 So in 2011, Stephen Colbert stunned America by starting his own super PAC. And he showed just how thin the line is between bribery and legal political contribution. Well, that's seven years later. And we want to check in on how all of that is going. So please welcome Colbert's personal lawyer for his super PAC, former Federal Election Commission chairman and current president of the Campaign Legal Center, Trevor Potter. Thank you. Thank you so much. Welcome, Trevor. I'm just going to jump right in. That's OK with you. So I'm like end of the politics thing. And I'm a Hollywood elite. So I'm a Hollywood elite. If I want all of the influence I can buy, but I'm sure that there are limits. So if I wanted to give as much money as I wanted, it would be like $1,000 would be the limit or something, right? Well, the legal limit today you can give directly to a candidate is $2,700. However, before you get nervous, if that's not enough, you can actually give as much as you want to help the candidate. You just give it to a super PAC, a single candidate super PAC that can then go and spend it on behalf of the candidate's election. The Supreme Court and the Citizens United case struck down existing limits and said that corporations, individuals could spend as much as they wanted to help candidates because that sort of independent spending could never be corrupted. But that money isn't going to a candidate, right? They don't have any say in how that money is being used, because that would be a slush fund. Money laundering, right? So Justice Kennedy and the Supreme Court majority assumed that this spending was going to be completely independent of candidates and parties, that these groups would operate as outsiders. But that's not how it has turned out. Candidates nowadays actually create their own independent super PACs before they become candidates. And then they raise money for these super PACs. And then once they become candidates, using your million dollars or whatever, they can go ahead and spend it to elect the candidate. Pretty clever. But once they become candidates, then they can't touch any of it. Well, the first thing to remember is it takes them a surprisingly long time to become candidates. You might recall Jeb Bush in 2016 who spent something like six or nine months going around the country, traveling at the expense of the super PAC, raising tens of millions of dollars, saying he was thinking of exploring the possibility of considering whether to become a candidate. So he did all that and then jumped into the race. Of course. But once they sign all the paperwork, then they have to stay away from super PACs, right? Wrong. OK. There are lots of ways that they can induce they in contact. For example, the Federal Election Commission has said it is all right for candidates to appear at super PAC fundraisers, either to raise small amounts or to be a featured or honored guest. Now, that may not sound like a lot of contact with you, but the FEC has said that you can have one of these honored guest fundraisers with as few as two guests. So it's kind of a private fundraiser. And the candidate can thank people for giving and ask them to help support the work of the PAC. In addition to that, the FEC has come up with what's called the two hats rule, which means you can be the principal fundraiser for a candidate and then also be the fundraiser for the super PAC. OK. So if there's a wall between candidates in super PACs that if I, as a political donor, throw big money at a super PAC, my personal politician does not get to decide how it's spent, right? Well, that is technically correct, except that the people who do decide how to spend it are usually in this scenario the former campaign manager of the candidate or close friends of the candidate and one of my favorite examples it was actually the parents of the candidate who are running the super PAC. So they also can share what are called common vendors so they can use the same consultants. So basically, I think it's useful to see it as the other pocket on the candidate's coat. OK, but if the candidate tells a super PAC exactly what to do with the money, that's illegal? That would be illegal. OK. However, first they have to get caught and then the FEC has to have a majority vote on whether to investigate it. And as you may have heard, the FEC has basically deadlocked on all of this in the last couple of years. So if candidates or PACs break the rules, what is the punishment, like a really big fine? Well, the FEC has never actually punished a candidate for coordinating with a super PAC. They've never actually seen an example of that. Well, they've never seen it. It must be blind blessed their hearts. OK, so let's say the worst thing happens. My candidate has really blown it. They weren't testing the waters. They got caught explicitly telling a super PAC what to do. And the FEC just stormed down on them with power and fury. What kind of fines are we talking about? Oh, in that scenario, the first thing to remember is the candidate is almost never fined. The candidate's committee or the super PAC or the treasurer might be, but not the candidate. Then if the FEC levies a fine, which, by the way, the candidate or the super PAC has to agree to pay voluntarily, and if they don't agree on that, then the FEC has to take them to court and get a court order, and that takes time. But if they do all of that, then the problem is, will the FEC actually collect it? And there are lots of fines out there that have been levied that the FEC never got around to collecting. Got it. So I can give as much as I want to a candidate's super PAC, and there are no repercussions for my candidate. But what about me? Am I listed as the main donor of this disgraced candidate? Well, if you didn't have a good lawyer and you gave directly, and you gave directly, then, yes, you would be listed as the donor to the super PAC. But if you have a good lawyer, they will say to you, well, you could give through an LLC. Maybe you already have a couple. If not, you could create one, and it can make the contribution and be listed as the donor. The LLC could be named anything you want. You could name it after your cat. Do you have a cat? God, no. But I have a dog. And her name is Pippi Lawrence Stocking. OK. So all the public will know is that an LLC named the Pippi Lawrence Stocking LLC gave a million dollars to this super PAC. Now, your lawyer will tell you to keep it going and have it do a few other things to make sure that's OK. But you could do that. Your other option would be to take your million dollars and give it to one of these tax exempt nonprofit groups, what we call a dark money group, C4 or C6. They don't disclose their donors. So you give them the money. You say you wanted to go to the super PAC. You're supporting this candidate. They can go right ahead and either spend it themselves or give it to the super PAC. And your name will ever be out there. The Supreme Court, again in Citizens United, said don't worry about all this new spending because it'll be fully disclosed. And everyone will know where the money is coming from. But that has not turned out to be the way they expected it to be. OK. So let's say we've weathered the storm. My candidate is elected, but I want to buy more politicians. Let's say you're a politician. Could I, and I don't want to get too technical here, but could I just get you a bunch of gifts and bribes to get you to do stuff? Well, depending on who the politician was, yes. Really thought we were going to get a note there. Former Governor of McDonald of Virginia just had his conviction for taking 11 different bribery charges overturned by the US Supreme Court. I'll bet that surprises you. I am very surprised. So I could just get you a Rolex, a vacation, just pay for your daughter's wedding? Literally all of those things were taken by Governor McDonald. A wealthy businessman gave him and his family more than $170,000 worth of gifts and loans and wedding parties. Governor McDonald's lawyers argued that that wasn't a bribe because what he did in return didn't count as a, quote, official act. He only introduced the businessman to state officials and asked them to meet with him and held events for the company in the governor's mansion. And the Supreme Court bought that argument. They said that was not a bribe, but constituent services. And since in another case, the Chief Justice referred to out-of-state contributors to candidates as constituents, I guess that means that every wealthy favor seeker in the country with a checkbook and a pocket full of Rolexes can go right ahead. OK, so this isn't really disturbing. Bribery is legal in America. Corruption is legal. So Trevor, are we at a tipping point? What is it going to take for us to get to a point where we were post-Watergate, where Congress felt obliged to take bold measures to un-rig our system? I think we are at a tipping point. The good news is it's not too late. If you look at polls out there, it's the right moment. If you look at polls out there, about half the people say we should completely get rid of the current campaign finance system and put in a new one. And about 40% more say we should just make major changes in the system. So everybody is on board with doing something. Congress could pass bills that are sitting there, like the Honest Ads Act that is trying to deal with secret foreign money elections, the Disclose Act to deal with all this dark money. There are states and cities around the country that are doing interesting things. Seattle has this new citizen voucher program, and other places could adopt that. The FEC could update its disclosure rules and enforce the existing laws and crack down on this non-coordination-coordination racket. Now that may not all happen today, but I think we have to work together to make it happen tomorrow. Thank you, Trevor. Thank you so much. Thank you, guys.