PRIMARY DOC: Colbert's FEC Response Video

Sorry, forgot to show you the video! It's also a primary doc.

Here's what winning looks like:



And here was his response:

PRIMARY DOC: Colbert's FEC Response

Hey everyone, remember how Stephen Colbert was forming a SuperPAC? Well, he just got his permission from the FEC. There's a danger that Colbert will set a precedent that will allow FOX to sponsor Sarah Palin's SuperPAC in a more direct way, but, hell, it's not like they were constrained before.

I just hope that Congress gets so embarrassed that they close the SuperPAC loophole.

At any rate, to celebrate, I wanted to share Stephen Colbert's lawyer's responses to the FEC, to illustrate a few things.

WHAT EXACTLY IS THE FEC DOING?

If you look through the questions, there isn't a very clear theme as to what the FEC is trying to prevent. But there is one question that basically asks whether Colbert is serious:

"Is the continued operation of Colbert Super PAC's website and activities dependent on the show? If the show stopped covering Colbert Super PAC because it was thought to be stale or no longer funny, would Viacom cease providing support to it?"

It's a bit ridiculous of a question -- I mean, does anyone think SarahPAC would continue to operate if Sarah Palin died or got bored?

Otherwise, their questions about the Super PAC's independence from the show are pretty standard -- who will own Colbert Super PAC's intellectual property (answer: Super PAC will own the logo and any "off-air" content; Viacom will own anything broadcast on-air), who has editorial control (Stephen Colbert, although if he really pissed Viacom off they could just fire him and take away the money), who has access to the material (not just Viacom).

The one place where they do make a legitimate point is when they ask what happens if Federal candidates for the Presidency come on the show. My hunch is that now that Colbert's Super PAC exists, he will not have any presidential candidates on the show. The legal interaction sounds a bit of a headache.

WHAT EXACTLY IS COLBERT DOING?

More illuminating, actually, is the lawyer recounting what Colbert has done previously where his political activity has been subject of the show:

Mr. Colbert, as host of The Colbert Report, considers the segments about his political activity an essential and unique aspect of the show. As Mr. Colbert stated in a recent media interview, "[w]e throw ourselves into the pond of the news, and then we report on our own ripples."

To that end, Mr. Colbert has placed himself in positions where his off-set actions and experiences can serve as material for the show. The Advisory Opinion Request provided the examples of the Mr. Colbert's "Hail to the Cheese Stephen Colbert Nacho Cheese Doritos 2008 Presidential Campaign" and the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" that he co-hosted with Jon Stewart in October 2010.' In addition to those two examples. The Colbert Report has featured Mr. Colbert's off-set activities on many occasions, including his congressional testimony on immigration, his U.S.O. Tour to Baghdad, his public dispute with the Associated Press about the word "truthiness," and his sponsorship of the U.S. Speedskating Team.

When you lay it out like that, you can see that Colbert has a strategy of overlaying his political activity and the lens of the show.

SUBJECTIVITY WINS

So why did Colbert win? Because it's incredibly subjective, and the FEC appear to have a sense of humor.

For contrast, Stephen Colbert wanted to naturalize citizens on his show, but even though Homeland Security approved it, the White House vetoed the idea. Why? Because they thought he would make a mockery of the evening. In other words, they find him offensive.

Nancy Pelosi also doesn't think Colbert adds value: she and Rahm Emanuel (back when he was in the House) told Democrats not to go on the Colbert Report.

There's no real reason why the FEC couldn't go the same way. In fact, if this process has highlighted anything, it's highlighted how subjective these instruments are. There's no fine line between Viacom and Colbert Super PAC. There's no fine line between The Colbert Report and Colbert Super PAC. And if the same relationship existed at FOX -- oh wait, it does -- there's no real way to disentangle them. It's all subjective.

RESPONSE: Copyright or Wrong pt.1 - Civil Disobedience

Uh oh. Some wrote a long and passionate post about how their show got taken down by copyright:

Due to certain artistic choices implemented by myself – the director – Boxcar’s production of Little Shop of Horrors has been closed by the organization that owns and licenses the rights. This was effective immediately. I do not hold the licensing organization accountable for doing their job.

The production I created violated the terms and conditions set forth by the contract my company signed to license the show. I made alterations and changes to Alan Menken and Howard Ashman’s script. I took elements from the original 1960 film version of Little Shop of Horrors directed by Roger Corman and combined them with the original 1982 off-Broadway musical as well as the 1986 film version. I borrowed from Rocky Horror Picture Show and wrote bits of dialogue myself to help blend the material seamlessly. These changes prompted many to buy tickets, garnered us rave reviews and sold out houses. It was certainly these changes that caught the eye of Playbill.com who wrote a compelling article regarding my concepts. And it was that article that instantly drew attention to our production by the licensing company.

He goes on to tell the story in detail. And then got some very angry responses For instance:

But take copywright laws up with the relevant people and stop bitching, moaning and producing illegal productions until the laws change. And stop looking for support from the theatrical community. It’s embarrassing.

When it comes to copyright law, I very strongly disagree. The copyright law that exists comes from extremely powerful players with extremely deep pockets (most of whom are named Disney), and the odds that an independent theater on its own will turn the tide of copyright in the next decade is improbable. There is plenty of work that I cannot legally do at the current moment, and I refuse to take a big stack of my work and set it aside, and wait until the laws change. Sure, we should work through legal avenues to try and change the law.

But if there is a law that is completely out of all proportion and it has a negative impact on the community, I say you should go ahead and do it. It's civil disobedience, and it's important. You get your ducks in a row, you only fight the battles you believe in, but if you think this is the work you should be fighting for: fight for it.

And then we do look to each other for support, because if we can convince each other that copyright law is incorrect, we could maybe build up the momentum to actually change the law.

“I entered into an agreement. I knew those terms and I knowingly broke those terms. Now I’m sad there were repercussions”.

Better summed up as "I entered into an agreement because of legal constraints. I knew those terms and I knowingly broke those terms. I understand the repercussions, but would like to use them to highlight the legal constraint."

* The quality of Boxcar’s production is completely and utterly beside the point.

Actually, no it's not. When we're talking about the validity of laws, we're balancing the rights of individuals against what benefits society at large. If we believe that good art benefits society -- and if not, you're probably not reading an arts policy blog, are you? -- then the fact that good work comes out of copyright violations is relevant.

For instance, one of my greatest frustrations was that the play Architecting, one of the finest plays I've ever seen in my life, can't be published because some of the characters and some of the passages are taken from Gone with the Wind. It's not in any way a copy of Gone with the Wind, and it could never be confused for Gone with the Wind. But because it's an "idea" that's "owned" -- not by the original writer, but by University of the South -- and because that idea is owned for 95 years plus the author's life -- I'll never own that play.

Is defending the revenue of University of the South a better social outcome than allowing a beautiful and inventive new work to be preserved? Obviously if the play were worthless, it would be more important to defend the revenue. But the fact that banning such work is a loss -- a loss of good work -- is relevant.

* Perhaps all of this nonsense could have been avoided in the first place if Olivero had submitted his concept to Samuel French (I think they hold the rights but it’s been a long time since I directed my own production–whoever holds them now) and asked for some kind of waiver beforehand.

In my experience, probably not. Unless you have lots of money to really buy the license for the play -- like, if you've got $10,000+ to pay for those rights -- asking for permission just attracts their attention, and thus makes it impossible to skirt the law.

LEGAL COMMENTARY: Crime Labs

Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court ruled that if you submit scientific evidence during a trial, the technician or doctor who performed the testing must be made available as a witness to be cross-examined on methods.

Here's some proof as to why that was a good ruling:

NEW YORK -- North Carolina's criminal justice system remains beset by scandal almost a year after an independent audit revealed that state crime lab technicians provided false or misleading test results in 190 cases of murder and other major crimes.

Two men convicted of murder have been freed so far as a result of the misconduct revelations, and dozens of other cases are still under review by prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Increasingly, more and more attention is being made to incorrect convictions. The Better Government Association just put out a report on the high cost of wrongful convictions.

PRIMARY DOC: Blagojevich Tape

The infamous "f***ing golden" tape is available for a listen.

Listen closely to the way Blagojevich says the word "repugnant." Over and over again, the issue is not getting money; it's not about getting influence; it's about sticking it to those "fucking national people" who think he's so "repugnant."

RESPONSE: Uh, What?

In "Reductive to the point of Insanity" news, "Imagine if Go the Fuck to Sleep were about Jews!"

Does CNN have editors, or is it just that swiggly red line in charge of everything?

POLICY: What Back-Room Dealing Looks Like

The New York Times has the definitive article on how we got to have gay marriage, and the main thing it highlights for me is how innocuous back-room dealing looks like when it's for a good cause:

The story of how same-sex marriage became legal in New York is about shifting public sentiment and individual lawmakers moved by emotional appeals from gay couples who wish to be wed.

But, behind the scenes, it was really about a Republican Party reckoning with a profoundly changing power dynamic, where Wall Street donors and gay-rights advocates demonstrated more might and muscle than a Roman Catholic hierarchy and an ineffective opposition.

And it was about a Democratic governor, himself a Catholic, who used the force of his personality and relentlessly strategic mind to persuade conflicted lawmakers to take a historic leap.

“I can help you,” Mr. Cuomo assured them in dozens of telephone calls and meetings, at times pledging to deploy his record-high popularity across the state to protect them in their districts. “I am more of an asset than the vote will be a liability.”

Bottom line: Cuomo used his political skill in the back-room to convince key donors to take action, and using the leverage of money convinced legislators to vote against their constituents (at least, what they felt their constituents wanted). Obviously it couldn't have happened without strong public support and weak opposition, but Cuomo's strategy is the strategy of a Republic, not that of a Democracy.

Which is fine. Nothing unethical happened and there was a good result. Cuomo staked some personal reputation, and he seems to have won.