That seems to be what I read earlier in the week, and shook my head in disbelief and moved on, before reading it again.
The State said Stephen Colbert failed to buy “naming rights” to the presidential primary, as one would expect, but then matter-of-factly drops this bombshell:
But the GOP did agree to place a question on its Jan. 21 primary ballot after Colbert, a South Carolina native, in return pledged a “significant contribution” from his super PAC to the S.C. Republican Party. (A GOP spokesman declined to say how big that pledge was.)…
Officials with the S.C. Republican Party met with Colbert a few times and reached an agreement to place a question about “corporate personhood” on the primary ballot. But they said no to the naming rights and debate co-sponsorship offers…
Really? Can that be? Nah, I said, and moved on…
Then I read this in The Free Times:
The Comedy Central satirist — and South Carolina native — approached state Republican Party officials a few months ago about making a significant contribution to the party through his Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrowsuper PAC.
In return, Colbert requested the party place a ballot question on the state’s first-in-the-South GOP presidential primary set for Jan. 21, that dealt with corporate personhood. The party agreed and on Nov. 11 asked state election officials to add a ballot referendum that asked voters to decide whether “corporations are people” or “only people are people.”…
But then, it apparently didn’t actually happen, because the party’s Matt Moore said “that the party never received a contribution from Colbert’s PAC.” And in any case the Supreme Court recently struck all such questions from the ballot (nice going there, justices!)
So basically, I guess if I had enough money, I could at least in theory go to the GOP and get it to place on the ballot a “referendum” question asking voters, say, whether they think The constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment should be waived in the case of the network hammerheads who cancelled “Firefly” in its first season.
Or maybe something else. Something actually controversial.
Folks, I like comedy as much as the next guy. And you know how little I think of political parties. But I hate to see one degrade itself to this extent. I mean, Hello! This guy makes his living MAKING FUN of y’all…
Related Posts
Yeah, I wondered whether the GOP were trying to co-opt Colbert, play along to show they’re really not as bad as we think they are, or whether they don’t “get” that Colbert is joking.
He had it until the courts said that the GOP couldn’t put that question on the ballot because it had already been decided by the courts. Since he couldn’t buy the question, his Super Pac didn’t pay out the money. I understand Harpootlian’s challenging the ruling. And yes, they are for sale.
I like the idea of a primary ballot issue worded specifically to show how little attention voters pay to what the issues are actually about.
No. Wait. We get those in the actual elections.
Never mind…
I support your constitutional amendment wholeheartedly.