Stephen Colbert's stunt could have real implications in the world of campaign finance. | AP Photo Colbert at the FEC? Really.

On his popular Comedy Central late-night show, it’s all part of Stephen Colbert’s shtick.

He’s the ego-maniacal conservative pundit with an eponymous news commentary show, and – just like some of the Fox News Channel pundits he so cuttingly parodies – he’s angling to start a political action committee with enough cash to be, as he put it on his show in March, “a political playa in 2012.”


But when Colbert appeared at the Federal Election Commission in Washington Friday afternoon seeking permission to use his show to promote the PAC, the joke took on the contours of an actual political cause – exposing what he sees as the ridiculousness of the nation’s loophole-ridden system regulating money in politics.

In a speech to a crowd of several hundred fans gathered outside the commission’s offices – including an activist in a panda costume – Colbert explained his move was motivated by his belief in “the American dream. And that dream is simple. That anyone, no matter who they are, if they are determined, if they are willing to work hard enough, someday they could grow up to create a legal entity which could then receive unlimited corporate funds, which could be used to influence our elections.”

Yet the stunt could have real – and potentially broad – implications in the world of campaign finance, not just for the comedian’s as-yet-unformed political committee “ Colbert Super PAC.”

If nothing else, it could help the cause of campaign finance advocates by highlighting the ability of corporations to spend unlimited amounts to support or oppose candidates, and – as Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen describes it – expose “the clear conflict of interest that Fox media has as they allow political figures to promote their PACs on a supposedly neutral media outlet.”

Democrats and advocates for stricter campaign finance rules hope “the Colbert bump” – the comedian’s term for popularity boosts he asserts politicians receive after they appear or are featured on his show – carries over to the Democratic push to blunt the impact of the Supreme Court’s January 2010 decision in Citizens United vs. FEC.

The court struck down as unconstitutional decades of laws barring corporations from spending money to support or oppose candidates – a decision that prompted a deluge of outside advertising that liberals say favored Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections.

Colbert has treated the decision and its ramifications as fodder for his show since the ruling came down, and his series of bits on his political action committee fit into that broader focus – as well as his on-going parodying of Fox News and its pundits.

And on Friday – after struggling to clear the metal detector in the FEC lobby and then handing over his request for an advisory opinion to an FEC clerk - Colbert, summoning his trademark deadpan, told POLITICO “I believe that the Citizens United decision was the right one. There should be unlimited corporate money and I want some of it, I don’t want to be the one chump who doesn’t have any.”

Technically, the requests asks the commission whether the airtime and other costs associated with any shows on which he promotes his hypothetical PAC would be considered a contribution from Comedy Central’s parent company, Viacom, or whether they would be exempted from campaign finance rules and disclosure requirements.

That so-called media exemption allows newspapers, blogs, radio show hosts and others considered media to urge votes for or against candidates.

The legalese in the request is largely indistinguishable from that in any of the dozens of others submitted to the commission each year, though it does contain a few telltale traces of shtick, such as its assertion that that his PAC – in addition to cutting political ads that may be aired on the Colbert Report – will “pay usual and normal administrative expenses, including but not limited to, luxury hotel stays, private jet travel, and PAC mementos from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus.”

But it also breaks from blowhard type, at least briefly, to state that Colbert sees his political commentary as something of a public service. The PAC idea, it says, has served as “a vehicle for discussing campaign-finance rules and new developments in politics, such as Citizens United and independent expenditure-only committees,” and explains that “Mr. Colbert has placed himself in positions where his personal political actions and experiences can serve as material for the show.”

If the six commissioners of the FEC take Colbert’s request seriously, and decides to grant him wide latitude in using “The Colbert Report” to promote his PAC – both very big ifs – it “could have a sweeping effect. That would be a troubling development,” said Paul Ryan, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center, a non-profit group that pushes for tighter restrictions on money in politics.

Likewise, said Gilbert, if the commission goes the other way, ruling that any airtime Colbert devotes to promoting the PAC should be treated, and disclosed, as a so-called in-kind contribution from Viacom, it could “have a real election law impact,” in part by restricting the freedom of a handful of high-profile Republicans who serve as paid Fox News pundits and are affiliated with PACs, including Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Karl Rove and Dick Morris.

As with all things Colbert, though, it may be folly to try deduce any serious underlying motivation – other than satirizing the silly side of American politics and politicians – from his shtick.

For instance, the slogan for his PAC is “Making a better tomorrow, tomorrow,” and when he first unveiled the idea in late March, he quipped to his audience:”At this point some of you may be wondering ‘what is ColbertPAC’? Well get in line, because I have no idea.”

In a bit on his Wednesday show, he described its purpose as setting the stage so “the Colbert Nation could have a voice, in the form of my voice, shouted through a megaphone made of cash” in the 2012 elections.

Still, Washington’s political class clearly respects and fears the potential of Colbert – and his Comedy Central running mate Jon Stewart – to both embarrass politicians and to shape political narratives, particularly among younger, left-leaning demographics.

When the two held a massive rally on the National Mall ten days before last year’s midterm election, it was read as a measure of the enthusiasm of young Democratic-leaning voters and prompted both hand-wringing and optimism among the party’s organizers.

And after a bill to grant Washington, D.C. a vote in Congress passed the Senate in 2009, its primary champion Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who appeared regularly on The Colbert Report to talk about the cause, told POLITICO “Stephen Colbert has done more than any other single human being to inform the country, which was largely ignorant of the fact that we do not have the vote. I tell my constituents – you don’t owe it to me, you don’t owe it to DC Vote, you owe it to Colbert.”

The genesis for Friday’s appearance, by Colbert’s account, was a letter he received from a Viacom lawyer asking him to drop the gag.

“At this point, Stephen has used enough of Viacom’s resources in promoting the as-yet-unformed PAC … that the FEC would likely see an in-kind donation from Viacom in the event the PAC is ever actually formed. That means you can’t form it,” Colbert said, reading the letter on his show and adding: “Sincerely, some jerk sitting at a desk.”

But instead Colbert asked for advice on how to circumvent the ban on corporate cash from Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman and general counsel for John McCain’s presidential campaign, who has long been an advocate for stricter campaign finance rules and served as president of Ryan’s group, the Campaign Legal Center.

Potter, who has appeared on the Colbert Report three times to discuss the PAC and is now representing Colbert in his advisory opinion request before the FEC, explained that corporations like Viacom are barred from giving to PACs, but that – thanks to Citizens United – they can give to a new form of PAC colloquially known as a super PAC, which can only air ads supporting or opposing candidates, but can’t give to their campaigns directly.

So, as Colbert explained Wednesday “I did the right thing and I exploited a loophole,” adding “there is critical legal distinction between a PAC and a super PAC. One has the word ‘super’ in its name. So I took Colbert PAC and I made it Colbert super PAC.”

Yet, Viacom’s lawyers balked at that solution as well, Colbert said, declaring in overstated exasperation “I hate my parent company! They never let me do anything. Everyone else’s parents companies let them do it. Karl Rove is a paid employee of Fox News and he gets to talk about his Super PAC, American Crossroads all the time.”

Potter explained to Colbert that Viacom is likely skittish that if their airtime or administrative costs are “counted as a contribution, they would have to show it on the FEC reports. There might be a complaint or an investigation about whether they showed enough and they would have to turn over their internal bookkeeping and potentially reveal Viacom secrets.”

“Why does it get so complicated to do this,” Colbert said. “I mean this is page after page of legalese. All I’m trying to do is affect the 2012 election. It’s not like I am trying to install iTunes.”

The FEC has up to 60 days to respond to advisory opinion requests, and when POLITICO asked commissioner Cynthia Bauerly about Colbert’s request, she betrayed no amusement, explaining “all forms and advisory opinion requests are handled according to our normal processes.”

But don’t be surprised if the FEC is unwilling to play along with Colbert’s gag, though, warned David Mason, a former commissioner appointed by Democrats.

Commissioners will likely be very cognizant of the possibility that any advice they issue could be treated as a part of Colbert’s gag, said Mason, explaining “that will be one of the concerns of the commission.”

“There is a substantial doubt about whether this is anything more than a joke,” said Mason, pointing to Colbert’s unsuccessful effort http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6674.html to win a spot on South Carolina Democratic presidential ballot during the 2008 primaries.

Before he delivered his speech outside the FEC, POLITICO asked Colbert if he expected the FEC to take his request seriously.

“Why wouldn’t they?” he responded. “I’m making an actual request. I want to find out whether I actually have to list Viacom and the fact that I have a show as a gift in-kind. And if I don’t, I can’t wait to use the resources of my show.”