Skip to comments.Sen Grassley's Letter to FCC About Concerns About Mark Lloyd [Fairness Doctrine]
Posted on 09/07/2009 11:14:10 AM PDT by BunnySlippers
PDF so I can't cut/paste. Grassley letter to Chairman of FCC about problems with Mark Lloyd.
Now's the time to take out another czar.
This guy was my nominee for next, all along. In fact, he has the capacity to do much more damage than Van Jones did.
Totally agreed. Rumor is that he’s going to be hard to take out.
Grassley is an inside the beltway guy who’s up for re-election next year.
The least he could do is write a letter.
Meanwhile, he’s been playing footsie on “health care” with Obama.
We need a real conservative to replace him next year.
One who wants to spend a lot less than the over 3 trillion a year like Grassley and other Republicans do.
Agreed!! Mark Lloyd needs to be the next “czar” to go. His disbelief in the First Amendment is too dangerous.
Here is Lloyd commenting on the idea of freedom of speech in general:
It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press, he said. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
Mr. Lloyd was not vetted by the congress either, just by Ms. Jarrett....Obama's real vice president?
Their nonsensical early primary is so shallow and juvenile that the MSM just loves to use it to help lauch these type embarrassed and thus embarrassing Americans toward becoming POTUS and I've had enough!!!
Sen. Grassley... please fix you own states liberal launching pad on America!!!
1-2-ping-a-roo for the hub.
You are correct in your opinion. I just said that I have a feeling there are forces at work in this country to Overthrow the nation but are using other words for this treasonous act. Mr. Lloyd is among those who dislike America, so many of Obama’s friends fall into that category not the least is Valerie Jarrett Obama’s main advisor I am told.
I have been researching for the past week on Mark Lloyd.
Trying to find the origin of his radical roots as well.
The earliest information I have on his bio is that he graduated from University of Mich. in 1978.
Found scads of bios on him, but no info. on his birth or youth. Many of his quotes make me question his place of birth. There is no question that he has a very strong interest, and dare I say it affinity, for certain SA countries. He also quoted Alinsky’s community organizing tactics several times in his book. Chicago is a possibility.
Does anyone know where this “cat” comes from?
On July 29, 2009, you announced the appointment of Mark Lloyd as Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I write today to express my conccrns with this appointment and ask for you to clarify and reaffirm statements you made to me in a personal meeting prior to your confirmation related to the Fairness Doctrine and efforts to diversify broadcast media.
On April 22,2009, before your confirmation by the U.S. Senate for your position as Chairman of the FCC, you came to my office and told me that you did not support an effort to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I took you at your word that, if confirmed, the policies that you promoted at the FCC would not include any policy or regulatory shifts that seek to reintroduce the long abandoned Fairness Doctrine. However, I have serious reservations that you may be moving away from these statements you made to me regarding the Fairness Doctrine given the appointment of Mr. Lloyd to a position within the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) at the FCC. Please allow me to elaborate.
My concerns relate to Mr. Lloyd's participation in scholarly writings on political talk radio, the Fairness Doctrine, and efforts to bring greater diversity to talk radio. Prior to joining the FCC, Mr. Lloyd served as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), in addition to positions as a professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute. In his capacity as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, he coauthored a paper titled, "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio." This paper argued that radio programming was currently "imbalanced" and that there are "serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans." Mr. Lloyd's paper suggests three options to remedy the "imbalance" in political talk radio, including (l) restoring caps on commercial radio station ownership, (2) ensure greater accountability in licensing, and (3) require owners who fail to enforce public interest ownership obligations to pay a fee. While these remedies seem innocuous on their face, hidden within the paper are some stark revelations.
First, Mr. Lloyd's paper suggests that the Fairness Doctrinc was "never formally repealed." Instead, Mr. Lloyd argues that the FCC merely announced "it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella ofthe Fairness Doctrine." The paper continues by stating that while the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FCC decision, the Supreme Court has "never overruled the cases that authorized the FCC's enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine ...thus it technically would not be considered repealed."
Second, the paper suggests that the FCC revise the licensing process for radio broadcasters. Specifically, it suggests that licenses should not be permitted for longer than three years, that they be subject to challenges in the decision to renew their licenses, and that they submit to strict documentation and regulatory requirements.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the paper suggests that commercial radio owners be subjected to new regulatory requirements enforcing public interest obligations and if they fail to meet these standards, subjecting them to fees and taxes in order to compel compliance. The paper suggests that such a fee or fine structure could raise between $100 million to $250 million in new revenue, but would not "overly burden commercial radio broadcasters."
Taken together, these statements represent a view that the FCC needs to expand its regulatory ann further into the commercial radio market. However, it would be unfair for me to say that Mr. Lloyd has specifically advocated for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, he has argued that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary if other regulatory reforms to commercial radio are implemented. Specifically, in discussing the CAP paper "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio/' Mr. Lloyd authored an internet article published on CAP's website entitled, "Forget the Fairness Doctrine." In that piece, Mr. Lloyd stated, "we call for ownership rules that we think will create greater local diversity ...we call for more localism by putting teeth into the licensing rules. But we do not call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine."
Simply put, I strongly disagree with Mr. Lloyd. I do not believe that more regulation, more taxes or fines, or incrcased government intervention in the commercial radio markct will serve the public interest or further the goals of diversifying the marketplace. I am concerned that despite his statements that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, Mr. Lloyd supports a backdoor method of furthering the goals of the Fairness Doctrine by other means. Accordingly, I ask that you clarify and reaffirm your commitment to me to oppose any reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. Further, I ask you to affirmatively state that you will not pursue an agenda that includes any new restrictions, fines, fees, or licensing requirements on commercial radio that would effectively create a backdoor Fairness Doctrine. I appreciate your prompt reply regarding this important matter.
United States Senator
[I appreciate your prompt reply]
...and how is that workin’ out for ya’ Chuck?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.",/B>
As hard as I read it and reread it I just can't seem to come up with reference to any "Fairness Doctrine".
Lets see a “Cyber Attack” and Obummer pulls the switch, Under the cover of darkness the FCC puts in the Local Diversity Doctrine, It might work.
I give the Senator credit for writing this letter.....
Thanks for posting this. Are you able to find a reply from Genachowski on Grassley’s site? How were you able to find this link to Grassley’s letter?
You think the Outcry is Bad On Health Care ? Wait until they try to Take Talk Radio off the Air and Then the Internet you wont be able to Get into Washington,The Roads will be Gridlocked with Protesters
I agree. I just hope we can do it with Cap n Tax. That one is really dangerous IMO.
This is nice, but Grassley needs to submit a bill that would defund special advisors who were not approved by the Senate - this end-run nonsense has got to stop.
Great!! Why don't you do it since you're perfect.
The truth is Grassley is doing a great job and getting stabbed in the back for what he's doing.
Even Congressman Steve King has told constituents here in Iowa that if it weren't for Grassley, we'd already have Obamacare and we'd be stuck with it. Thank you, Senator Grassley. It is not possible for Iowa to replace him with someone more conservative.
Those wackos are RATS, not Republicans.
Sorry. Business as usual doesn’t cut it anymore and I’m convinced the GOP is socialist tax and spend lite.
Why do Congressional Republicans propose a 3.1 trillion dollar budget to match the Democrats 3.5 trillion dollar one?
Both have trillion dollar plus defecits.
New faces and outsiders. Its as simple as that.
It's a caucus, not a primary. Each party adopts its own caucus rules and they differ greatly.
Sen. Grassley... please fix you own states liberal launching pad on America!!!
Especially now that they got what they wanted, Iowa's Dems probably couldn't care less about what Chuckles or you or I think about how they run their caucus.
So is there ANY Republican you would keep?
It triggers a "horserace" of momentum in the media's desired direction way early and sets everything else way back!!! It's bogus!!! New Hampshire was bad enough without IA, too!!!
Reagan survived it by yelling about having PAID for his microphone at some televised event, remember?
That’s a good question.
Right now I would think Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint would be worth keeping in the Senate.
Michelle Bachmann definitely in the House.
There are more but not too many right now.
So you just want to surrender to the RATS and walk away?
Political parties put up fronts and arguments and that includes the GOP.
I think it is time to realize that the GOP is socialism lite and it talks a line to get votes, then fails to deliver.
Its time for government to get smaller. I will vote for a person who really believes in it, not those who talk about it and then vote to create new programs like Medicare Part D (thank you George W. Bush) and lets not forget the bailout plan of 2008.
There will be pain in not voting GOP but fear is certainly not a good reason to vote for anything. Taking a stand and demanding an end to business as usual matters most to me right now.
I’m not prostituting myself to people who prove by their actions that they don’t really believe the way I do.
Nice rant but, with all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. It's not perfect but, when it comes to vetting and choosing a candidate, a caucus is a hell of a lot better than a primary, no question.
Hay! It’s good to see yer back on here, BS’n everybody!!!
Okay, apparently I gave you way more respect than you were actually due. My bad.
Well, I’m sorry but the last time I remember seeing you post stuff you were touting windmills and other such “alternative energy” nonsense, so I figured here it comes again!!! It’s just my way of opting out...
Good for you. Speaking of "nonsense," when you don't know sh*t about the subject, you might consider skipping the opting-in altogether, saving your rants and exclamation points for that which you know something about.