So. The proposition.....
Per your FEC citation, in-kind contributions are gifts or services. In SNL’s case we might consider their parodies and satire as political advertisements designed to make candidate Trump fail. And of course this is free of cost for any and all of Trump’s competitors.
However, as your reference cites....
A group is considered to have made an in-kind contribution, particularly in the form of a free political advertisement only when the advertisement is NOT an independent expenditure (Such as huge corporate PACs spending whatever sum they please on their conservative lapdog).
“
Individuals, groups, corporations, labor organizations and political committees (including separate segregated funds (SSFs), party committees and nonconnected committees) may support or oppose candidates by making independent expenditures. Independent expenditures are not contributions and are not subject to limits.”. - FEC
But what exactly is an independent expenditure? I’m glad you asked. The FEC states....
“
An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication, such as a website, newspaper, TV or direct mail advertisement that:
- Expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate; and
- Is not made in consultation or cooperation with, or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, candidate’s committee, party committee or their agents.”
So ..... even though the treasonous decision in Citizens United, by the corruptly right-wing biased Supreme Court, allows corporations to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden undisclosed monies, even to the point of allowing foreign interests to sway the American election, without ever having to disclose their sources....the corrupted SCOTUS decision did give the leftist David
one tiny rock to fight against the many Corporate Goliaths that they unleashed. The little groups like SNL may freely devote their time and money speaking Truth to Power, and not have to worry about contribution limits.
However, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the SCOTUS has on several occasions, previously addressed this issue of satire and parodies. You don’t even get to judge what is satire or parody; which is probably why dull-witted anti-American pigs such as Rush Limbaugh constantly say horrific things, and when they are called out on it scream, “hey it was just a joke! You flipping uncreative and unimaginative idiots”. Again, we see that daring to challenge the word of the right makes one unimaginative....every time. How ironic.
James Walker (with the SCOTUS) addresses this in a site called
the Free Speech Center and the John Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies,
with this......
“
Generally, courts have balanced the property rights of the plaintiffs against the First Amendment rights of the defendants. That is, when the use of a property, whether copyrighted matter or a trademark, is “part of a communicative message” and not intended to obscure the source of the work, the First Amendment takes precedence over any property rights the owner or holder may have. Furthermore, as Judge Pierre N. Leval wrote in Yankee Publishing Inc. v. News America Publishing, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1992), “First Amendment protections do not apply only to those who speak clearly, whose jokes are funny, and whose parodies succeed.”
Satire can also come under attack as defamation. The key distinction between satire and defamation is that satire is not meant to be believed by the audience. Satire is biting, critical, and designed to attack, often with malice. It is almost always false. For example, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous court, stated that a parody depicting the Reverend Jerry Falwell as a drunken, incestuous son could not be defamation since it was an obvious parody, not intended as a statement of fact. To find otherwise, the Court said, was to endanger First Amendment protection for every artist, political cartoonist, and comedian who used satire to criticize public figures.”
