NEW YORK — Stephen Colbert isn’t running for president — at least not yet.

During Thursday night’s episode of “The Colbert Report,” Colbert legally transferred his super political action committee to his friend and Comedy Central cohort Jon Stewart. Dropping by from “The Daily Show,” Stewart happily signed the documents and accepted the post, which was ceremonially observed by the two holding hands and bodily transferring the PAC powers.

The move potentially paves the way for Colbert to enter the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina, his home state. Campaigning politicians are prohibited from simultaneously running super PACs.

But Colbert only hinted at such a decision, which he had grandly hyped ahead of Thursday’s show. In flirting candidate style, he announced that he is forming “an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for my possible candidacy for the president of the United States of South Carolina.”

Patriotically colored balloons were released in the studio while a graphic screamed “I’m Doing It!”

Stewart and Colbert hashed out the peculiar legalities of their arrangement. With Colbert’s lawyer (and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission) Trevor Potter on hand, they spelled out that while Colbert was legally forbidden from participating in strategy and advertising with the super PAC, he could still talk about his plans on his TV show and even volunteer for the super PAC.

Stewart declared Colbert vice president of youth outreach for the super PAC, which was renamed The Definitely Not Coordinated with Stephen Colbert Super PAC. Along with Potter, the three joined hands like a sports team and — with thick irony — cheered in unison: “Non-coordination!”

In 2007, Colbert attempted to enter the South Carolina primary but was stymied by filing fees. The super PAC could very well eliminate any such financial concerns. Colbert hasn’t publically revealed the amount raised from viewer contributions by the PAC, but on Thursday he repeatedly hinted that it was a shockingly large amount.

Colbert has otherwise been very transparent about the PAC’s workings, using it to parody the current system’s contradictions and potential conflicts of interest. Political action committees stem from a 2010 Supreme Court decision that changed the rules of corporate political donations.

A Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday found that Colbert is polling ahead of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman in South Carolina. According to the survey, Colbert has 5 percent of the vote and Huntsman has 4 percent.

Upon reading those results on “The Report” on Wednesday, Colbert said: “This just got real.”

DickBandit wrote:Man of the Year.

Except without Robin Williams.

Sonophos wrote:

Being a Brit I do not know what this PAC thing is.

In the United States, a political action committee, or PAC, is the name commonly given to a private group, regardless of size, organized to elect political candidates or to advance the outcome of a political issue or legislation.[1] Legally, what constitutes a "PAC" for purposes of regulation is a matter of state and federal law. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, an organization becomes a "political committee" by receiving contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election.

The 2010 election marked the rise of a new political committee, dubbed "super PACs," and officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," which can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as individuals.[5] The super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions. The first was the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which held that government may not prohibit unions and corporations from making independent expenditures about politics. Soon after, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited. [6] Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. They are required to disclose their donors, just like traditional PACs.[7] However many exploit a technicality in the filing requirements in order to postpone disclosure until well after the elections they participate in.[8]

Even absent a formal connection to a campaign, Super PACs openly support particular candidacies. In the primary season before the 2012 presidential campaign, for example, the Restore Our Future Super PAC benefited Republican Mitt Romney while attacking rival Newt Gingrich.[9] In the same election, the pro-Gingrich Winning Our Future Super PAC attacked Romney.[10] Each Super PAC was run by former employees of the candidate it supported, and each attracted money from that candidate's associates.[9][10]

The status of super PACs in Montana is in dispute. The Montana Supreme Court in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana (Dec, 2011) upheld that state's law prohibiting corporate spending in political races. Directly addressing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, it concluded that "Montana has a compelling interest to impose the challenged rationally-tailored statutory restrictions" to prohibit "independent political expenditures by a corporation related to a candidate."[11] The plaintiffs (since renamed American Tradition Partnership) have announced plans to appeal the decision.

WarOne wrote:We've had an actor as a president. We've also had a peanut farmer.

Anything is possible.

AustonT wrote:

WarOne wrote:We've had an actor as a president. We've also had a peanut farmer.

Anything is possible.

Both of whom served as Governors first. It's not like they were elected president right off the farm as it were, Reagan especially was a political activist for almost twenty years before becoming the Gov of California.
Colbert makes his living as a political satirist, and is still legitimately electable, were he to try. I'm also pretty sure he's really a liberal which would make it twice as epic if he ran as a Pachyderm.

Sonophos wrote:
I get awfully confused because what you guys call "liberal" we in the UK and a lot of Europe would often classify as hardline right wing. The pachyderm brigade make my head swim even without those well balanced Tea party people.

Sonophos wrote:Oh right, so it's a kind of time share politician deal for people and corporations that can't afford to buy a whole politician then.