FIRST AMENDMENT:
The enemies of free
speech are on the march

The Pelosi politburo and the
"hush Rush" muzzling doctrine
Part 11-

Monday, June 30, 2008

By Wes Vernon

It is now a matter of record. The Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America is against your right to free speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of that same United States of America.

She wants to shut you up in the public square if you disagree with her. That's how she interprets her privilege in attaining high office.

Empress Pelosi's own words

Reporter John Gizzi nailed it down at a Washington breakfast at which the Speaker was hosted by about 40 reporters.

The point at issue was the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine — an Orwellian term for a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule that was in force from 1949 until 1987, which decreed that any broadcaster who aired controversial opinions was obliged to accord equivalent time to the opposing view.

Under the Muzzling Doctrine — as this column prefers to label it — many stations, especially smaller ones with the least resources, dealt with its injunctions by banning any "controversy" from their airwaves. Meanwhile, the big networks and major metropolitan dailies stacked the deck year after year with "news" that reflected the liberal point of view, with conservatism either ignored or ridiculed.

President Reagan, an old media man himself, was all too familiar with this abuse of public influence. So after the courts had thrown out the Muzzling Doctrine, he vetoed an effort by Congress to write the doctrine into law. Thus, today we have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the others who have finally given conservatism a high-profile place in the media. Liberal efforts to come up with their own counterparts to conservative talk radio have fallen flat and failed to gain large audiences precisely because their point of view is in abundance on ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS-TV, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. But you see, liberals are not content with their (still) overwhelming heft in the media...No, no — they want (demand) it all.

To regular readers of this column who are familiar with that history, my apologies. But every time we discuss this, I feel obliged to repeat it again. Surely no one is getting that background from the mainstream media.

Back to Pelosi

The Speaker refuses to let the House do an up-or-down vote on a bill by Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) that would outlaw permanently the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine.

So Pence — a former radio talkshow host himself — has been circulating a discharge petition to extract the measure from the Pelosi graveyard and bring it to the floor of the House where it would surely pass by a lopsided margin. Only a small minority of the most ultra-liberal Democrats would vote against it. Democrats from conservative-leaning districts would not openly dare to vote to take away their constituents' favorite talkshow hosts.

The speaker is smoked out

At the breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, John Gizzi — Political Editor for Human Events — asked Pelosi if Pence's discharge petition failed, would she permit his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill get to the floor this year.

Madam Speaker's answer: "No," and added "the interest in my caucus is the reverse."

Gizzi: Do you personally support revival of the Fairness Doctrine.

Pelosi: Yes.

That's it. The Speaker wants to dictate what you listen to on the radio and on television (at least over-the-air broadcasts; there is some question as to whether Congress can extend that to cable TV or satellite radio).

A First Amendment tutorial?

First — just so there won't be any question about Madam Speaker's problems with your right to freedom of speech, let us quote the First Amendment in full.

AMENDMENT 1 — 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 to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Italics added)

Back to school for the Speaker

All right, Madam Speaker, let's go back to the relevant (for this discussion) parts of the amendment. They were put there by our Founding Fathers more than two centuries before you emerged from a family background of Baltimore machine politics to the exalted position of Speaker of the House.

Madam Speaker, if you're going to try to take away the public's right to tune in to popular radio talkshow hosts — if that is their preference — would it not be honorable to let them know that is what you have in mind? Is it right to sneak up on an unsuspecting public? Would it not be honest to level with them and say you are trying to head off the ban until a President Obama can appoint the next FCC commissioner and tip the vote to reinstatement of the Muzzling Doctrine? What's wrong with an up-or-down vote, Madam Speaker?

The machine in action

Obviously, that machine politics learned at her father's knee is alive and well in the Pelosi U.S. House.

Pence needs 218 signatures on his petition to get the anti-Muzzling Doctrine bill onto the floor (over Pelosi's objections) for an up or down vote. As of Friday, he had 196 signatures, all of them Republicans, but not one Democrat (more on that anon). There were only three GOP holdouts: Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.) is a co-sponsor with Pence, but as a matter of policy does not sign discharge petitions "based on respect for the traditional rules of the House [committee process]." Rob Whittman (R-Va.) says he intends to sign. Ralph Regula (Ohio) was traveling and unavailable for comment to our inquiry.

Chicken Dems in hiding

Congressman Pence has been unable to secure the signature of a single House Democrat, including 118 who supported/voted for a bill last year (also by Pence) imposing a one-year moratorium on any attempt to scuttle the "Fairness"/Muzzling Doctrine. That measure passed by a huge margin and was enacted. But its time is up. This year's bill would ban the Muzzling Doctrine on a permanent basis.

Every time the Indiana Republican walks up to his Democrat colleagues — petition in hand — they either walk the other way or smile and say something on the order of "Have a nice day, Mike."

Dictators mean business

It is not hard to imagine the word that has been conveyed to the 118 timid souls in the House Democrat caucus who last year voted for the one year moratorium, but won't sign on this year.

One can almost hear Pelosi — or her hired thugs — engaging in conversations like this sampling:

"You've been angling for a position on the (XYZ) committee? It would be a shame if those dreams are shattered because of some silly petition." Or "You're doing such good work on the (XYZ) committee. But you know, I've got a list here of worthy colleagues who would like to take your place." Or "Now about that pork project in your district...." Or perhaps the threat was even less subtle. (Hey, I'm not a fly on the wall, I can only guess.)

Let's name names

Below are the names of the House members who voted for last year's Pence Bill, but — as of Friday — had not signed on to his current bill to ban the Muzzling Doctrine on a permanent basis. We have told you about our own contacts with the offices of the three Republicans. The rest is up to you. The House is out of session this week. Your representative is likely back home. If you live in the district of one of the 118 Democrats on this list, chances are he/she will say he/she "voted for the bill last year." Your answer should be that last year's bill was for one year only. The current bill is different and makes the ban permanent. If the representative co-sponsored the bill last year, why didn't he/she sign the petition to allow a vote on this year's bill? Keep the conversation civil, but it is not unreasonable to ask why he/she would want to "hush Rush"?

Members Who Supported a One-Year Moratorium on the Fairness Doctrine But Have Not Signed the Discharge Petition:

HR 2905 — The Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007
Congressman Mike Pence (IN-06) and Congressman Greg Walden (OR-02)

Democrats:

Jason Altmire (PA)
Robert E. Andrews (NJ)
Joe Baca (CA)
John Barrow (GA)
Melissa L. Bean (IL)
Howard L. Berman (CA)
Timothy H. Bishop (NY)
Dan Boren (OK)
Rick Boucher (VA)
Allen Boyd (FL)
Corrine Brown (FL)
Dennis A. Cardoza (CA)
Russ Carnahan (MO)
Kathy Castor (FL)
Ben Chandler (KY)
Jim Cooper (TN)
Jim Costa (CA)
Jerry F. Costello (IL)
Joe Courtney (CT)
Robert E. (Bud) Cramer (AL)
Joseph Crowley (NY)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Elijah E. Cummings (MD)
Artur Davis (AL)
Lincoln Davis (TN)
Diana DeGette (CO)
William D. Delahunt (MA)
Norman D. Dicks (WA)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Chet Edwards (TX)
Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Rahm Emanuel (IL)
Eliot Engel (NY)
Bob Etheridge (NC)
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ)
Kirsten E. Gillibrand (NY)
Bart Gordon (TN)
Gene Green (TX)
Phil Hare (IL)
Alcee L. Hastings (FL)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
Baron P. Hill (IN)
Tim Holden (PA)
Darlene Hooley (OR)
Jay Inslee (WA)
Steve Israel (NY)
Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX)
Steve Kagen (WI)
Dale E. Kildee (MI)
Ron Kind (WI)
Nick Lampson (TX)
Daniel Lipinski (IL)
Stephen F. Lynch (MA)
Tim Mahoney (FL)
Jim Marshall (GA)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
Kendrick B. Meek (FL)
Gregory W. Meeks (NY)
Charlie Melancon (LA)
Michael H. Michaud (ME)
Brad Miller (NC)
Harry E. Mitchell (AZ)
Alan B. Mollohan (WV)
Dennis Moore (KS)
Christopher Murphy (CT)
Patrick Murphy (PA)
Grace F. Napolitano (CA)
James L. Oberstar (MN)
David R. Obey (WI)
Ed Perlmutter (CO)
Collin C. Peterson (MN)
Earl Pomeroy (ND)
Nick J. Rahall (WV)
Silvestre Reyes (TX)
Ciro D. Rodriguez (TX)
Mike Ross (AR)
Steven R. Rothman (NJ)
Lucile Roybal-Allard (CA)
C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger (MD)
Bobby L. Rush (IL)
Tim Ryan (OH)
John T. Salazar (CO)
John P. Sarbanes (MD)
Allyson Y. Schwartz (PA)
David Scott (GA)
José E. Serrano (NY)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH)
Brad Sherman (CA)
Heath Shuler (NC)
Albio Sires (NJ)
Ike Skelton (MO)
Adam Smith (WA)
Vic Snyder (AR)
Zachary T. Space (OH)
John M. Spratt, Jr. (SC)
Bart Stupak (MI)
John Tanner (TN)
Gene Taylor (MS)
Mark Udall (CO)
Tom Udall (NM)
Peter J. Visclosky (IN)
Timothy J. Walz (MN)
Anthony D. Weiner (NY)
Charles A. Wilson (OH)
John A. Yarmuth (KY)

Click here for Part 9, Part 10,

Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Back to Top

Back to Wes Vernon Articles