• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Following reporting rules is only for the little people, apparently.

Bad people in a position to do bad things will do bad things because they are bad people. End of story.

Boeing: repeatedly making the case for high speed rail.

Let there be snark.

Since we are repeating ourselves, let me just say fuck that.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Everything is totally normal and fine!!!

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

All hail the time of the bunny!

The arc of the moral universe does not bend itself. it is up to us to bend it.

A norm that restrains only one side really is not a norm – it is a trap.

I swear, each month of 2025 will have its own history degree.

I am pretty sure these ‘journalists’ were not always such a bootlicking sycophants.

I have other things to bitch about but those will have to wait.

If America since Jan 2025 hasn’t broken your heart, you haven’t loved her enough.

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. ~Thomas Jefferson

T R E 4 5 O N

Beware of advice from anyone for whom Democrats are “they” and not “we.”

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

The current Supreme Court is a dangerous, rogue court.

“Just close your eyes and kiss the girl and go where the tilt-a-whirl takes you.” ~OzarkHillbilly

Quote tweet friends, screenshot enemies.

We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Economics / C.R.E.A.M. / Colbert’s Joke Is On Us, Apparently

Colbert’s Joke Is On Us, Apparently

by Zandar|  June 30, 201110:46 am| 55 Comments

This post is in: C.R.E.A.M., Television

FacebookTweetEmail

Campaign finance reform advocates are worried that Stephen Colbert’s SuperPAC shtick may open the door to some real abuses by the corporate-owned press depending on how the FEC rules.

 

For its part, the commission has been treating Colbert’s request like any other. It’s created some quirky moments, like when Colbert had to assure the commission that the cash he collected outside their office was “received by Mr. Colbert personally as payment for shaking his hand” and wasn’t going to his yet-to-be-formed “super PAC.”

Ultimately, if they follow the suggestions of their staff, the FEC seems set to let the Colbert Super PAC go forward one way or another. The commission will consider one of three draft opinions authored by their staff, all of which appear to let Colbert’s parent company Viacom pay for the Colbert Super PAC’s expenditures without having to publicly report their donations.

That’s a move that has campaign finance reformers worried. Public Citizen wrote a letter to the FEC on Wednesday calling on the commission to reject the request.

“This would carve out a gaping loophole in campaign finance laws, allowing any company involved in media to foot, in secret and without limit, the electioneering expenses of political committees,” Public Citizen’s government affairs lobbyist Craig Holman said in a statement.

Holman warned that if the FEC granted Colbert’s request, “the next request will be for media companies to directly finance unlimited candidate campaigns under the press exemption – an abuse that is already being advocated in some quarters.”

 

Now, nobody does satire like Colbert.  The whole point of satire is to play the absurd straight and let the unintentional humor shine through.  And I honestly think Public Citizen is overreacting.  Colbert is clearly drawing attention to corporations and their control over media influence and elections, which seems to be the entire point of the exercise.   Yes, if media corporations are allowed to use the press exemption to get around campaign finance laws, it would be a disaster (what campaign finance laws we have left, anyway.)  But there do seem to be some potentially ugly ramifications here if the FEC approved Colbert’s PAC as is.

I personally think the FEC understands this and will not approve Colbert’s request for precisely that reason.  The press exemption is pretty ludicrous, and needs to be examined.  Colbert I believe is using this farce to force the FEC to erect some strict barriers on using the press exemption and spell them out in the campaign finance rules.  The whole point is for Colbert to play all this out by drawing attention to just how ludicrous it all is on its face.  He does it daily.

At least, I hope that this is where all this is going.  If the FEC says “Hey sure, press exemption, whatever, go for it media conglomerates!” then the joke’s truly on us.

 

(Cross-posted at ZVTS)

[UPDATE 12:10 PM]  Well.  Looks like it’s a moot point as the FEC has in fact approved Colbert’s PAC as is. (h/t The Moar You Know)

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The mask slips
Next Post: I love the smell of Franzia in the morning »

Reader Interactions

55Comments

  1. 1.

    cleek

    June 30, 2011 at 10:57 am

    The whole point of satire is to play the absurd straight and let the unintentional humor shine through.

    unfortunately, he picked such an arcane and dull topic, that it’s just not making the funny.

  2. 2.

    balconesfault

    June 30, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Even if FEC approves and sets a precedent – Colbert has done a valuable service.

    Because right now thanks to a handful of very diligent GOP operatives, finance laws are being challenged on all fronts. The public needs to understand this – and Colbert succeeding and making a big deal about it has a better chance of driving into the public consciousness just how in the tank for Corporate America the FEC and the Courts are right now than a lot of bloggy and lawyerly discussions of various rulings.

    At some point the public becomes incensed over Corporate media control over the process … or they don’t. But the Corporate media certainly isn’t going to try to frame it for them.

  3. 3.

    Han's Solo

    June 30, 2011 at 11:01 am

    balconesfault @ 2

    What you said + 1

  4. 4.

    Martin

    June 30, 2011 at 11:03 am

    I don’t understand the rationale here. How can getting approval for something, with more public attention than that thing would normally warrant, open it up to ‘real abuses by the corporate press’. The corporate press would be doing it anyway, without Colbert, and would be doing it without anyone being the wiser. What do watchers expect to happen – have one corporate media outlet hire all of the Democratic presidential nominees and pay them directly into their SuperPAC in order to game the election cycle against the Republican? Yeah, right. That’d never happen.

  5. 5.

    NonyNony

    June 30, 2011 at 11:05 am

    Actually I don’t see this as a satire at all – Colbert is just pushing to extremes what the corporate operatives are doing more slowly. He’s performing a valuable service – by leapfrogging over them he might actually go into “outrage” territory where people realize what’s going on and get pissed about it. Corporate operatives have been pushing things slowly precisely so they don’t generate backlash. By making it more “in your face” Colbert either gets the FEC to set hard limits via precedent OR gets them to admit that there are no real limits – which hopefully will generate some outrage. Either way it’s a service – better to know that the FEC really doesn’t think this is a problem now and have people get mad about it than to have it slowly revealed over a period of years so that people just shrug and think “huh – I thought that was the way it worked anyway, no big deal.”

    I mean, they may think that already. But better to find that out now and know what you’re up against than to spend the next decade not knowing exactly what you’re fighting against.

  6. 6.

    Poopyman

    June 30, 2011 at 11:08 am

    @balconesfault and @Han’s Solo, ditto.

    If in fact Colbert can highlight a gaping hole in finance laws, that creates an opportunity for congress to plug it.

    I call it a feature, not a bug, in Colbert’s actions.

    (Clearly, congress doesn’t have to plug a hole, but if it was never highlighted it would never get plugged.)

  7. 7.

    Violet

    June 30, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Like others above have said, all this would be happening anyway, but it’s dull and boring and no one would be paying attention to it. And the corporate media sure wouldn’t discuss it on their shows. Colbert is shining a light on it and bringing a lot of attention to it. I’m all for it. More light is better. Thank you, Stephen Colbert.

    And if he gets approval for it, let the fun begin. I can only imagine the ridiculous stuff he’ll do on his show, which will only serve to shine more of a light on our terrible campaign finance laws. Keep it up, Stephen.

  8. 8.

    Davis X. Machina

    June 30, 2011 at 11:17 am

    In Max Headroom‘s world, Congressional representation was by network and by viewership, not by district and by population, and reapportionment happened every sweeps week.

    Twenty minutes into the future, indeed.

  9. 9.

    Dollared

    June 30, 2011 at 11:24 am

    Let’s call it what it is – the Berlusconi exemption.

  10. 10.

    Zandar

    June 30, 2011 at 11:25 am

    It’s not that what Colbert is doing is wrong, it’s that the FEC is actually this filled with crap.

  11. 11.

    Valdivia

    June 30, 2011 at 11:26 am

    They just ruled for him. Just wow. We really are at the end of the Republic.

  12. 12.

    Zifnab

    June 30, 2011 at 11:32 am

    Colbert had a parade of FOX News contributors basically trampling all over the FEC regulations to no consequence. The difference between Colbert and Dick Morris is that Colbert is *actually* asking permission before using air time to promote his cause.

    Colbert is forcing the issue on the FEC and visibly creating a precedent. If he gets shut down, the FEC will be called out as issuing a double-standard. If he gets through, nothing has changed except the FEC acknowledging that it has no regulatory authority worth mentioning.

  13. 13.

    The Moar You Know

    June 30, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Kinda hope he gets it, and brings the current de facto arrangement out into the open.

  14. 14.

    Shinobi

    June 30, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Now it’s time for congress to actually make some laws to shut him down. He should make a serious nuisance of himself if they wont.

  15. 15.

    The Moar You Know

    June 30, 2011 at 11:37 am

    OH FUCK. Be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it.

  16. 16.

    Paula

    June 30, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Colbert is educating millions of people in a very effective way. Frankly, I’ve learned a lot since he has taken on this issue.

  17. 17.

    me

    June 30, 2011 at 11:45 am

    Trevor Potter, his lawyer, is an advocate for campaign finance reform so there’s clearly an agenda here. I’m sure the ads he makes will be gold.

  18. 18.

    Three-nineteen

    June 30, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Wasn’t Rove already basically doing this without asking the FEC’s permission?

  19. 19.

    Poopyman

    June 30, 2011 at 11:48 am

    @Moar:

    Fuck not, my friend. This is awesome and excellent in so many ways. The first, to happen soon, is to see how the MSM completely misses his larger point. I can only imagine what other heads in DC will essplode over this.

  20. 20.

    aisce

    June 30, 2011 at 11:51 am

    hmm, yes, isn’t it funny how people always do things for the reason you’d like them to do? that’s the way it works, right?

    like, colbert is doing all of this as a complicated 11-dimensional chess game to achieve an outcome that makes zandar happy. surely.

    because the other alternative is a not-nearly clever enough comedian is pushing a joke in a context he doesn’t fully understand, while republican operatives hold his hand, and the whole thing could have wildly unpredictable consequences. and that would make zandar unhappy. so it can’t possibly be that.

    glad we got that cleared up.

  21. 21.

    TooManyJens

    June 30, 2011 at 11:58 am

    aisce, do you really think Republican operatives need Stephen Colbert to find or create loopholes in campaign finance law for them?

  22. 22.

    YellowDog

    June 30, 2011 at 11:59 am

    I’ve assumed all along that Colbert’s primary target was Fox, with talk radio a secondary target. Fox is an informercial for conservative candidates (complete with phone numbers to call). Colbert wants to be slapped down, and hard (like any good conservative would), to force the FEC’s hand (so to speak). We won’t see the return of the fairness doctrine, but perhaps we will see a villager make the connection between Colbert and Fox. Or maybe not.

  23. 23.

    Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac

    June 30, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    IIRC, the whole reason why Colbert started this SuperPac was because he did a story about other PACs that were already skirting the law, his character saw this loophole, decided to exploit it publicly, on the TeeVee, showing how absurd it is.

    The fact that a liberal comedian has exploited this loophole is the only way “very serious pundits” in the media will ever give this coverage. Seriously, I can’t wait for the Terry Gross interview with Steven.

  24. 24.

    Leah

    June 30, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Thanks Zandar for the perspective; of course it’s satire. The first time he went to DC with his “lawyer,” and held that press conference outside the building housing the FEC, he invoked the historic memory of George Washington all those years ago, standing in the same spot about to file his own papers for his own Super Pac. And his audience got the joke, as do the studio audiences get the satirical thrust of all the separate pieces he’s done on this subject, which generally always include a reference to the Citizens United court decision. And the notion that major corporations and its minions need any help from Steven Colbert to thoroughly fuck over the entire electoral structure of our democracy is just pure nonsense.

  25. 25.

    Joel

    June 30, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    @ aisce

    Frankly, in a battle of wits, I don’t think you’d stand a chance against said “not-nearly clever enough comedian”….

  26. 26.

    tde

    June 30, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    “If the FEC says “Hey sure, press exemption, whatever, go for it media conglomerates!” then the joke’s truly on us.”

    The joke was already on us, Colbert is doing everyone a favor by letting you in on it.

  27. 27.

    TooManyJens

    June 30, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    The joke was already on us, Colbert is doing everyone a favor by letting you in on it.

    This.

  28. 28.

    amk

    June 30, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    @ zandar – Do you always make it a point to miss the point ? And what a way to concern troll about how colbear is letting the country down. Look around you for real clowns who are leading amurika off the ledge. Sheesh. what a stupid FP.

  29. 29.

    some other guy

    June 30, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    I’m praying to FSM that Colbert takes this to the next level, using his show to raise ungodly amounts of unregulated and unreported cash and then running bitingly satirical campaign ads across the country during the 2012 cycle to really highlight the ridiculousness of current campaign finance law.

  30. 30.

    trollhattan

    June 30, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    Agree with the others who think Colbert (and his eternally bemused Republican lawyer sidekick) is doing us a tremendous favor shining light on this very large turd of a loophole [find the mixed metaphor]. Now we need to sprinkle some Tussin on it and get Congress to reel in Citizens United. (Oh crap, just pulled a muscle laughing at myself.)

    Back to Colbert: he’s managed to take an inherently dull and arcane topic and make it understandable. His kid-in-a-candyshop-with-dad’s-AmEx response to the possibilities of a superPAC is perfect.

  31. 31.

    Mark D

    June 30, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    Holy shit … they approved it?! Really?!

    They didn’t get the joke, did they? They totally missed the point of what he was trying to do, and have now opened the door for the media to control our elections in ways they’ve only dreamed of in the past.

    Those of us who aren’t financially loaded are fucked. Truly. Utterly. Fucked.

  32. 32.

    Poopyman

    June 30, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    @Mark D:

    They don’t give two shits about a joke. They are constrained by law. Or in this case, disturbingly unconstrained, which is the whole point.

  33. 33.

    nogo postal

    June 30, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    What will the first commercials look like..
    Maybe vampire teachers .. or Exxon-Mobile with a cardboard sign on a street corner?

  34. 34.

    b-psycho

    June 30, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    ColbertSuperPAC.com still says they can’t take unlimited donations. I take it they just haven’t updated the site yet.

  35. 35.

    Catsy

    June 30, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    I think the best analogy to what Colbert is doing is probably white (or possibly grey) hat hacking. The black hats (Fox and the GOP) are already exploiting this “hack” as much as they can, and don’t need anyone else’s help figuring out how to do it–it’s just that most people don’t realize the full scope of how vulnerable our system really is.

    What Colbert has done is made everyone aware of the vulnerability in a dramatized way without causing any actual damage the way Fox and the GOP do, hopefully with the end result of shining enough sunlight on the problem that it will have to be addressed.

    You can like what hackers do or not, but there’s no denying that when they highlight a serious security hole, they get shit fixed in a hurry.

  36. 36.

    Heliopause

    June 30, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    “This would carve out a gaping loophole in campaign finance laws…”

    What an incomprehensibly stupid statement. If a comedian opens a “gaping loophole” it already existed, moron. This is akin to sending fake bombs through airport security and then blaming the people who performed the test.

    Public Citizen and like-minded have had almost four decades to fix this and it just gets worse every year. They’ve failed on a Dubya Bush scale. Sadly, we’re to the point as a nation that only comedians can save us. Let Colbert take a crack at this.

  37. 37.

    evinfuilt

    June 30, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    @ some other guy

    I’d be absolutely shocked if Colbert doesn’t do stuff like that. Guns, Gold and Goats!!! Where Colbert goes from here will be fantastic to see. Every FEC loophole will be obvious to everyone, and maybe, just maybe, something will happen.

  38. 38.

    me

    June 30, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    @b-psycho:

    Contributions to Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow (“ABTT”) are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. ABTT may accept unlimited corporate contributions, unlimited individual contributions, unlimited labor-union contributions, and unlimited PAC contributions.

    Now it does.

  39. 39.

    b-psycho

    June 30, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    That was quick.

    From the sounds of it, they didn’t get the expanded press exemption, so if any staff from the show are involved the ads can only run during his show w/o disclosure. I’m assuming this means either he’ll be showing the ads on his show a lot, or he’ll have to hire outside people to do them.

  40. 40.

    artem1s

    June 30, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Now we need to sprinkle some Tussin on it and get Congress to reel in Citizens United.

    maybe ridiculous but do you think this might lead to the next Supreme nomination asked questions about whether s/he thinks money is speech or if corporations have the same rights as individuals?

    finally, a subject that might push the Godbotherers out of the limelight. FTW+

  41. 41.

    Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac

    June 30, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    @b-psycho: The article I read said that ads “for” the pac could only be run during his show, not “by” his pac. I don’t know if it was a poorly written article, or just unclear.

  42. 42.

    Poopyman

    June 30, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    “Some people have said, ‘Is this some kind of joke?’ ” Colbert told the crowd. “I for one don’t think participating in democracy is a joke.”

  43. 43.

    trollhattan

    June 30, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    @38.artem1s

    maybe ridiculous but do you think this might lead to the next Supreme nomination asked questions about whether s/he thinks money is speech or if corporations have the same rights as individuals?
    __
    finally, a subject that might push the Godbotherers out of the limelight. FTW+

    Good point and I’d think the answer is a strong yes. Of all the nails in the coffin of corporate limitations, Citizens sticks out the farthest. The sadder reality is we’re unlikely to see Obama nominating anybody to replace one of the four conservative henchmen. Erstwhile “swingman” Kennedy is more likely to retire than any of those others, and we’d best keep the Senate on the “D” side in the meantime.

  44. 44.

    trollhattan

    June 30, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    Also, too: Anybody hear Colbert’s Grover Norquist clip played on Morning Edition today? It was when he surrendered granny to tax purity rather than approve a top-tier tax increase. I didn’t hear the rest of the story, so don’t know in what context they were using it.

    Watching the interview I was flabbergasted at how anybody can be so calm and dogmatic at the same time. Why does anybody give him the time of day?

  45. 45.

    Pococurante

    June 30, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    Always possible the FEC passed it this quickly because they too are desperate for someone to pay attention at how much rigged elections are becoming.

  46. 46.

    Caravelle

    June 30, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Yeah, I don’t think the joke’s on us here, or at least if it is it isn’t Colbert’s fault. Basically, if this huge loophole exists, do we think for two seconds that actual candidates and corporations with armies of lawyers wouldn’t find it ? It’s not like Colbert is telling *them* something they didn’t know. This way at least we are made aware that the loophole exists.

    Whether this awareness will translate to action though, I don’t know. This isn’t something Colbert can do that much for. But he certainly isn’t hindering anything.

    I might be worried about the conservatives who watch Colbert and don’t realize it’s an act who’d sincerely think the loophole is an awesome thing, but… people who enjoy Colbert while thinking it isn’t an act. Srsly. What is there to expect from that demographic ?

  47. 47.

    Poopyman

    June 30, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    @Caravelle:

    Basically, if this huge loophole exists, do we think for two seconds that actual candidates and corporations with armies of lawyers wouldn’t find it ?

    Find it? Who the hell do you think wrote it in the first place?

  48. 48.

    WereBear

    June 30, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Big. Brass. Ones.

  49. 49.

    balconesfault

    June 30, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    If you really believe that Colbert is opening up a loophole – you must have absolutely no clue as to the current work (and successes) of James Bopp, Jr., Esquire and his law firm.

  50. 50.

    JWL

    June 30, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    Isn’t it obvious? Colbert was raised in South Carolina, the cradle of the Confederacy.

    He is the world’s first Manchurian Comedian.

  51. 51.

    Annamal

    June 30, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    I have this image of all the republican candidates trembling just a little at the prospect of get Colbert’s “support”.

    Something like the Whitehouse correspondent’s dinner speech but played as an ad during prime time could be devastating.

    The only question is who get his “help” first, Santorum and Bachman seem like obvious candidates but my bet would be Mitt Romney’s corporate history writ large (Colbert’s show was the first place I heard about it).

  52. 52.

    Rihilism

    June 30, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    If I understand correctly what was said on NPR just now, Colbert was granted the SuperPAC, but the media exemption for Viacom was not approved (despite a Repub on the FEC who wanted to grant that exemption to Viacom). Is that correct?

  53. 53.

    cortana

    June 30, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    That is correct, it was not approved. Another attempt by a republican lawyer was also denied. The FEC seems to have read this in the right way.

  54. 54.

    me

    June 30, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Sort of. It seems he can’t have his own employees while they are paid by Viacom do work for the PAC (create ads that would be shown on television other then during his show) as that would be considered a donation from Viacom that will be treated as a donation under the regular PAC rules. Presumably, he could pay his employees from PAC funds while they do work for the PAC. They’d probably have to use equipment not owned by his show or maybe pay Viacom rental costs.

  55. 55.

    William Hurley

    July 1, 2011 at 12:26 am

    Does any actually believe that the master rat-fuckers serving the power lust of corporatists (unbound to political geography) need Colbert to provide them with yet another way to maximally exploit “freedom” bequeathed them by the Falangist wing of the SCOTUS?

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Albatrossity - Flyover Country Spring 2
Image by Albatrossity (5/18/25)

Recent Comments

  • Trivia Man on Medium Cool – Best Album Covers! (May 18, 2025 @ 9:04pm)
  • SpaceUnit on Medium Cool – Best Album Covers! (May 18, 2025 @ 9:02pm)
  • Marc on Medium Cool – Best Album Covers! (May 18, 2025 @ 9:02pm)
  • scav on Medium Cool – Best Album Covers! (May 18, 2025 @ 9:01pm)
  • MagdaInBlack on Medium Cool – Best Album Covers! (May 18, 2025 @ 9:01pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!