Dedicated To Restoring Our Government to Citizens' Control

WSJ: Stephen Colbert’s Free Speech Problem

First Amendment attorneys Steve Simpson and Paul Sherman point out the unintentional comedy of Stephen Colbert’s failed attempts to mock Citizens United v. FEC.

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

Well, that’s pretty much what the nonprofit group Citizens United said to the Supreme Court in the case that Mr. Colbert is trying so hard to lampoon.

Don’t Miss Out

Subscribe to our free email newsletter and get all the latest sent directly to your inbox.

Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Campaign-finance laws are so complicated that few can navigate them successfully and speak during elections—which is what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. As the Supreme Court noted in Citizens United, federal laws have created “71 distinct entities” that “are subject to different rules for 33 different types of political speech.” The FEC has adopted 568 pages of regulations and thousands of pages of explanations and opinions on what the laws mean. “Legalese” doesn’t begin to describe this mess. …

Read the full op-ed here

About The Author
Citizens United