Perhaps someone (FReepers are the most knowledgeable people I’ve ever encountered) can answer something for me. If a person or corporation is limited on the amount of money they can contribute to a political campaign, then why can a television show like Colbert or his predecessor, Stewart, continually bash one party? By virtue, doesn’t that then make that television show a defacto arm of the opposing campaign? The air time is tangible, is it not?
The First Amendment?
You can count contributions - they show up on a balance sheet.
It is harder to determine the value ‘in-kind’ contributions, when there is no evidence that they are, in fact, contributions. The media would plea that it “It is just entertainment, not political advocacy.”