Political satirist and pundit Stephen Colbert of “The Colbert Report” announced Thursday his interest in running for “President of the United States of South Carolina.”
Days later, he explained to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that he had put together an exploratory committee to weigh his options as a possible presidential candidate.
“I’m a one-man Lewis and Clark, and I’m just looking for my Sacajawea,” Colbert quipped.
Colbert has always been one to blur the lines between comedian and activist, having both attempted a run for president in 2008 and created his own superPAC (political action committee) in the meantime. These two measures have now converged to form a potent and dangerous monster: a comedian with unlimited, undisclosed donations posing among real politicians — like a wolf in wolves’ clothing.
And the message is clear: If anyone can put together a political action committee which freely and anonymously collects undisclosed funds, look what one can accomplish!
Now Colbert has ads running across South Carolina criminalizing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and urging citizens to vote Herman Cain, who is labeled as “such a Washington outsider, he’s not even running for president.”
Analysts are rightfully worried about Colbert’s intrusion.
Bruce Hardy, mass communication and political science assistant professor, said the ads will hit viewers who do not expect satire and will take the information at face value.
“I think the parody — and actually purchasing airtime — is crossing the line a little bit,” Hardy said. “If you look at the media coverage he’s getting, that coverage is translating into a discussion of the superPAC and where that money is coming from, which is a good discussion.”
In truth, Colbert has only taken up the cause which former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer dragged to the depths beside his presidential campaign. Colbert and Roemer even collaborated on an anti-PAC ad which aired on “The Colbert Report.”
Colbert’s success in raising awareness of corrupt campaign donations will be measured by the difference between his and Roemer’s approach: While Roemer chose purity and wiped his hands of exorbitant donations from special interest groups and favor-seekers, Colbert is wallowing in the stink of it and rubbing it in the face of the guilty.
And the reductio ad absurdum is perfect.
When he announced his exploratory committee on his show last week, he publicly handed over the control of his PAC to former co-star Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show.”
The PAC was even renamed “The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert SuperPAC,” poking at the stipulation that politicians are forbidden from cooperating with PACs — despite the favors candidates typically grant to their “anonymous” contributors.
The difficulty for politicians like Romney is that if they want to address Colbert’s allegations, they must address corporate financing of superPAC, a topic which abhorrently remains missing from current campaign dialogue. It’s a perfect niche for Colbert, as it allows him to accuse all he wants while remaining unapproachable by his victims.
Considering Colbert’s message and method — and means by which the two coalesce — the question of whether the ends justify his means are moot solely because everything he has done has been legal.
If the nation were to address unregulated campaign donations by corporations and superPACs, Colbert’s circus of a campaign would be impossible. But alas, the law has allowed a satirist to collect as much money as he likes to conduct a campaign which he appointed his friend to finance.
Colbert’s blatant mockery may be the only way to address the issue of special interest money corrupting politics after Roemer’s refusal of donations above $100 fastened a chain gang to his presidential hopes. And it’s also exciting to see thick and witty satire effectively influence the political sphere.
The more votes a Colbert ticket could garner in South Carolina — i.e. the more voters who prefer a joke over a leader — the more we know that the system is in need of dramatic change.