Yes, that’s an obnoxious title. But eh, what can you do? Maybe I can get a “real” writer to do the titles when they’re looking for something to do next week. From the Detroit News Op-Ed pages:
Regulating Colbert stifles speech
Michael Bindas
Thursday, November 1, 2007Nation, it’s a sad day when a serious, insightful commentator such as Stephen Colbert has to worry that his speech may be regulated by the government. That’s the situation in which Colbert finds himself after announcing that he will run for president as a Democrat and Republican.
Immediately following the announcement, the Internets were abuzz with talk of whether he was sincere (as if there were reason to doubt). Almost as soon, the talk turned to what his candidacy might mean for his nightly news show, “The Colbert Report.”
The pundits asked: Can Colbert be both candidate and commentator? If Comedy Central allows him to stay on the air, will it be making an illegal corporate contribution to his campaign? Can Colbert avoid the campaign finance implications if he just doesn’t talk about himself or his candidacy on the show? (Fortunately, Colbert isn’t given to self-promotion.)
…
Advocates of campaign finance “reform” have long railed against what they call the corrupting influence of money in politics. They have argued that government should regulate monetary contributions to political campaigns and that there are no First Amendment consequences in doing so, because money is not speech.
Whatever one thinks of that argument, something far scarier is afoot today, as evidenced by Colbert’s predicament. The so-called reformers now insist not only that money is not speech, but also that speech is not speech — it’s money and, therefore, can be regulated.
From the point of view of these reformers, Colbert’s nightly political commentary has value to a Colbert presidential run and therefore should be treated as an “in-kind” contribution subject to campaign finance laws. That’s nothing less than government regulation of political speech — a frightening proposition, and one you’d hope every American would give a wag of the finger.
Unfortunately, it is an idea that has gained traction.
Consider a recent case in Washington state, where government prosecuted an initiative campaign for failing to report, as an “in-kind” contribution, favorable commentary by two talk-radio hosts. Although the state supreme court eventually rejected the government’s case, the campaign was forced to spend two years in litigation defending itself.
Consider, as well, recent calls for new laws aimed squarely at political speech. The reformers — including certain non-Colbertian presidential candidates — have suggested reinstating the “fairness doctrine,” which would dictate political content on radio and television. There have even been calls to regulate political blogs. These folks want government’s hands on every bit of information we receive, whether it’s from TV news, talk radio or the Internets (a series of tubes).
If you're new to our Zoner community, please read the No Fact Zone Comment Policy before commenting. Thank you!