In the weeks leading up to the Federal Communications Commission's June 2 decision to deregulate media ownership, an unusual left-right coalition sprang up to oppose the move. That coalition -- which included the National Rifle Association, MoveOn.org, CodePink, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Organization for Women -- proved unable to persuade the FCC to abandon its plans for deregulation. But in the weeks since the vote, a similarly anomalous coalition of politicians has emerged to take the fight over media deregulation to Capitol Hill. When the Senate Commerce Committee likely votes today on a bill introduced by Sens. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) that would roll back the FCC decision, it could represent a first test of whether that coalition will succeed.
At a discussion panel the week before the June 2 vote, Brent Bozzel of the conservative Parents Television Council quipped that the broad nature of the anti-deregulation alliance meant "one of two things has happened: one, either the earth has spun off its axis and we have all lost our minds; or two, opinion is unanimous."
Outside of those corporations that stand to profit from the new, looser regulations, sentiment against the FCC ruling does seem to be, if not necessarily unanimous, at least outraged. Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause, says her organization's Web site received 150,000 comments from the public the day after the vote, a number that matches the total it received in the weeks leading up to the vote. "There has been more interest on this issue than on any other single issue since we've been on the Internet," said Pingree. As of Monday, Common Cause had mobilized 250,000 individuals to send letters of concern to their representatives about the FCC's vote.
The government officials who are continuing the fight on the Hill run the gamut, from the Senate's southern apologist Trent Lott (R-Miss.) to the House's most left-wing member, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt). The Hill reported last week that Lott's opposition to deregulation stems from his fear of The Washington Post buying more media properties -- and more influence. "They've been hammering me for 30 years," he said of the Post. "Thank God Fox showed up -- I have to put up with that paper enough as it is."
Before the FCC acted on June 2, media companies were prohibited from owning local stations that, taken together, gave them more than 35 percent of the country's audience. The FCC raised that figure to 45 percent -- but Hollings and Stevens are seeking to return it to 35 percent. Also, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) has proposed nullifying the FCC's decision to allow ownership of TV and radio stations by newspapers, or vice versa, in the same market.
Dorgan has also indicated that he intends to employ the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a little-used procedure that allows Congress to overturn federal regulations relatively quickly. In effect, the CRA allows 30 senators, through a petition, to force a resolution of disapproval to be placed on the Senate's legislative calendar. If passed by the House and Senate, the CRA would then end up on the president's desk -- and, as The Hill recently pointed out, it could force President Bush to issue a potentially embarrassing veto in order to stand by his FCC commissioner.
Dorgan is also considering introducing a spending-limit bill, which would deprive the FCC of the funding it needs to enforce the new rules. Dorgan's press secretary, Barry Piatt, says it makes sense to pursue several avenues for frustrating the FCC's plans. "Each step bolsters the case for the additional steps," he said. Dorgan intends to initiate the CRA as soon as the FCC publishes its ruling. "If they publish it tomorrow, we'll introduce the legislation tomorrow," Piatt said.
Not surprisingly, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has taken a more strident approach to the issue. Last Friday, Sanders introduced the Protect Diversity in Media Act, which would rescind the entirety of the FCC's June 2 decision. What's most noteworthy about the bill, however, is that it would also prevent the FCC from conducting any further reviews of media regulation -- and it would turn that responsibility over to Congress, where Sanders says it belongs.
His bill is aimed at the root of the issue: the way in which the media is regulated. "The incestuous relationships between regulators and the industries they are supposed to regulate have been exposed," Sanders told The Nation earlier this month. He told me that he hopes to capitalize on the unprecedented amount of grass-roots interest this issue has generated to ensure that, in the future, such regulatory decisions are made by Congress -- "because of the enormous importance of this issue."
For Sanders there is a deeper and more important matter at stake than the irresponsibility of one isolated decision: what he sees as a systemic failure by the FCC to safeguard the public interest in media regulation. But for now, and especially for today, the most crucial battle lies in undoing the immediate damage of the FCC's new rules. As Sanders told me, the FCC vote is "a very dangerous decision -- and it's got to be stopped immediately."
Anna Morris is a TAP Online intern and a graduate student at Columbia University's School for International and Public Affairs.
