Slashdot Mirror
Senate Approves Measure to Undo FCC Rules
fortheloveofjava writes "The Washington Post says here that the Senate voted 55 to 40 today to wipe out all of the Federal Communication Commission's controversial new media rules, employing a little used legislative tool for overturning agency regulations. If you signed the MOVEON.org petition, an image of part of it is visible here with sponsoring senators Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Trent Lott (R-MS)."
There's always the chance of having it presented again to get that 2/3 majority to make it override the veto.
So diversity of opinion is okay, just as long as it's to your liking? Liberalization of media regulations, IMHO, is what allows for things like talk radio, Fox News, donahue, etc.
This is the same Congress that allowed the DirecTV monopoly of the NFL sunday Ticket to continue, and further allow DirecTV to require subscription to their service in order to buy the Sunday Ticket. I don't consider that a success.
The FCC has lawmaking power because Congress gave it to them. Legislative delegations of rulemaking authority to federal administrative agencies happen all the time; it's the same reason why the FTC is empowered create a do-not-call list and require telemarketers to pay a fine if they don't abide by it. In each case, the agency is exercising authority delegated to it by the legislature. Nothing new there.
The more interesting issue, IMHO, is why it's so hard for Congress to overturn an agency rule with which it disagrees. It used to be that you didn't have to pass a law to overturn an agency regulation; you could just have one house of Congress issue a so-called "legislative veto." If that was still the law, then today's Senate vote would have been enough to overturn the FCC. However, the Supreme Court has said you can't have a one-house legislative veto. So if the FCC makes a rule with which Congress disagrees, Congress has to pass a new law overturning the rule. Cumbersome, but that's how the Court has said you have to do it.
[insert randomly selected declaration of absolutist meta-moderation philosophy here]
Full Disclosure: Me too.
However, Clear Channel CEO Lowry Mayes and Bush Senior are personal friends. (Which probably puts a lot of campaign money from Lowry heading towards Bush Jr.)
I really hope he doesn't veto. I'd abstain before I'd vote for Dean.
The Internet has really made petitions more accessable. Look at that picture!
Like everything else in politics, the picture is not all it seems.
Those boxes of printout are a prop. They're no more meaningful than the football-sized American flag flying over the local car dealership, or George W. landing on an aircraft carrier to announce the "end of major hostilities".
From everything I've heard, faxes are effective, as are phone calls. Both are most effective when they 1) happen to match the results of the latest polls and 2) are sent by large campaign donors. Online petitions are pretty much worth no more than the paper they're not printed on.
Don't forget -- the honorable representatives of the people are ready, willing and able to ignore those boxes of "340,000 Signatures (And Growing)" if the opinion they represent will not get them re-elected.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Congress is allowed to make laws that create regulatory bodies that enforce other laws. Like the FBI, IRS, or the FCC, for instance. This is not an abuse of power, merely a delegation of their regulatory authority. However, there have been conflicts in the past concerning whether agencies of the Federal government were encroaching upon the rights of states to regulate things that happen exclusively within the borders of a single state. This conflict is not new, but I doubt it applies here as broadcasting often takes place across state lines, is operated by companies existing in several states, etc.
Trust me, the FCC is still quite subservient to Congress, which is why Congress held hearings questioning what they were doing, and the Senate, if not Congress as a whole, has decided to overrule them if possible. Congress can do other things that are more subtle to punish an agency like the FCC if they are so inclined, since Congress holds the purse strings for government spending. That the President has a veto is just part of the system of checks and balances.
One thing Congress cannot delegate is their law-making power. I wish I could remember the Supreme Court decision, but I only recall that this was decided during the 1930s after a conflict with one of FDR's agencies created to regulate industry (which was creating regulations in addition to enforcing them). Perhaps that was your point here. This may in fact be the source of the current concern the Senate has with the FCC. The FCC may be enforcing the laws in a way that the Senate feels is distorting their intentions, in which case Congress as a meta-regulatory body has to step in and correct the FCC, by changing laws. True enough, only Congress can make laws.
I do not belive Bush has vetoed anything yet.
Reference "Instead we are getting the first full presidential term to go without a veto since John Quincy Adams."
National Review
sorry, how about if i format my posts...
>>Take THAT, clear channel!
From the article...
"Finally, the new rules tighten radio ownership rules, essentially capping national radio consolidation. This rule would be overturned by Dorgan's resolution as well, allowing radio conglomerates to grow bigger."
So Congress, having overturned the new rules, gave more strength to ClearChannel. Sorry...
Here's the Senate Voting Record so you can appropriately attack your local representatives if you disagree with their actions.
/.. We don't talk to our reps, we just bitch about them.
But this is
You aren't old enough to remember when we had three big TV networks who controled everything, are you?
I live three blocks from the very first commercial TV studio in history ( WRGB, GE Broadcasting Company, now used as a science lab by the Schenectady County Community College ), my father worked for them in sales and managment. I got to see a bit of how things worked from the inside.
We do not want to return to that. Trust me on this one.
This afternoon I've been watching shows about Velociraptors in China, Easter Island, Anime, The Hauorani ( with nudity, as per National Geographic Magazine) and several different and distinct points of view on the same news story, from different nations.
In the old days I would have had my choice between three essentially identical "day time dramas" and three essentially identical American news shows broadcasting at noon and six only.
You can take that and shove it. I like my diversity and "duplication of effort," thank you very much.
KFG
Score 1 for democracy (for the moment, at least...)!
Score one for oligarchy, you mean. A small minority is offended by what's on tv, and by the fact that a point of view they don't share dominates popular culture at the moment, and by the fact that people like pop music and don't really care (en masse) if radio stations play the same crap (because they're still tuning into it, and sponsors are still having success with ad campaigns). Since said small minority knows that they can't win without help, they call on their pocket pols to back them up, and since many pols on both sides of the imaginary fence have been taking a lot of flak in the media lately, they push this crap through. Government by the few has a different name than democracy.
http://xkcd.com/386/
Bush's cronies in Texas are already trying to redistrict the state to increase republican state representatives. In the process, republican electoral votes for the President in national elections. So even if the popular vote favors a democratic candidate, the republican candidate has a better chance of winning. Considering Texas is one of the largest states in terms of electoral votes that's not just disgusting. That's scary.
The really sad part is, that's almost a direct quote from Rummy.
The FCC and many other Federal government regulatory agencies are created by laws passed by Congress. These agencies enforce other laws passed by Congress. Congress makes all the laws, and cannot delegate that authority. Congress also has the power to question the actions of agencies it creates, and they frequently do, by holding hearings.
If an agency is behaving in a way Congress does not like, it is probably because the laws they are allowed to enforce are permitting them to do so. But since Congress holds all the lawmaking power, they can rapidly bring a government agency into line by changing the laws that are allowing the behavior they want to stop.
Basically, the FCC is not finished, nothing nearly so drastic - for that to happen Congress would have to cut off their money, which is possible but very unlikely, as there is a need for some sort of agency to regulate the airwaves. But if the measure to reverse their decision passes both houses of Congress and is signed by the president, then it becomes law and the FCC is bound by it.
No, the American system is not quite like the British Parliamentary system, where the government is permitted to completely collapse at any moment. Foof!
No. The FCC is not part of the executive branch, it is part of the legislative branch and was created by the congress.
Check here if you don't believe me:
http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html
A choice quote:
FCC rules have the full force of law because congress has delegated its power to the FCC. But the congress could disband the FCC tomorrow if they so chose.MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
Unfortunately, the Senate has thrown the baby out with the bathwater and struck down the JSA ban along with everything else. At least the House had the sense to just strike down the higher market caps and leave the rest in place...
If Clear Channel is happy with the FCC rulings then Bush is happy with it and will veto any changes.
I have doubts that Clear Channel would enjoy having "...tightened radio ownership rules".
Old school Dubbya friends -> http://www.takebackthemedia.com/radiogaga.html
What the "fairness doctrine" actually means is that if anyone disagrees with anything said on the radio, they can call in and demand to be put on the air to refute what they disagree with. The station manager will have to put them on and give them time to speak their mind.
This is an exagerration. What the "fairness doctrine" actually means is that opposing points of view (in response to an editorial comment broadcast on air) shall receive an "equal opportunity" to rebuttal, i.e. an equal amount of time to refute the editorial.
Just imagine if someone said on the air, "SCO owns UNIX" and everyone on slashdot called up and demanded to be put on the air to refute the point. It would take days.
No, the callers could be aired for as much time as it takes to say "SCO owns UNIX."
The "fairness doctrine" may or may not be "fair" but let's not pretend it will kill controversial speech. Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had to open the phones (or invite guest) to rebut him -- wouldn't that make it much more interesting than (as you put it) "vanilla talk"?
north dakota has very little to choose from because of lack of population, and when clear channel moved in, it became completely useles. In my listening area, there are two top 40/pop stations, one local, one 75 miles away. Both are clear channel now, and identical as far as playlists. At least when they were independent there was some variety.
The flag image is wrong. The US flag has thirteen horizontal stripes, beginning and ending with red.
Not only does Gerrymandering happen continually but in the Texas case it has been one sided for twenty years.
The Democrats have controlled the Texas legislature for that long and every few years they have continued to skew the district lines to firm up their control. The Republican actions of late are simply skewing in a different direction.
(Soapbox) Gerrymandering is one of the sleaziest activities done by both parties. Nothing says, "I don't care what you think." more than redistricting so that certain groups are underreprensated. Again this done by both sides through out the country and is one of the main reasons I dislike politicans. (/Soapbox)
Direct hard money contributions to the campaigns haven't been nearly as much of a factor as the soft money, which amounted to half a billion dollars in the 1999-2000 election cycle.
I agree with a recent editorial in The Atlanta Journal Constitution that hopes the SCOTUS upholds the McCain-Feingold closing of soft money loopholes.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
How is 55-40, with 5 abstaining, a huge majority? It sounds to me like if Bush vetos it, it will die, as it is well short of the 2/3rds needed to override a veto. As far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing; these rules are stupid in an age where barriers to becoming a content distributor are virtually nil (maybe $10/month in web hosting costs).
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
That's right. I generally happens every 10 years (in Texas at least).
The last time it happened, the situation had to be settled by a district court judge. That was in 2001.
Now the Texas Republicans want to redistrict again. They didn't like the last result so they're changing parliamentary rules in order to get their plan shoved through. This is all at the behest of the Bush Whitehouse.
It is not normal to redistrict every 2 years. This is what you do when you want to guarantee getting elected, because you've fscked the economy up so much that you can't get enough of the popular vote to carry you into office.
It's a bit like getting your brother to block minorities from voting in the state that he's running.
State Police headlight checks in minority neighbourhoods near the polling station on election day? Perfectly normal.
Scrubbing thousands of citizens from the voting rolls because their name sounds like that of a convicted felon in another state? Nothing to see here.
Stupid fsck.
"The SC selected Bush and then declared that checking on the actual vote total would cause people to question the legitimacy of their selection"
No, the votes were already counted: Bush won. The Supreme Court did not select him. All they did was ignore some lawyers who lied to the Court in an attempt to overturn the election. Even if the Court had listened to the lawyers, Gore still lost the count they were asking for.
"So even though both Hayes and Bush deservedly have asterisks next to their presidencies"
Bush and Hayes do not. Put the asterisks next to the two guys who were impeached.
" Bush is alone in having the SC hand out a Presidency"
Yet, if you look at what happened, the SC did not hand him anything. Bush won in November. That is what counted.
whose intent was not to screw the little guy in favor of corporate interests?
W has got to be the worst president in the history of our nation. I'm not kidding.
I smell burning Karma...
Shut up troll. If you actually have something to add that has any value what-so-ever show your face and back up your statements. Since none of your "points" have any basis in reality what-so-ever, I can only conclude that you're either just wasting my time or you're a complete idiot. Not to be a pot calling the kettle black, I'll respond once and only once to these idiotic statements:
Get a fucking life. There's a difference between taking sides on political issues on party lines (like stupid people like you do) and actually thinking about issues and deciding on them independant of party lines (like I do).
And, for the record, I think overall Clinton was at best mediocre. He was a two-faced lying fuck and he should've been removed for lying straight-faced to the American public - just like what should happen to Bush for the same reason.
Idiot.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Borgan has the right to be anti-Clear Channel.
There was a tornado in a town. Seven of the radio stations were run by CC. There were 0 live people on staff. Think the warning got out?
CC says it won't happen again... Hmm...