The fact that news outlets (this one apparently included) are either not getting the fairly-obvious joke behind this.

He's almost-certainly going to find a way to use the actual money raised for one of his charities, not for a (real) candidate. The point is letting him make fun of Citizens United, i.e. "isn't it absurd that I, a make-believe pundit, can use nigh-unlimited corporate funding to exert disproportionate influence on the election? Yes! And thus it's ALSO absurd that [insert-GOP-favoring-SuperPAC-here] can do it." Him being able to do this is silly/insane = ANY "corporate" entity being able to do the same is silly/insane = any of the (overwhelmingly conservative) candidates benefiting from them is/are silly-by-association.

He's basically asked-for and gotten Federal permission to (attempt to) mock Citizens United and any candidate who benefits from the same into irrelevence. Fairly-elaborate, for satire, but also potentially devastating in exactly the way he wants it to be: ANY conversation about PAC fundraising on the Right now innevitably becomes a conversation about Stephen Colbert's "silly" PAC and thus how "silly" PACs are and how "wrong" Citizens United was. He wins, in other words.

Do people who use "Babylon" (or "Rome") in such a way understand that the use of "Babylon" as a shorthand for "world of chaos and evil" in the New Testament and Escatology is primarily symbolic; because the Babylonians had at one point been the chief antagonists of the ancient spiritual/ethnic ancestors of the people the original texts were written for? Or, at the very least, that it was an actual place and not a made-up "bad guy lair" like Mordor (or Sodom and Gomorrah...)?

You hear this all the time: "We don't want to become Babylon!" Really? We don't want to be the most dominant military/technological and cultural force in our era and region - light-years ahead of any potential challenger? We don't want to be the source of a legal system that forms the bedrock of EVERY system that follows it? We don't want to be possessed of the highest standard of living in the known world? We don't want to create works of art and culture so astonishing to behold that they are still referred to as "Wonders of The World" centuries after they have vanished from the world by sheer force of reputation? This is a status we're supposed to be AVOIDING!?

Call me crazy, but if letting gay people exchange rings and vows in front a judge is the "price" for the 21st Century United States becoming (remaining?) 1/10th what Babylon was in it's day (or ROME was at the height of it's inseperable strength and decadence) I'd say we're getting a BARGAIN.

And I would be inclined to say those studies have merit - though the absolute need for dual-sex parenting is of course skewed by a history of laws and customs mandating that it be such. But the argument you're making - that monogamous heterosexual marriage is empirically beneficial to a stable society - is a wholly different matter from the argument in favor of "traditional" marriage for the sake of said tradition and/or religious prohibitions against homosexuality.

By all means, argue that the Government should be in the business of promoting one type of lifestyle/family over another because of the "greater good" benefits to society - if nothing else, it's a MUCH better argument than "a handful of quotes taken from an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic translation of ancient Hebrew oral-traditions from the dawn of recorded history says 'NO'." Though I would be curious as to how said "societal-stability" arguments can be squared with the broader tenets of Conservative limited-government/individual-autonomy philosophy.