Federal Election Commission To Crack Down On 'Deez Nuts' As Presidential Candidate
from the you-take-the-fun-out-of-everything dept
In this somewhat insane presidential election, about the only non-terrifying entertainment that came out of it happened last summer when Public Policy Polling (PPP) released a poll showing that "Deez Nuts" would get 9% of the vote.
Of course, after that initial flurry of attention, most people mostly forgot about Deez Nuts, the fake Presidential candidate.... until this week.
You see, earlier this week PPP released a new poll showing that Green Party candidate Jill Stein was trailing Deez Nuts in Texas (also trailing, Harambe, the dead gorilla who is also now something of an internet meme).
And, just like that, it seems the renewed attention may have killed this bit of fun. A day later, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced that it will start cracking down on Deez Nuts and other such candidates. It has now started to include a verification procedure for "possibly false or fictitious names."
Yeah, it seems the FEC can't take a joke.
The Commission has authorized staff to send verification letters to filers listing fictional characters, obscene language, sexual references, celebrities (where there is no indication that the named celebrity submitted the filing), animals, or similarly implausible entries as the name or contact information of the candidate or committee.And they're not kidding around. Part of the process of sending out these letters will remind filers that the FEC may "pursue or refer action for false filing under 52 U.S.C. Section 30109(a) or otherwise report such filings under 52 U.S. C. Section 30107(a)(9)." So, uh, yeah. So, long, Presidential Candidate Deez Nuts. We hardly knew you.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
a totally RANDOM pick would do better,
a coin flip would do better,
for the simple reason of the game is rigged against us, and ANY improvement would be a substantial improvement...
but, let's not lose perspective, kampers: it is NOT due to insufficient intelligence that our kongreskritters just can't 'see' the result of their anti-99% laws/actions; it is due to insufficient basic morality to withstand the onslaught of legalized bribery and co-option by the borg...
(forget about whatever small percentage happens as a result of enn ess ehh/see eye ehh/eff bee eye extortion, etc...)
what we got are tools, fools and the occasional boy scout...
but how long does it take a tool or a fool to realize which side their bread is buttered on ? ? ?
what happens to an 'incorruptible' (*snort*) boy scout ?
turn'em if you can, burn'em if you can't...
maybe keep a few token ones around for window dressing...
its payoffs all the way down, kampers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can take a joke!
...they're still allowing Trump to run!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have been sorta busy and have not logged in for a while.
Did I win a prize or something lol...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm. That shouldn't be happening. Check your account preferences? If it is still happening, send us an email with details...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just reload and see if it gets better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unintended consequences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unintended consequences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unintended consequences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
In case you can't see it, nutcracker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having an entry of "no confidence" would be better, and more sensible. But this is america... we don't do sensible anymore, apparently. If you're not a card carrying member of the brainwashed masses you can go fuck yourself. Chose your tawdry corrupt sociopathic sycophant 1%'ers puppet and shut-up already- or be ready to be shamed because you refuse the choice of unprecedented evils.
I love you; But go fuck yourself america. I'm drunk and sick of your shit tonight....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
write in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: write in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our tax dollars not at work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pranksters will just have to be more subtle
For example,
Raymond D. O'Shack
or... Donald Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pranksters will just have to be more subtle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brewsters Millions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brewsters Millions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would the FEC tell them in no uncertain terms to fuck off?
It would be pretty undemocratic telling people they can't register as a candidate in an election if that's the case...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: write-in candidate.
I"m curious how many other states are like that, or if that was an error that's been corrected now.
-Also, literally 49% of my states voters didn't count that year thanks to the electoral collage. The vote was only won by 12,000 or so votes, but obama got all the points for the state. This is a huge part of why I never voted before, and probably won't again; The system is ridiculous, it disenfranchises people, by design. I don't even begin to understand how the electoral collage is still considered legal within the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: write-in candidate.
The idea behind that is, roughly: If candidates are split even close to evenly between "the two parties", we (the state as a whole) won't influence the election at all. But hey, if we throw the whole lump of electoral college votes behind "the winner", we stand a better chance of influencing the election.
So... any state that has a historical bias towards one candidate or the other, the party in power is obviously not going to be in favor of "weakening their block", while the underdog (of course) supports it. The party in power being in power, the only practical method of moving from winner-take-all to district representation will be via voter initiative. And even then, you have to wave an election like Bush/Gore under their noses....
Two states (Maine, Nebraska) vote by congressional district, the rest are 'winner take all'. Both those states did so recently - but both moved away from winner-take-all before the 2000 (Bush/Gore) election.
There is a lot more to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure
Hilary is corrupt to the core
Trump is a narcissistic asshole
Not Sure is the smartest dude on the planet, he can solve any problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Wondering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joke candidates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, why am I voting again?
How about an open election? As in you have to write in your candidate selection? No multiple-choices-fill-in-the-dot nonsense on the ballot. You have to actually write the name of person you want for president, next to the line marked "President".
That might actually fix a few things around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DEEZ NUTZ
I WILL HAVE TO REPORT DEEZ NUTZ TO THE FBI COMPUTER CRIME CENTER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]