Since you probably aren't aware of what it's about, I will explain:
Stephen Colbert has decided to take advantage of a recent court ruling to start a political action committee (PAC), but ran in to trouble when Viacom, owner of the Comedy Central network on which his television show airs told him he could not have the PAC because they did not want to disclose the cost of producing his television show in order to comply with laws about disclosing the amount of contributions to the PAC. So, with the help of former FEC chairman Trevor Potter, he requested an advisory opinion from the FEC, as to whether or not mentioning his PAC on his show could be considered news coverage which does not require financial disclosure.
I'd thought about it a little during the 60 days he waited for a response, and I didn't see any clear and obvious way to decide the matter. On the one hand, his show does cover news items, even if in a comedic way. On the other hand, it's his show, so is it really news or is it just use of his show as a venue for free advertisement? So I didn't know what to expect the FEC to decide.
So when I read the opinion of the FEC, I was surprised to see just how well they dissected the problem into individual components, then approached each component in a way that made it clear that they had come to the correct decision. I wasn't expecting that there could be a clear decision, yet here it was, all laid out in easy-to-digest pieces, and it all made perfect sense. It was amazing.
On several occasions I've come across a random essay I've written years earlier and I always find it a pleasure to read. It doesn't matter that it was so long ago that I can barely remember that I wrote it. I read what I wrote, all of the arguments make sense and cover the argument from every angle I can imagine, and the conclusion at the end seems like the only one that anyone could logically come to. I suppose many would say that it's simply because I wrote it, but I'm talking about things so long forgotten that I feel like I'm reading someone else's words. If I needed time to change my mind, I definitely had it, yet my opinion is identical to what it was. ...or at least it is after I read the awesome arguments I present.
Reading that advisory opinion was like that. I have no idea what compelled me to read it in the first place, but I'm glad I did. It's nice to occasionally have some reassurance that the world isn't composed entirely of philosophical zombies.