User Submitted Blog Post: An FCC geek's guide to the Presidential candidates

Hey U.S. voter: if you live and voted in one of the Super Tuesday states, you made your decision and now it is done. You'll be bragging about, puzzling over, or regretting your choice for the rest of your life. But if you reside and exercise the franchise in Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, or Guam, among other geopolitical entities, then you've still got some obsessing to do.

You're probably pondering questions like The War, health care, the economy, will Bill behave, does Obama have substance, and other matters of varying degrees of actual relevance. But here's an idea: why not vote for one of these folks on the basis of their record on media regulation issues? Yes! The Federal Communications Commission! Net neutrality! Media ownership! Indecency regulation!

Ok. I know that you're not going to make your decision based on some single issue policy wonk's blog. Understood. But wouldn't you like to at least know where these jerks stand on various telecom and broadcasting issues?

Lucky for you, I've put together a whole chart about this stuff. But some people prefer their information in prose rather than tabular form, so here goes:

Democrats

Alas, of all of the contenders for the Democratic nomination, John Edwards had the most clear and comprehensive set of positions on Federal Communications Commission related matters. Unfortunately, the former United States Senator has withdrawn from the race. But let's give credit where due.

Candidate Edwards repeatedly pledged to strengthen rather than weaken the FCC's media ownership rules—limits on how many newspapers, TV and radio stations one entity (think Rupert Murdoch) can own in one city.

"Edwards believes extreme media consolidation threatens free speech," his very thorough media page declared, "tilts the public dialogue towards corporate priorities and away from local concerns, and makes it increasingly difficult for women and minorities to own a stake in our media."

Edwards also promised to strengthen public interest requirements for broadcasters, including disability access requirements. Edwards said that he supports net neutrality, ensuring that ISPs don't become the gatekeepers of the Internet. And he assured voters that he would lift restrictions on the licensing of Low Power FM radio stations.

Congressmember Dennis Kucinich, who has also withdrawn from the race, also supported net neutrality and opposed the relaxation of the agency's media ownership rules. Kucinich has been a strong supporter of locally controlled, public access television and Low Power FM radio.

But these guys are history, as we a-historical Americans love to say. Anyway, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have clear records as well.

Illinois Senator Barack Obama's Web site does not include a media page. But Obama did very publicly warn FCC Chair Kevin Martin not to rush through the media ownership rule changes that, in the end, Martin rushed through. All in all, I've been impressed with the extent to which Obama has been on-point on this issue, especially as it affects his home state of Illinois.

As for net neutrality, Obama says he's for it. He writes on his official Senate site:

" . . . the big telephone and cable companies want to change the internet as we know it. They say they want to create high-speed lanes on the internet and strike exclusive contractual arrangements with internet content-providers for access to those high-speed lanes. Those of us who can't pony up the cash for these high-speed connections will be relegated to the slow lanes.

Allowing the Bells and cable companies to act as gatekeepers with control over internet access would make the internet like cable. A producer-driven market with barriers to entry for web site creators and preferential treatment for specific sites based not on merit, the number of hits, but on relationships with the corporate gatekeeper. . . . So here's my view. We can't have a situation in which the corporate duopoly dictates the future of the internet and that's why I'm supporting what is called net neutrality."

Then there are indecency issues, which high profile Democrats tend to avoid. While Obama did not co-sponsor the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which greatly boosted fines for obscenity scofflaws, he did not oppose the bill either, which passed the Senate unanimously. If you belong to the Parents Television Council, you think that's great. If you belong to the American Civil Liberties Union, you think it sucks. You're call.

Hillary Clinton has been less vocal on some of these issues than Obama. But she's been supportive of important causes in the Senate. She did support a Senate bill that would require the FCC to slow down on enacting new media ownership rules. She has also supported net neutrality. For example, Clinton co-sponsored the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, along with Obama and former presidential candidate Christopher Dodd.

Clinton has come in for some criticism for her support for a non-profit called "Connect America," which Public Knowledge advocate Art Brodsky says has exaggerated its success in bringing broadband to under served communities. Like Obama, she did not co-sponsor the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, but she did not oppose the bill either.

Republicans

Republicans Arizona United States Senator and likely Republican nominee John McCain supports media consolidation. He had a chance to oppose it in 2003, after former FCC Chair Michael Powell dramatically relaxed the agency's media ownership rules. In response, the Senate passed a statement of disapproval of the FCC's actions, declaring that the move would have "no force or effect." McCain voted against the resolution, as did most Republicans. I find this vote on McCain's part puzzling, since he was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which launched all this unfortunate media ownership rule revising in the first place.

McCain does, however, support efforts to make it easier to start a Low Power FM radio station. He has also advocated "a la carte" cable reform, which some groups say will facilitate your picking and choosing which cable channels you want to buy, and others say will just ratchet up the price of cable generally, and make it harder for independent channels to survive. Again, your call on this one.

Oddly, Senator Straight Talk Express very strongly opposes the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. That's the idea that if somebody on some radio station says you are a dirty Communist/Islamofascist/whatever, you have the right to appear on that radio station and respond (unless you feel that you are a dirty Communist/Islamofascist/whatever). This policy, which the FCC abandoned in 1987, would, ironically, give McCain the right to appear on and respond to radio stations that broadcast Rush Limbaugh's false assertion that McCain once claimed that torture worked on him while he languished in a North Vietnamese prison.

In June of last year McCain announced that he would submit the "Broadcaster Freedom Act" to the Senate. "The legislation would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the 'Fairness Doctrine'," his press release stated, "a regulation that had required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance." Go figure.

As for the rest of the surviving Republicans, it is hard to tell what Mike Huckabee thinks. As a former state governor, it's difficult to track his positions on national broadcasting and telecommunications issues. Huckabee says he's against indecency on radio and television; no surprise there. One blogger thinks Huckabee supports net neutrality.

Then there's the politically unclassifiable Ron Paul (yes, he's still running). The Texas Congressmember opposes net neutrality, but that's probably because he opposes practically all government regulation except anti-abortion laws. He also opposes the Patriot Act and has condemned those parts of the Act that have been used to justify the electronic surveillance of Americans. Paul also opposes the Fairness Doctrine and opposes extending indecency laws to cable.

Basically, you name it, Ron Paul's against it, which may be good or bad, depending on your perspective.

BTW: Contrary to what you may think, Hillary Clinton has no public position on the Fairness Doctrine. This, however, has not stopped a veritable battalion of right-wing talk radio hosts from predicting that she secretly supports the policy and will gleefully sneak it on us once she's elected President.

Of all the Democrats, only former candidate Dennis Kucinich says that he supports the restoration of the provision.That, of course, would be Truly Horrible, possibly even worse than making sure that more children have health insurance.

Anyway, good luck out there in Texas and Ohio. Hope this helped. We'll all be watching you on our government regulated TV sets.