Stephen Colbert, page 12
After Colbert's prepared testimony ended, things began to heat up. Representative Lamar Smith of Texas a Republican, a member of the party Colbert the character staunchly supports and defends launched an attack on Colbert's authority and credibility, questioning whether he even knew how many of the laborers he had worked alongside on the upstate New York farm were illegal, whether their pay was fair. As for the day's pay, Colbert quipped, in character, “I didn't do a good enough job to get paid so I can't compare my salary to anyone. I was actually asked to leave.” When it came to credibility, he explained, more seriously but with characteristically sarcastic bite, “I was invited here today by [subcommittee chairwoman Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)] because I was one of the 16 people who took the United Farm Workers up on the experience of having migrant farm work for a single day. If there are some other members of the committee who did that, then I have no purpose being here.” Did he qualify as an expert witness? It was a dangerous question for Colbert the character. “I believe one day of me studying anything makes me an expert.” Finally, another Republican came to his rescue. Judy Chu of California asked Colbert to justify his interest in immigration. This time, the answer seemed to come from the man and not the character.
I like talking about people who don't have any power. It seemed like one of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but don't have any rights as a result. And yet we still invite them to come here and at the same time ask them to leave. That's an interesting contradiction to me. And whatever you do for the least of my brothers and these seem like the least of our brothers right now. A lot of people are least brothers right now because the economy is so hard. I don't want to take anyone's hardship away from them or diminish anything like that. But migrant workers suffer and have no rights.7
Many members of Congress were neither amused nor impressed. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said, “What he had to say, I think, was not the way it should have been said.” Hoyer added that the stunt was “an embarrassment for Mr. Colbert more than the House.”8 On the other hand, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has professed to being a fan of the show but not necessarily of Colbert's off-show antics, thought it was great that a popular figure like Colbert “can bring attention to an important issue like immigration.”9 The viewing public's reaction to Colbert's appearance on Capitol Hill, too, was not entirely positive. While some bloggers praised his action, The Boston Herald accused him of “making a mockery of a House hearing” and quoted Professor Tobe Berkovitz of Boston University, who stated that it was a “sad commentary on our political system when the Congress feels compelled to stoop to the lowest common denominator on important public issues.”10
And how did Representative Conyers feel about Colbert's speech afterwards? The two men met to enjoy an amiable talk as they listened to some jazz. Conyers actually sent Colbert a note thanking him for taking the time out of his busy schedule to appear before Congress, along with a copy of the transcript. The irony was too perfect for Colbert to pass up. He had the letter and transcript mounted and framed together with Conyers request that Colbert “leave the committee room completely” highlighted.11
Now that he had had a taste of speaking in front of legislative bodies, once was not enough. With yet another presidential election looming in 2012 and no desire to reprise his ill-fated bid for the White House, Colbert needed to find another way to involve his character, and his show, in the political process. And so he began to investigate PACs Political Action Committees.
It is very expensive for a candidate to mount and maintain a campaign for a political office, whether local, state, or national. So organizations put together PACs to raise funding for the campaign of the candidate of their choice. Some types of PACs target employees of certain corporations or members of certain unions or organizations; others solicit money from the general public. One of the most visible activities of a PAC can be seen in candidates' advertising campaigns.
PACs have been a staple of the American political system for decades, but they have been growing steadily in size and spending power, especially recently. A Supreme Court ruling in 2010 creating a new form of PAC, the SuperPac, which could obtain unlimited funding from just about anyone: corporations, unions, and individuals alike. As long as they are not directly affiliated with or working under the orders of their candidate, SuperPacs can also launch a negative campaign with a degree of viciousness much greater than previously allowed. And in many cases, these PACs do not need to disclose who their donors are. Thanks to SuperPacs, the 2012 political campaigns could get interesting.
Palin has a PAC. So does Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee almost Colbert's running mate back in 2008. So Colbert decided to investigate whether he could start a PAC, too. On March 30, 2011, his guest on The Colbert Report was Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, who explained in simple language what PACs were all about, how they were formed, and how the money could be used. Colbert appeared entranced by the possibilities (especially the idea of hiring a private jet with PAC funds). Then, Potter said that Colbert could use PAC money to create advertisements for candidates. Colbert's eyes lit up. Did the candidate need to approve those ads? On the contrary: He or she definitely could not ask for a supporting ad, and should not even know the PAC was creating its ad! And could Colbert create his own SuperPac? With the right forms correctly filled out, no problem, according to Potter. And so, repeating nearly word-for-word a statement he had made on The Colbert Report's debut, Colbert put the question out to his studio audience and viewers at home: “Do you want your voices heard in the form of my voice?”12 And the answer was a resounding yes.
As a television personality whose program runs on a cable channel owned by Viacom Communications, however, Colbert wondered whether there might be further legal ramifications when it came to his proposed SuperPac. To err on the side of caution, on June 30, 2011, he returned to Washington, D.C., to appear in front of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), hoping for clarification.
Once again, the sort of meeting that usually drew few if any spectators was thronged with fans and press. This time, however, viewers were probably disappointed that, at least during the meeting itself, Colbert barely spoke, so it was hard to tell whether he was in character or not. When asked for more detail about the kinds of advertisements he wanted to create, or where he wanted them to run, Colbert admitted, “We don't know what we're going to do with the ads, where we would place them, because we don't have the PAC yet. You're right in surmising that. That's why I hope to get the PAC, so we can find out.”13 He was putting himself out there as an Everyman, learning about a piece of the political process unfamiliar to most Americans, then presenting them with his discoveries, successes, failures, and mistakes, on national television.
The FEC discussed and voted. And it was unanimous: Colbert could indeed have a SuperPac. The involvement of Viacom, however, was a sticking point on which the committee could not agree. They finally decided that disclosure rules about use of Viacom's money for Colbert's SuperPac's ads would need to be in effect. Rather than hiding the identities of his contributors, Colbert ran a ticker at the bottom of the screen, honoring his proud donors, on every show.
Outside the FEC offices, Colbert immediately began soliciting for money for his new baby: “I don't know about you, but I do not accept limits on my free speech. I don't know about you, but I do not accept the status quo but I do accept Visa, MasterCard, and American Express.”14 He accepted cash, too, which fans stuffed into bags held by Colbert's staffers. If they wanted receipts, they got their hands stamped “like patrons at Chuck E. Cheese.”15
The FEC members were very aware of the incongruity of what had just happened. The vice chairwoman of the commission, Caroline Hunter, “noted the unique mix of the seriousness of Colbert's request and the nature of Colbert's show as political parody.” She was pleased with the hearing's outcome. It affirmed a television personality's right to present genuine, useful information in a comic fashion. But, it was hoped, the restrictions would also prevent a SuperPac's being “used by other folks in a way that might not be so funny.” Chairwoman Cynthia Bauerly also appreciated the odd nature of the moment. “While Mr. Colbert's request may bring some levity to campaign finance issues, the questions and concerns before us today deserve serious attention.”16
Crowing about his SuperPac on The Colbert Report the next day, Colbert promised that his funds would go towards spots that would look nothing like ordinary, run-of-the-mill political ads; he would be a champion of “irresponsible advertising.”17
The first test of the power of the Colbert Nation SuperPac and its first example of irresponsible advertising came in August of 2011. Rick Perry, Republican Governor of Texas, had recently announced his intention to run for president in 2012. The state of Iowa was holding a straw poll to see how potential Republican candidates would perform. Perry's name was not on the ballot, but write-ins were permitted. So the Colbert Nation PAC funded two television advertisements encouraging voters to write in the name of their candidate of choice: Rick Parry (with an a, not an e). CBS and NBC affiliate stations ran the ads; ABC declined on the grounds they would confuse voters.18 Minnesota's Michele Bachmann garnered the highest number of votes, followed by Ron Paul of Texas both coming in with more than 4,000. Write-in candidate Rick Perry (with an e) trailed far behind, with 718. And officials were not quite sure what to do with the Colbert-inspired Rick Parry (with an a) write-ins count them as votes for Perry, or for a mystery candidate with an almost identical name.19
Several months later, as the South Carolina primary approached, the SuperPac funded a political advertisement portraying Republican hopeful Mitt Romney as a serial killer. Around the same time, Colbert toyed with the idea of once again throwing his hat into the presidential ring in his native state. Since he could not both run for president and run a SuperPac, he turned over control of the PAC to Jon Stewart; subsequent episodes of both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report featured mock struggles for power between the two comedians.
Yes, the 2012 presidential promises to be interesting.
NOTES
1. Wolk, Josh. “Mock the Vote.” Entertainment Weekly. 3 Oct. 2008: 34. General OneFile. Web. 23 July 2010.
2. “Stephen Colbert: In Good Company' On Broadway.” Fresh Air. 14 June 2011. General OneFile. Web. 19 July 2011.
3. “Hearing of the Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee Subject: Protecting America's Harvest Chaired by: Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Witnesses: Arturo Rodriguez, president, United Farm Workers; Phil Glaize, chairman, U.S. Apple Association; Carol Swain, professor, Vanderbilt University Law School; Stephen Colbert, ” Congressional Hearing Transcript Database. 24 Sept. 2010. General OneFile. Web. 6 Mar. 2011.
4. “Hearing.”
5. “Stephen Colbert: In Good Company' On Broadway.” Fresh Air. 14 June 2011. General OneFile. Web. 19 July 2011.
6. “Hearing.”
7. De Moraes, Lisa. “Moraes on TV Mr. Colbert Goes to Washington.” Blogs & Columns, Blog Directory The Washington Post. 24 Sept. 2010. Web. 22 July 2011.
8. “Comedian Stephen Colbert testified before the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on immigration, at the invitation of Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.).” National Review. 18 Oct. 2010: 8. General OneFile. Web. 22 July 2011.
9. Marcus, Ruth. “Ruth Marcus Stephen Colbert Becomes Another Circus of Congress's Making.” The Washington Post: National, World & D.C. Area News and Headlines The Washington Post. Web. 22 July 2011.
10. Heslam, Jessica. “Colbert's Congress Visit Called Sad Commentary'.” Boston Herald. 25 Sept. 2010: 6. Student Edition. Web. 22 July 2011.
11. “Stephen Colbert: In Good Company.'”
12. “Colbert PAC Trevor Potter The Colbert Report 2011-30-03 Video Clip | Comedy Central.” Colbert Nation | The Colbert Report | Comedy Central. Web. 23 July 2011.
13. “There's Nothing Funny About Colbert's SuperPAC.” All Things Considered. 30 June 2011. General OneFile. Web. 23 July 2011.
14. “There's Nothing Funny.”
15. Reinhard, Beth. “Stephen Colbert Brings Reality TV to the FEC.” Nationaljournal.com. 30 June 2011. General OneFile. Web. 23 July 2011.
16. “FEC Approves Colbert SuperPAC, Debates Viacom Disclosure Requirements.” States News Service. 30 June 2011. General OneFile. Web. 23 July 2011.
17. Reinhard.
18. Winkler, Jeff. “Stephen Colbert | Rick Parry | Ames Straw Poll.” The Daily Caller. 13 Aug. 2011. Web. 22 Aug. 2011.
19. Winkler.
Chapter 14
Hey, He Can Act!
While the character from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report has been hugely successful for Stephen Colbert, he has not had many opportunities to flex the dramatic muscles he developed at Northwestern. He has had small parts in a handful of comedy films: The Love Guru with Mike Myers in 2008; Bewitched with Will Ferrell, Nicole Kidman, and Carell in 2005. And he has provided voices for minor characters on such animated series as The Simpsons; American Dad;, Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law; and Crank Yankers. One of his few straight non-comedic roles was on a 2004 episode of Law and Order: Criminal Intent, in which he played an apparently gentle, mild-mannered, mom-loving, law-breaking forger and murderer. Fewer people saw his performance in January 2011, in a benefit staged reading of Harold Pinter's abstract memory play Old Times at the Luna Stage in West Orange, New Jersey; playing his character's wife in the play was the real-life Mrs. Colbert, Evelyn.1
So when later in 2011 Colbert was offered an opportunity to play a role in the musical Company by none other than the show's composer, Stephen Sondheim, himself! it was a nerve-wracking, scary, no-brainer of a decision.
As with so many of Colbert's most interesting stories, it all began with the choice of guests for upcoming shows. As 2010 drew to a close, Colbert was reviewing the guest roster for the next few days and there on the list, scheduled for December 14, was composer and lyricist Sondheim, creator or co-creator of such Broadway musicals as A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, West Side Story, Sunday in the Park with George, and Into the Woods. Colbert was beside himself. Seldom does he seem in awe of his guests, whether they are presidential wannabes, rock stars, film heroes, or bestselling authors, although he has admitted otherwise. This time was different. “People don't know this about me, that I really like musical theater.” Colbert may not have trod the boards for decades, but his dramatic roots were still in live theater, and because of his training he still considered himself an actor: “[P]eople don't perceive what I do as acting, but I still do.” He especially loved the work of his upcoming guest, Sondheim. “So I did something I never do with my guests: I did research.” Colbert also had to think very carefully about how he was going to approach this interview. Much as he admired Sondheim personally, he had to consider how Colbert the character would view the man and his musicals. Colbert the character, always the under-informed, opinionated idiot, often plays ignorant with his guests, or gets hostile to evoke a funny reaction. “[A]nd it was hard for me to do that with [Sondheim] because I care so much about his work.”2
The approach Colbert took in his interview paid homage, with humor. Far from being an ill-informed idiot unfamiliar with the Sondheim canon, Colbert the character comes across as a fan who has seen the shows and knows the lyrics intimately though he may appear to misunderstand them occasionally. One of Sondheim's most famous lyrics is “Send in the Clowns,” from the musical A Little Night Music. Repeatedly, the sad singer asks, “Where are the clowns?” Taking the song far more literally than Sondheim intended, Colbert and his writers put their heads together and wrote another verse to the song, comically answering the question. Colbert sang the new lyrics to the familiar tune on the show:
Where are the clowns? I booked them for eight.
Hold on, that's them on the phone, saying they're late.
Traffic was bad. The tunnel's a mess.
All 12 of them came in one car; they lost my address.
You just can't trust clowns. That's why they're called clowns.3
At the end of the interview, Colbert came close to an uncharacteristic break in his character's persona. Quoting a line from Sunday in the Park with George, he said, “I rarely fawn because I like to seem more important than my guests. I'm so happy you came here. You and me, bud, we're the loonies. Did you know that? I bet you didn't know that. Stephen Sondheim, thank you so much.”4
