The Colbert Report’s Campaign Finance Shenanigans

Stephen Colbert, as his satirical conservative pundit character on The Colbert Report, didn’t just poke fun at the absurdities of campaign finance regulations; he actively exploited them. His efforts, though comedic, served as a potent critique of the system’s loopholes and the influence of money in politics.

The most famous example is probably “ColbertPAC” (Formally: “Stephen Colbert Super PAC SHH!”). Colbert established this Super PAC in 2011 after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The decision, which declared that corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising, created a landscape where Super PACs, independent expenditure committees, could raise and spend unlimited funds to support or oppose candidates, without directly donating to campaigns or coordinating with them.

Colbert’s goal was to highlight the inherent problems with this system. He openly joked about the lack of transparency and accountability required of Super PACs. He even sought and received an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding the relationship between a Super PAC and the media entity that employs its spokesperson. This performance of seeking advice became a bit of performance art, showing just how convoluted the regulations were and how easy it was to navigate the system. The FEC eventually granted him the go-ahead, clarifying rules in the process and enabling him to raise and spend money without triggering traditional campaign finance restrictions.

The ColbertPAC episode reached its zenith with the creation of a separate 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organization called “The Ham Rove Foundation.” This type of organization, unlike Super PACs, is not primarily political and can keep its donors secret. Colbert’s satirical intent was to further demonstrate the potential for hidden influence. He eventually transferred the Super PAC’s funds to the Ham Rove Foundation, again satirizing the ease with which money could be moved around and shielded from public view.

He then ran ads supporting his own political ambitions…sort of. Colbert explored the possibility of running for president in South Carolina, a primary state known for its early influence. While his actual candidacy never materialized, the stunt allowed him to further illustrate the role of money in campaigns and the impact of Super PAC spending. These ads were often absurd and directly contradicted his stated positions, making the political impact of the spending difficult to fully evaluate.

The Colbert Report’s foray into campaign finance was ultimately a success in its satirical goals. It exposed the loopholes, the lack of transparency, and the potential for undue influence that characterized the post-Citizens United landscape. By playing the system, Colbert effectively critiqued it, generating both laughter and critical reflection on the role of money in American politics. His antics spurred public discourse, highlighting the need for campaign finance reform and holding the FEC accountable for its decisions.