Talk:Colbert Super PAC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit for impact section[edit]

"A 2012 election interview ascertained that viewing The Colbert Report increased knowledge and perception of super PACs and "501(c)(4) groups." It showed an increase in knowledge of campaign finance regulation regarding independent expenditure groups. Their findings emphasize how the political satirist was successful in informing his viewers, even more than alternative types of news and media. Observing the The Colbert Report effected how viewers perceived money in politics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalviaPalthZelaya (talk • contribs) 16:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

additional reference[edit]

Hardy, Bruce W., et al. “Stephen Colbert’s Civics Lesson: How Colbert Super PAC Taught Viewers About Campaign Finance.” Mass Communication & Society, 2014, Vol.17 (3), p.329-353, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891138. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalviaPalthZelaya (talk • contribs) 16:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ad #2 Behind the Green Corn[edit]

"Susan 209" explains the ad:

This is so brilliant! I like this one even better than the first. I love how it starts out saying directly that Iowans are “good people” who can “make up their own minds,” and how it mentions that Jobs for America is “pandering” to the people of Iowa. That’s injecting more than a kernel of truth. (Excuse the intended pun.) Then, however, it veers off into being humorous by making hay (another intended pun) of political advertisers’ pandering by going straight for the lowest method in all of advertising… making something that has nothing to do with sex, all about sex. Corn porn! Stephen gets them right below the corn belt (pun #3) with that one. What could be better than the line, “We’re getting all up in those niblets… Oh, yeah!” I can’t wait until the straw-pollsters have to add up all of the write-in votes and figure out whether someone with bad handwriting wrote “Perry” or “Parry!” Stephen, you have nerves of steel. Somebody, somewhere is going to start making a big fuss about how you messed around with the straw poll and I bet anything you are waiting with a gleeful twinkle in your eye for the fussing and fuming to begin! I hope Trevor Potter has figured out how to explain to whoever is doing the hollering that legally you can say anything you want in those ads, just like “Jobs for America” and everyone else. OH! And I LOVE the sickle and star on the “Jobs for Iowa” lunchbox! Can’t wait for more… (And no more puns, I promise. That’s the last straw.)

Brilliant ad and a TIP OF THE HAT to Susan 209! See the ad here Gandydancer (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Page needs details on the ad being pulled at the last minute by a major Iowa t.v. station because it would allegedly confuse voters--Bradleyhb (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Done. Gandydancer (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I see that "scattering" got 162 votes, so it would seem that there were a pretty good number of party crashers (pun intended!) at the poll. Gandydancer (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anyone want to ad this?[edit]

There has been some confusion about the permit for the PAC to run ads. I removed info from the article as it is obviously not correct since they did run ads in Iowa. The decision actually said this:

The Commission concludes that Viacom would not be acting within its legitimate press function by providing independent expenditure advertisements to the Show and also providing the independent expenditure advertisements to the Committee, or providing independent expenditure advertisements produced directly for the Committee to distribute outside of the Show (including airing as paid advertisements on other shows and networks or as content for its website). Thus, costs incurred by Viacom for this activity would need to be reported by the Committee as in-kind contributions from Viacom to the Committee.

It seems that they seem to be saying that costs must be reported, while I assume that other PACs are not required to do so? Gandydancer (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of political action committees[edit]

Where would the Colbert Super PAC appropriate on the List of political action committees? Other? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has been added under Other. Gandydancer (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a real PAC?[edit]

Really? I know it's for humor. Did he really file the paperwork to make a real Super PAC? J390 (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is real to get clearance to do this from his parent company, VIACOM and the [FEC]. Jsgoodrich (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what or who has he raised money for after he made this PAC? Does he get money from donations for his PAC, and where does it go towards? J390 (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corporations are people[edit]

Why isnt there anything about corporations are people? Colbert has been talking about that for almost two months! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.33.46.244 (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please get some references. Gandydancer (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add something on the South Carolina referendum, but didn't see a source when I looked for it the other day. I think there is a NYT article on it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?[edit]

As the lead sentence says, the PAC is no longer the "Colbert Super PAC." I think a rename is in order - probably to "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow," if that's its official name(?) per the lead. Objections?  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least wait until after the South Carolina primary on Saturday. I have a feeling that after Colbert does not win they will transfer it back to his control and it'll be back to being the "Colbert Super Pac". Wikipedia naming convention says article titles should generally be the common name for a topic. The common name for the time being is still arguably the "Colbert Super Pac" and the official name is still "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow", so renaming it to something that is neither the common name nor the official name seems a bit premature. Notice also that the website is still at colbertsuperpac.com. Also, "The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC" is a bit unweildy for an article title. Let's give it a week and see how things shake out. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Colbert isn't running in the primary afaik, I think he's running as a 3rd party in the general. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that he is running as a write-in candidate in the South Carolina Republican primary that is on Saturday. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rreagan is right, Colbert is not running in the general election. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a renaming of this article at this time. The transfer of the Super PAC is likely temporary, as in lasting no longer than this week, as Colbert is only "campaigning" in South Carolina. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the Super PAC is transferred back to Colbert, its official name will still, in all likelihood, be "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow." The new "Mitt the Ripper" ad refers to the PAC by that name, just as the earlier ads like the first Iowa commercial did. If the PAC consistently identifies itself as "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow," that's what we should be calling it too.  Mbinebri  talk ← 16:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely opposed to the non-consensus renaming that happened yesterday (a move discussion needs to last more than a few hours for discussion, especially when you start the discussion thread on an American holiday). As for whether the title should be "Colbert Super PAC" or "Americans for a better tomorrow, tomorrow", I'm open to discussing that, but I'm inclined to think that it should remain as it is per WP:COMMONNAME. ABTT is the "official" name, but it is not so widely used in the press, I don't think. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. No rush to change. Like Mom used to say, "We'll see..." :=) Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The legal name of this Super PAC is and has always been "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow Inc." He uses the names (this and "Colbert Super PAC") rather interchangeably. Colbert Super PAC seems to be it's coloquial name, so I would advocate for keeping it that way. But, there should be a redirect for the realname.Thegeniusboy05 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be Category:Joke political parties?[edit]

Would this be Category:Joke political parties? 99.35.12.129 (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Super PAC, which is not a political party so I'd say no. SPQRobin (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a Joke political party by definition has to be a political party. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assets and Accounts[edit]

Are the assets (financial or otherwise) and accounts available? Could a link be put into this article? 86.146.17.253 (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they have not reported nor disclosed those figures. That seems to be part of the mockery of the situation they appear to be making. But if a source could be found about it, that would indeed be a good addition. DP76764 (Talk) 18:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Colbert keeps hinting in his show that they are near $1,000,000 in donations. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that recently, yes. Sadly, I don't believe it (currently) counts as a source for inclusion. Too ambiguous. DP76764 (Talk) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Colbert's own statements on his show where he hints at the million dollar mark can be used as a source. I saw him do it at least twice last week on his show when he was asking for more donations.
On the second one, he actually says he will have an official announcement about it on Monday's show. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An official announcement, yes; hints(speculation on our part) about what it is, no. DP76764 (Talk) 19:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not speculation on our part to quote Colbert's own words. Something like "On his show referencing the amount of money his Super Pac has raised, Colbert stated that 'We are so close to a nice, round, rediculous number that no one thought we'd hit in a million years." In another show, Colbert stated that "We are so close to a very big number which I will reveal on Monday night's show or, on say, Who Wants to be a Millionaire." Rreagan007 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The snark/sarcasm/innuendo doesn't translate very well to written text, plus "in a million years" is a common phrase with an entirely different meaning. Both quotes are open to interpretation too; does he mean 1 million? 2 million? 10 million? Yes, he said them, but instead of reporting this vague teaser, why don't we just wait for the official announcement? It's much simpler and cleaner that way. DP76764 (Talk) 21:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I suppose it doesn't hurt to wait. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Details of Americans for a Better Tomorrow Tomorrow, Inc. asset disclosures can be accessed from the FEC website. I edited the section to include the latest details in this regard.Thegeniusboy05 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RIP Ham Rove[1][edit]

Ham Rove family portrait - circa unknown
Here lies Ham Rove,
Part man and part hog.
He got stabbed to death,
And then et by a dog.
Gandydancer (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colbert Super PAC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Colbert Super PAC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SalviaPalthZelaya (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Regina.valensia, Mo&pocap.

— Assignment last updated by Mo&pocap (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colbert_Super_PAC&oldid=1214255936"