Conservatives ask: Is Durbin going after Limbaugh?

The Hill ^

[Sub-Driver]

Conservatives ask: Is Durbin going after Limbaugh? By Alexander Bolton Posted: 02/26/09 04:58 PM [ET] Conservatives fear that Democrats are pursuing a “back door” approach to cracking down on Clear Channel Communications, the media conglomerate that airs "The Rush Limbaugh Show," a favorite among conservatives.

The Senate voted along party lines Thursday to adopt an amendment sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the second-ranking Democrat in the chamber, that directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.”

The measure passed 57-41 without a single Republican vote.

Durbin said his proposal would encourage more women and minorities to apply for radio and TV ownership.

But Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.), chairman of the conservative Senate Republican Steering Committee, charged the proposal would lead to regulatory pressure on Clear Channel, which owns and operates more than 1,200 radio stations in the United States.

[Buckeye McFrog]

I suspect that once it came down to the FCC actually taking broadcast licenses AWAY from Clear Channel and giving them to ACORN, the real legal fireworks would commence.

[svcw]

Well duh!

[chainsaw]

Or will Rush take down Turbin the traitor.

Rush gets into a lot of home in Illinois. Turbin doesn’t.

[chainsaw]

Or will Rush take down Turbin the traitor.

Rush gets into a lot of homes in Illinois. Turbin doesn’t.

[Da Coyote]

Durbin the turbin against Rush?

Give me a break.

[CrystalD]

- The amendment by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) would achieve the same goals of the Fairness Doctrine through backdoor FCC regulations. His legislation forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership,” an attempt to dismantle successful syndicated radio programs. The Durbin amendment would hurt small, local radio stations who depend on popular syndicated programming for listeners and revenue.Michelle Malkin

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 591 to S. 160

(District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009)

Statement of Purpose:

To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest. Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---57
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Burris (D-IL) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI)	Feinstein (D-CA) Gillibrand (D-NY) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR)	Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---41
Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL)	McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)

Source: U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote

[little jeremiah]

Every day the news is so bad it seems it can’t get much worse without pretty soon seeing that people are being sent to the equivalent of gulags.

[bigbob]

Dirtbag has talent on loan from Satan

[anniegetyourgun]

Since they’re closing Gitmo, perhaps those gulags will be in Alaska....

[BornToBeAmerican]

And this is the problem!!!

“and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.”

The majority of the public LOVE Rush!!!

[elcid1970]

Anytime and I do mean ANYTIME an elected official attacks a private citizen by name, there’s fascism just waiting in the wings. Dick Turban might as well have said,

“Rush, baby, we’re coming to get you. And it won’t be a pretty sight when we do!”

[ChicagahAl]

"it can’t get much worse without pretty soon seeing that people are being sent to the equivalent of gulags."

In all seriousness; I fully expect that. I also fully expect that you will not read it nor see it. It will not be broadcast.

[Continental Soldier]

Democrats keep showing us that they are Stalinists. Why do we continue to be surprised?

[vetvetdoug]

Somehow I must be missing something. Isn't NPR and PBS 99% represented by Democrats, minorities, and the left? The left would lose them if the Fairness Doctrine was implemented...I wouldn't mind seeing Rush or Beck on PBS or listening to them on NPR. (...some sarcasm here)

[little jeremiah]

That’s one of the reasons they want to control the airwaves. Internet must make them rabid. They are no doubt burning the midnight oil trying to figure out how to control that.

[nathanbedford]

Some interesting questions are raised by the language of this amendment. First, it is the issue of whether the regulation as amended is unconstitutional because it is so vague. Can Congress vest a regulator with discretion whose limits are impossibly vague? The article gives is only a brief quotation of Durban's language:

“promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.”

I do not know what the existing law in the area is but certainly the regulators must be given more guidance than merely telling them to ensure the licenses are "used in the public interest." There is simply no guidance there whatsoever. I am aware that "public interest" has been a standard for some time so I guess it is necessary to understand the existing state of the law. However, merely reciting the phrase does not seem to clarify the problem beyond what this present state of understanding is.

The second interesting question is whether "diversity" is a legitimate goal? After all, it somehow suggests that the regulator must favor applicants for licenses based on their race which, on its face, seems to be repugnant to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Again, can the regulator select which race or which gender should be favored? the whole thing smacks of an affirmative action policy in our universities which raises constitutional questions which have not yet been fully settled. Can regulators be empowered to count noses and check their color? How many radio stations do American Indians get and should they be divided among the various tribes according to their number? Once we go down that road the devilish details come without number.

These questions would be very much more interesting if we could have confidence that they would be reviewed by a court animated only by the Constitution.

[RightOnline]

...and the idiotic Dems drag this country one more step closer to revolution.

[Mr. K]

it is long past time for Limbaugh to RUN FOR OFFICE!!!!!!!!

[Tony O]

What, if anything, is blocking women and minorities from owning radio stations now?