I JUST WANNA THANK THE CONGRESS: FCC VOTE !!!!

[spanone]

This was very important legislation that the House decided to roll back. A huge victory for consumers.

[ewagner]

1. Special Thanks

To my Congressman, Dave Obey for running it through Appropriations.

Thank you Dave! Excellent Strategy and superb job at holding the bipartisan coalition together.

[sally343434]

2. Don't pop the cork just yet

Here's the way it works:

The provision gets passed by a wide margin. Why? Because, even though the republicans are against it, they feel they can safely vote in favor of it because it will never see the light of day. They can claim during the campaign that they "tried."

The first stop is conference. It is very likely the provision will be stripped from the bill there and that will be its death.

But even if it manages to stay, Bu$h will veto it.

So back the bill goes to the congress for override consideration. OOPS! Too late in the session to be considered! Sorry!

Once again the Bu$h Cabal pays off for the conglomerates who paid him millions of dollars.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

[ginantonic40]

3. Besides...

The amendment rolls back the market limit from 45% to 35%. Big deal. Both instances still allow domination by 3 owners. Not to mention it doesn't address cross ownership of newspapers/TV/radio.

I think it went down like this: "Shit, for some reason they're paying attention to this. We'd better throw 'em a bone to pacify 'em until they're distracted by Kobe or shark attacks."

[Ivory_Tower]

4. It might not be that simple

From what I read, the White House will threaten a veto, but the amendment might very well stay in the bill. The bill is an appropriations bill. If Shrub vetoes it, it could be a bad PR move for him -- the amendment has a lot of support, and it could make him look like he's threatening to shut down parts of the government just to do the bidding of the media conglomerates.

I think this could get interesting. I started a thread in the Media Forum about this last week, but it sank like a rock -- maybe because the thread links to a couple of William Safire columns? Anyway, the columns are worth checking out. Here's a link to the thread (shameless self-promotion):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=109&topic_id=262&mesg_id=262&page=

On a related topic: Am I right in recalling that the "Partial Veto" power was struck down by the Supreme Court in the 90's? I thought Congress passed it and Clinton used it, but it was later ruled unconstitutional -- so I'm assuming that it's not an issue here.

[MoonGod]

7. You are correct...

... there is currently no line-item or partial veto power for the President (or Bu$h in this case).

[Ivory_Tower]

12. "Line-item"! Thank you!

I simply wasn't able to summon up that term in my brain when I wrote that post -- I knew "partial veto" wasn't correct, but it was as close as I could get.

So that does mean that if this can through Congress then it will put Shrub in a bind. Threatening to shut down government services just because the media conglomerates want a larger piece of the market won't look very good.

Of course, there's no telling what final version of the amendment will look like by the time it finally gets to Shrub's desk....

[Jack Rabbit]

5. As long as Michael Powell is chairman

As long as Michael Powell is chairman, FCC should be pronounced phonetically.

[rlev1223]

6. Keep up the pressure.

The amended appropriations bill passed by a wide margin partially because it did not address two other FCC rule issues: cross-ownership and local station ownership caps. However, it was a very significant vote anyway, and occured (as many of us imagined it would) because the cultural right-wing began to ponder not being able to influence what they refer to as local standards. So be it...

Most of the organized opposition came from left and right wing hot-button groups who have a hard time getting coverage and saw things
getting worse. I think the biggest kudos go to Commissioner Copps for almost single-handedly keeping the issue in public until the advocacy groups got involved (rather late, really).

It's still important to keep the flood of anti-Powell comment pouring in to Congress, the FCC, news orgs, etc. The media have actually covered this -- they barely mentioned it before -- it's hard to ignore such a lopsided vote.

(Just got back from France -- two blissful O'Reilly-less weeks, plus lots of good cheese!)

[MoonGod]

8. Key issues here:

1) Yes. It's good news.

2) It's not much. It only rolls back TV ownership from 45% to the previous 35%, which was probably too high in the first place. It does nothing with regards to cross-media (newspaper/TV station) ownership, redefining radio "markets", or multiple TV station ownership in a single market.

3) It's got a long ways to go. The battle in the Senate looks like it will be close. Then it needs to make it through committee. Then past Bush's veto.

[blm]

9. Yes...this power grab was just TOO blatant...

if it had been allowed, the incumbent would have a tough time explaining come 2004.

[realFedUp]

10. Yes, thanks to the Republicans

who didn't rubberstamp the administration's will this time.

[NashVegas]

11. I Wish I Had Your Enthusiasm, But

The 10% difference in network ownership in TV is nothing compared to what allowing cross-ownership of tv/newspaper tv/tv combo in-market will do.

[Armstead]

13. KICK

This ws a significant hurdle. It is not the ultimate answer we need for Media Reform -- But a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

WE should thank tjose Republicans who actually listened to the consciences for a change. (As well as recognizing the non-partisan nature of the issue.)

We can't let up now. This is not finished. But it is a significant step.