NBC Whines About Super-PAC 'Lethal Weapons' While Acting Like Super-PAC For DNC
While Brian Williams warned of "those lethal weapons known as super-PACs" in the GOP primary race on NBC's Rock Center, he and correspondent Ted Koppel failed to recognize their own network's routine advocacy on behalf of liberal causes and in favor of Democratic candidates. Not to mention the barrage of negative coverage directed toward conservatives and Republicans.
The report itself on the Monday night broadcast was pushing the traditional liberal cause of greater government regulation of campaign finance. Koppel interviewed comedian Stephen Colbert, whose farcical super-PAC in South Carolina has begun running ads calling Mitt Romney a "serial killer." Koppel praised it as "proving how ridiculous this system has become."
Colbert stumbled upon an important point in his discussion with Koppel as he highlighted the power and influence of major media corporations, like NBC News, "Why doesn't Ted Koppel have a super-PAC?...even though you work for NBC Universal Comcast Jiffy Lube, it is legal for you to have a super-PAC.... And you could finally have a voice in America. Don't you want your voice to be heard?"
Koppel's voice and that of NBC News is certainly heard, loudly routing for the left and admonishing the right.
Following his interview with the liberal Comedy Central host, Koppel discussed the topic with Williams and lamented: "We're stuck with them [super-PACs] until the Supreme Court reverses its ruling, and if that's ever going to happen, it will be years away."
In reply, Williams worried: "I talked to a smart person in politics yesterday who said the Supreme Court will never reverse its own standing law....for good-hearted people who are fearful that our election process has been changed and damaged forever, is there anything to hope?"
Koppel and Williams completely ignored the fact that the whole reason PACs and super-PACs were created was to comply with campaign finance regulations that restrict the money candidates can spend themselves.
Read a complete transcript of Koppel's January 16 interview with Colbert.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
They'll Never See the Irony
Submitted by scottyusmc on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 1:05pm.
THEY - the liberal "pipe smoking" in the tank for the Democrats Lame Stream Media represent the biggest Super-PAC in existence. Its constant Drumbeat for one side of the political spectrum is bad enough; but its consistent denigration of anyone whose opinion differs from them is even worse. They deserve, and get no respect from me...
NBC, CBS and ABC are Obama Super Duper PACs
Submitted by OxyCon on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 1:23pm.
Brian Williams should have to register as a lobbyist.
How dare they!
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 1:40pm.
How dare a group of people form a politically based association in which to promote the candidate of their choice! How dare they exercise their right to free assembly and their right to free speech! There ought to be a law against it, especially if they spend "too much" money in doing so!
I mean, really, what will become of this unregulated attempt to form associations and spend unlimited amounts of money for political causes? Will something like the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals be formed and be able to spend tens of millions of dollars every year lobbying for tougher animal rights laws? What will become of America if we allow things like this to happen? We're all doomed, doomed I tell ya!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Colbert and Koppel
Submitted by hughg on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 1:41pm.
Their speech patterns remind me of Laurel and Hardy along with other "reliable" sources of idiotic phraseology.
More media jealousy.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 2:52pm.
They no longer control the conversation, and they no longer have the influence they once did. As the original Democrat shill SuperPAC of their day, they are angry that their model no longer works.
Does anyone else enjoy the delicious irony that the liberals used to use the Supreme Court to get what they wanted, and now they can't?
Ted....
Submitted by bigdaddy on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 3:29pm.
...you do realize that Colbert is a Freakin' COMEDIAN!!!
Go, Super PACs!
Submitted by lrgon on Wed, 01/18/2012 - 3:57pm.
The Supreme Court got one right when they semi-flayed the John McCain- Russ Feingold "campaign finance reform" act.
Freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution.
Politicians hate to be exposed by TV ads,newspaper ads and radio ads that have the potential of destroying their careers. Conservative PACs and Super-PACS are a ready tool to use on these big spenders and big government promoters.
Corporations and interest groups are willing to give politicians millions of dollars for one reason: protection money or insurance money.
Corporations know government controls every aspect of our economy and our lives, and they try to influence government to protect their interests. It's self-preservation for them. But what about Joe the plumber and Suzy homemaker?
Along comes the PACS where Joe's saw buck or Suzy's century note will be joined by others to buy influence and compete with the big boys with the big bucks.
The framers gave us a small in scope federal government, which was intended to operate as a very limited constitutional republic. It didn't stay that way for long just as the anti-federalists like Patrick Henry and others had predicted; they feared it would break from its constitutional chains, which, who can argue, it has!
The only true solution to the campaign money problem is a return to a proper constitutional government that does not control the economy. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand.
McCain-Feingold "reform" measures blatantly trample on the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby, and contribute to politicians as they choose.
Simply put, Congress has no authority to regulate political campaigns. But considering the very premise of elections and campaigns — that is, for citizens to lobby their government by contributing money to candidates of their choosing — Congress’ underlying motive to regulate such forms of speech makes plenty of sense from congress' point of view but not from Joe the Plumber and Suzy homemaker's point of view!
As an opponent of the McCain-Feingold act stated:
"The development of Super PACs, which were spawned from laws that limit individual contributions, gives citizens greater freedom in protesting their government, which in turn makes lawmakers more accountable."
Go Super Pacs!