OBJECTIONS TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE ARE NOT VALID
by Peter Moss

The U.S. media make a tremendous amount of income from paid political ads. The loss of income from a well-enforced fairness doctrine law would be the likely reason given by the media for objecting to it, and it is a valid objection but not the main one. Besides, the law I am proposing would allow the media to charge the first ad applicant a multiple of the rate and thus prepay for the subesquent non-paying candidates.
The medias' main objection, never admitted, is that the media would lose control of manipulating the public's mind to favor, or at least tacitly tolerate, the self-interested and wealthy media owners' control of U.S. political discourse, a goal never intended by the framers of the Constitution and the First Amendment.
The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the 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." This applies only to the U.S. Congress, not to the fifty state legislatures. And the Tenth Amendment specifies that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Thus what Congress cannot do is reserved for the State legislatures to do.
But the more important argument is that the Fairness Doctrine enlarges political discourse and does not "abridge" it, which was the obvious concern of the Founding Fathers in view of the royal censors working for King George III. The media barons spin, omit, or at least delay news not to their liking. News of non-mainstream candidates seem especially objectionable to the media barons, for such candidates, if elected, threaten the barons' power to spin, omit, or delay news they dislike. Ever since the Bush regime has changed its blood-for-Iraqi-oil warmongering to his search for weapons of mass distraction, the mainstream media has not uttered "oil" except on C-SPAN, in reporting on the worldwide antiwar mass demonstrations.
Another flawed objection concerns the FCC's position on the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC was entrusted with enforcing the Fairness Doctrine but apparently under pressure from lobbies, "the FCC concluded that the Fairness Doctrine was no longer in the public interest because it chills the expression of diverse points of view." as quoted by Mark Vogelzang, VPR, 10-16-02. This reminds me of the shivering insomniac who added another 5 blankets on top of the original five to further chill himself! And VPR goes on to say that "the Fairness Doctrine was declared unconstitutional more than a decade ago." This is apparently based on denial of certiorari in Syracuse Peace Council, 493 U.S. 1019 (1990), and if so, it is a clear misinterpretation of the meaning of "Certiorari denied." In a guide to Supreme Court petitioners, the Clerk states that "The denial of a writ of certiorari signifies only that the Court has chosen not to accept the case for review [as it does with 99% of all petitions] and does not express the court's view of the merits of the case." And another thing: "unconstitutional" is a legislative act held by the Supreme Court to be contrary to the Constitution. It is not a denial of certiorari which does not express the Court's view of the merits of the case. Still, one could not enforce the Fairness Doctrine in a court of law because of the FCC's position.
Earlier, the other principal Vermont broadcaster declared that "... news programs were exempt from the Doctrine, which died in 1987." Marselis Parsons, WCAX, 6-28-02. In a handwritten note he says "... the Fairness Doctrine was basically repealed in 1987." Marselis Parsons, WCAX, 7-31-02.
Currently the mainstream candidates collect bribes (a/k/a support, donations, contributions, hard & soft money, campaign financing, etc.) The money is for buying name recognition ads and leads to "victory," like in 2002 when Republicans scored 18%, Democrats 17%, and 65% stayed away from the polls. Former New York Congressman Steve Solarz defended the practice saying "You can't buy a Congressman for $5,000, but you can buy his vote. It's done every day." Will Rogers, the humorous journalist wrote in the 1930s that "We have the best government money can buy" and people smiled as if it was a joke, not realizing that Will wasn't kidding and the joke is on the American voter. Neither Rogers nor anybody since then has raised the criminality of bribery under 18 U.S.C. §201 but I do so now.
According to Hightower, only about 136,000 Americans put up $1,000 or more [p.69] and only half of them, about 65,000, put up "big bucks." [p.44]. Of course it's not just for name recognition ads; there are 35,000 professional political consultants including pollsters, ad writers and space buyers, etc. Former Senator William E. Borah of Idaho said: "Money has come to be the moving power in American politics ... Some years ago, politicians got into the habit of seeking contributions from men of great wealth ... it was inevitable, if large sums were to be given, that large sums would have to be returned in some way. Hence, money and politicians joined forces, and money has its say in shaping legislation and in administering the laws of the country ... It is a fearful national evil and will in the end, if not controlled, destroy the government of the people and substitute therefor, a government of the few -- the few who have sufficient money to buy the government." [p.71] [citations are from "If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" by Jim Hightower, © 2000]. Senator Borah's forecast was made in 1926. Today the Vermont Legislature has an opportunity to take a first step against bribocracy: enact a Vermont Fairness Doctrine.