known as a legal fiction. In a common=law system, there have to be legal fictions in order for certain aspects of society to function.

What is your constructive alternative to the system in place? If you haven't a viable alternative, you are just trolling.

[tmac9938]

@marmac83 ok you're still not grasping it. if an entity is artificial (a legal fiction), constitutionally speaking, it can only derive privileges...not rights. however, the courts are saying these artificial entities can/should retain natural rights that human beings (not persons!) enjoy. these still are not apples to apples, yet the courts apply them as such.

[marmac83]

@tmac9938 Maybe I was harsh to accuse you of trolling.

The constitution permits a lot of leeway when it comes to how the legal system is set about. The constitution spells out the roles of the judicial branch. The judicial branch is based on common-law, which includes jurisprudence and legal precedent. I do believe the constitution is deliberately vague so as to not interfere with decisions of courts on such matters. Also, I think for a functioning economy to take shape, this took shape.

[xXJADEXx7]

meh, colbert isn't a bad guy.

[bigboss686]

Stephen Colbert is a piece of shit!!!!!!!!



[RedTory59]

@bigboss686 Got enough exclamation marks in there, douchebag?

[bigboss686]

@RedTory59 LOL come to defend your queen, the piece of shit i see

[FletcherYouSlag]

I don't think you have really understood what Colbert is trying to ultimately do Mr. Samples.

[AshillaBeige]

@FletcherYouSlag I don't think Colbert understood what Colbert was doing...

[MarmaladeINFP]

The plutocracy must be defended.

[jackjillsean]

@MarmaladeINFP its not that straight forward a socialist society can be achieved in this way too.

this method although is not perfect and has a lot of people trying to steer it in a certain direction(capitalists) but its far better than what the conventional advocates of ricardian socialism want.

By taking away curbs you don't in the long run cause consolidation if similar restrictions on smaller entities don't exist, things like property rights are what are important.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@jackjillsean Maybe, in a society that didn't have vast concentration of wealth, giving organizations even more power might work. What we should seek is the empowering of grassroots activism and small community organizations. But large organizations will drown out the other voices. Originally, the founders made sure corporations had no personhood, corporate charters weren't allowed to exist longer than the life of people, and it was illegal for corporations to fund and influence politics.

[StateExempt]

@MarmaladeINFP - No it should not, repeal campaign finance law now so the non-incumbents can get their message out.