|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Political-Economy |
|
GOP Alliance May Split On Stem-Cells |
Current rating: 2 |
by James Pinkerton
Email: jpinkerton (nospam) techcentralstation.com (unverified!) |
22 Jul 2003
|
|
For most of the 20th Century, leading conservatives and libertarians united against atheist-collectivists. To this day, a WWII-era alliance between US capitalists and moralists continues long after the defeat of the "Reds." And then came stem-cell research... |
Science and the GOP
James Pinkerton, TechCentralStation.com, 07-22-2003
Are you a "Bright"?
If you're reading TCS, it wouldn't be a surprise if you are. "Bright" as a noun, not an adjective, was introduced to Americans in a July 12 op-ed in The New York Times. In this usage, "Bright" means agnostic, or atheist. As op-ed author Daniel Dennett explains, the idea behind Bright is to give non-belief an "image buffing" so that the millions of Americans -- Dennett claims that Brights are, in fact, a "silent majority" -- can gain a stronger place in politics.
And boy, the forces of secularism -- the folks who would like to revive the Enlightenment idea of progress, especially in medicine; the people who would separate church and state and, this time, really keep it separate -- could use a boost right about now. However, it's not so clear so that Bright is the right word to use.
The Bright idea comes from Martin J. Willett, professed atheist and proprietor of http://www.mwillett.org. In his telling, there's no implied superiority in claiming Bright:
"It is a word without a natural opposite. You are either bright or you are not. It is not for us to call the religious dim or dull or straight: they are not straight, not normal, just not bright. You could say that the opposite of bright is religious, but it isn't really a useful thought. Being bright isn't something that needs an opposite, just like Thursday doesn't need an opposite."
Well, OK, but I'm not sure I buy it. His argument that a positive word such as Bright casts no implied darkness on others strikes me as disingenuous; his presumption mirrors the disingenuousness of Christians who display bumper stickers proclaiming, "Christians aren't better. They're just forgiven."
Dennett, by the way, is an important figure in the continuing battles over evolution and the implications of evolutionary science; his many books, including, notably, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, are filled with positive endorsements for libertarian notions of freedom and the libertarian-related notion of free scientific inquiry. Indeed, Dennett's latest book is vividly entitled, Freedom Evolves. And so many TechCentralStationeers might cheer when he writes in his Times piece, "We can be a powerful force in American political life."
Not surprisingly, Dennett's op-ed generated considerable backlash; in Wednesday's Times, no fewer than seven letters appeared, most of them critical. The most pointed letter took Brights/atheists to task for whitewashing the past political impact of Brights: "For most of the 20th century, officially atheistic regimes ruled a large part of the world," wrote John J. Pitney Jr. of Claremont, Ca. "I don't think that the prisoners of the gulag saw much that was bright."
Pitney, a well-known political scientist, raises an interesting issue that's more than an historical question; it's central to the future march of science.
But first, a bit of history. For most of the last century, leading conservatives and libertarians were persuaded that they faced a binary choice: on one side was a government based, in part, on religion; on the other side was a government based on collectivist thinking. And so, to pre-empt the Reds, mostly secular conservatives and libertarians sought out alliances with religious leaders, eager to create a common front against socialism and communism.
These new groupings were a worldwide phenomenon. In post-war Europe, for example, the anti-communist coalition was oftentimes an alliance of big business, the various Christian Democratic -- and sometimes also Social Democratic -- parties, plus whatever celebrities, opinion leaders, and publishers could be cobbled together in the days when most intellectuals were solidly on the left. In Japan after 1945, the alliance was built around the mercantilist Liberal Democratic Party. To be sure, sometimes these alliances were more unholy than holy, as in Franco's Spain or any number of incompetent and/or kleptocratic Third World regimes.
To be fair, for much of the 20th century, communism loomed as a significant threat; the stakes were high back then. From the 30s through the 50s, many non-communists believed that communism was nevertheless a better economic system; they opposed communism as a freedom-squelching tyranny, but had no reason not to believe those fake numbers coming out of the Soviet Union. It seemed that Stalinism was Keynesianism on steroids. And so the counter-strategy was to keep the restless proletariat firmly anchored in faith and tradition; if a little God-talk would help keep the workers and peasants on board, fine. Raise up the Cross -- and sometimes also, the Islamic Crescent -- to smite the Hammer & Sickle.
In the US, this coming together of free-market ideology and old-time religion was called "fusionism." George Nash's The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, published in 1976, ably describes the conjoining of such conservatives as William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk alongside, more or less, Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard. Their preferred political vehicle was the Republican Party, although there was still a huge hawkish wing in the Democratic Party.
Thus did mostly secular economists and anti-communists make common cause with priests, ministers, and rabbis. There were tensions, to be sure; religious-minded populists who grew up on the Social Gospel -- listening to William Jennings Bryan and then Franklin D. Roosevelt denounce "the rule of capital" -- found themselves in the same league with capitalist rulers. And at the same time, the secularists had to accept that their new teammates had agenda items, too; so as part of the intra-alliance wheeling and dealing, conservative religious values penetrated the once-secular public square. The words "under God" were inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance by an act of Congress in 1954; in the following year, "In God We Trust" became mandatory on all coins. Finally, in 1956, Congress completed its religious mission by making "In God We Trust" the national motto.
And it worked. Communism was the God that Failed.
In America, the alliance between capitalists and moralists, hammered out in the late 40s, continues down to this day. But instead of being a bipartisan phenomenon, as it was in the days when, say, Strom Thurmond was a Democrat, today it is almost entirely a Republican matter.
Ironically, even as communism was waning, the conservative fusion in the GOP was getting stronger, for reasons that had little to do with foreign policy.
The hinge was 1973. That was the year of the Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion. The Republican Party, hungry for votes after Watergate, made an alliance with the energized anti-abortion "Religious Right." The deal was that conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants, mostly from South, would abandon their ancestral Democratic Party. So a huge trading of places took place: cultural conservatives flooded into the GOP, while many old line Republicans, many of them culturally laissez-faire -- including, no doubt, quite a few quiet Brights -- fled out of the GOP. When the shifting was done, the Republicans had become the right-to-life Party and, more broadly, the "traditional family values" party.
For their part, the Democrats continued in the lifestylish direction they were heading in anyway, toward being the pro-choice party of toleration and secularism. As Bill Clinton said to a multicultural audience at the 1992 convention, "If the Republicans don't want you in their party, come and join ours."
The Democrats won that election, but as political analyst Michael Barone has observed, in the "battle between the churched and the non-churched," the church party has the overall edge. In fact, since the Religious Right cemented its alliance with the GOP in 1980, when Ronald Reagan was nominated, the Republicans have won four of the last six presidential elections; moreover, they have controlled the Senate for most of the last 23 years, and the House for much of that period. Or to put it another way, the party that represents more non-Brights has bested the party that represents more Brights.
So what's not to like? The issue is that the issues have changed. Today, there's no reason to fear a return to the threat of gulags; atheism may still be around, but atheistic communism is on the ash heap of history. In fact, the greatest overseas threat that Americans face might well be Islamic fundamentalism. In other words the same Muslims who were sometimes on our side -- including Osama Bin Laden, Afghan "freedom fighter" in the 80s -- are now, some of them, our worst enemies. All of which goes to show that the freedom-loving forces of progress and science may be in temporary alliance with backward-looking forces, but it's unlikely that such an alliance could or should be permanent.
Yet in America, 14 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the anti-communist alliance of capitalists and moralists still exists. There's nothing wrong with that per se. However, as with any dynamic process, feedback occurs in unexpected ways. And so the Religious Right's large presence within the conservative coalition has shifted the Republican Party's position on the issue that is arguably the mega-issue of the 21st century: biotech. And on that issue, the essentially reactionary nature of the Religious Right becomes a hindrance, not a help. That is, the same traditionalism that inspired conservative Catholics and Protestants to oppose communistic experimentation now inspires them to oppose scientific experimentation. To be sure, humane balance is needed between Mary Baker Eddy and Dr. Frankenstein. But right now, the Religious Right isn't interested in balancing medical progress and bioethics; instead, conservatives aim to stymie medical progress in the name of Biblical ethics. Thus the paradox: the Religious Rightists who bulked up the anti-communist movement, who helped the Republican Party achieve majority status, have now become the major obstacle to saving and improving lives. And that's not only bad for America, that's bad politics for the GOP.
And the key issue in biotech today is stem-cell research. Even a cursory glance at headlines -- "Muscular Dystrophy Might Be Treatable: Stem-cell research yields hopeful signs" (Newsday, July 15); "Stem cells enable paralysed rats to walk" (New Scientist, July 3) -- shows how vital stem-cell research is to the hopes of millions, even billions. So it is no surprise that the New England Journal of Medicine has fired an editorial salvo; the editors all pledge to "do our part" to promote stem cell research.
Yet for the most part, conservative Christians oppose this research; they have been seeking to ban it for years now. By contrast, Brights, given their greater scientific orientation, are much more inclined to support such research. Meanwhile, born-again President Bush is an ally of the anti-stem-cellers; he has done what he can to restrict such research by administrative fiat, and he supports even more restrictive legislation. So it would seem like a sure thing that stem-cell research would get squashed. But it hasn't happened. Interestingly, one leading supporter of stem cell research is Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania. One wonders if he might not be a closet Bright. And one wonders if a Republican Party with more Specter types at the helm wouldn't attract the support of a lot of other scientific progressives, including, maybe, some quiet Brights defecting from the Democrats.
But even now, many of the leading intellectuals in the conservative and libertarian movement have not really come to grips with the stem cell issue. To be sure, there have been other issues on people's minds for the past two years, but the stem cell issue will only get bigger, as the potential medical gains get bigger -- and thus the opportunity cost of forgoing those gains. Which is to say, it's time for the old coalition to rethink its partners, and its platform.
The Fusion Right won the Cold War because of the alliance between The Wealth of Nations and the Bible. Fine. But now, in laboratories and clinics, a new chilly struggle is coming, between pro- and anti-stem cellers.
This time, the Brightish forces associated with the pro-science side can't even be remotely linked to gulags, because there are no gulags -- and barely any socialists. But even so, the anti-science non-Brights can still summon up much of the old anti-communist coalition, in the form of the Republican Party.
It's time for that alliance to change, for the simple reason that the issues have changed. It may be too much to ask the Grand Old Party to embrace the Brights, but at least it ought to be bright enough to stop blocking medical progress. If the GOP fails to change, then the Democrats get the stem cell issue to themselves -- and all the scientific cachet, and business cash -- that comes with being on the winning side of scientific history. Following Dennett and Willett's terminology, an anti-science GOP will have a dull future indeed. |
See also:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-072203A
|
Comments
|
The Conservative's PlayBook For Gaining Absolute Power |
by Bill Sizemore
bill (nospam) otu.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 3
23 Jul 2003
|
ARE CONSERVATIVES WINNING OR LOSING?
Bill Sizemore, NewsWithViews.com, July 19, 2003
...For nearly 50 years, liberal Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Conservatives were routinely clobbered by the superior numbers of those espousing the liberal philosophy. Today, however, REPUBLICANS CONTROL both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, as well as the presidency. An entire generation of conservatives has never experienced such a phenomenon.
So. imagine how the liberals must be feeling about such a dramatic turn of events. Remember an entire generation of liberals also has never experienced a Republican House, Senate, and presidency. And they are in SHOCK.
On the other hand, however, it is not all rosy for conservatives. Republicans are in control alright, but they are doing such a lousy job of controlling spending and are doing such a great job of compromising with the liberals that many conservatives are wondering if it is even worth the effort to work for and support Republicans. I've wondered that more than once myself. But let’s look at the part of the glass that is half full.
Al Gore is not President. Al Gore is not sitting in the Oval Office vetoing conservative bills passed by Congress, like tax cuts and elimination of the estate tax. Al Gore is not the one standing before joint sessions of Congress and giving state of the nation speeches outlining his liberal prescription for stimulating the economy. We don't have President Gore lobbying the Senate for ratification of the KYOTO TREATY and throwing our economy into the dark ages. Be glad that the Bush administration is not focusing its attention and resources on some FOOLHARDY war to stop GLOBAL WARMING. Gore would be.
Yes, the glass is half empty, but it's half full. Conservatives should be discouraged by recent Supreme Court decisions regarding AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and GAY RIGHTS, but the news from the court isn’t all bad. For example, both decisions were both close. A small shift on the court could turn things around entirely.
More encouragingly, the candidates President Bush has nominated for the FEDERAL BENCH have been for the most part the kinds of strict constitutional constructionists that conservatives have been asking for. This bodes well for the future. We could be looking at eight years of Al Gore appointees; judges that would only reinforce the liberal bent of the judiciary for the next decade or two, but we're not. Things indeed could be worse. There is actually cause for hope.
Not only is there hope of turning the judiciary around, but also consider the progress conservatives have made in the MEDIA. For decades, conservatives have complained about the stranglehold liberals have held on the media. Today, the major networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC, the bastions of liberal bias, collectively have suffered greatly diminished market share; reaching a much smaller share of the American people with their bias. And the New York Times, another liberal stronghold has recently lost a tremendous amount of clout and credibility. ...Meanwhile, FOX NEWS, the INTERNET, and TALK RADIO offer serious competition for the traditional liberal propaganda machines.
...Let’s go back to the Bush administration for a moment. Yes, conservatives could be discouraged that the Bush tax cuts were not as big as we wished. But they were BUSH TAX CUTS, not Gore tax increases. The movement towards lower taxes, albeit small, is in the right direction. And how can conservatives not be encouraged that both the estate tax and the marriage penalty are on the way out. Thank you, President Bush and Republican Congress.
Should conservatives be upset that for political purposes Bush is trying so hard to be seen as a compassionate conservative that he failed to CONDEMN the Supreme Courts MISGUIDED decision on affirmative action; and has even lobbied for some of the social programs that the Democrats want? Of course. And we should let him know about it.
Don't misunderstand, I don’t want to make excuses for the president’s failures, but let’s put things into perspective. We conservatives tend to be purists. We want a conservative country with low taxes and a more limited government, and we want it now. That vision puts the fire in our bellies. But that’s also part of the reason we lost for so many years ... that's not the way to win a CULTURAL WAR.
Have we forgotten that we got into this mess one step at a time. Remember, it took the liberals more than fifty years to create the SEMI-SOCIALIST government under which we subsist today. It took fifty years to get into this mess, but we expect Bush in two or three years to turn the ship of state, which has every bit the momentum of an oil tanker traveling across the ocean at full steam, a full 180 degrees. It doesn’t work that way.
...In the world of politics, radical change it is not always a realistic option. It is a political reality that it is the SWING VOTERS, the apolitical ones in the middle, who decide most elections, not the true believers on the left and the right. Those voters in the middle are afraid of EXTREMES. They are frightened by sudden or radical movements in either direction, to the right or the left. Any effort to move the country too quickly in either direction will cause them to move the opposite way.
For that reason, President Bush may be wise to take smaller, measured steps. Are his steps too small or too measured? Perhaps.
In many ways, however, the Bush administration is merely a reflection of the times in which we live. Remember, George W. Bush became the president of the United States in an election decided by a margin that was as narrow as a gnat’s eyelash. Remember, he actually LOST the popular vote.
...Conservatives have indeed made great strides in recent years, but we have not yet overwhelmingly won the hearts and minds of the American people. Most CITY DWELLERS, for example, and they are many, are still very much addicted to finding government solutions for every problem. For them, the concept of individual responsibility is ENTIRELY FORIEGN to their everyday thinking and overall worldview. To them, every bum, dropout, and criminal is a victim and worthy of a HANDOUT at taxpayer expense.
Most of those folks are going to vote in the next election. Bush knows it and Bush’s advisors know it. Those moderate and liberal URBAN VOTERS almost defeated Bush in November of 2000 and if he is not careful, they will get him next time and we will have a Gore or Gore clone in the White House.
...When we look at the big picture, however, we see that conservatives have made great strides in recent years. We have gone from way behind to maybe a little bit ahead. This is hardly the time to give up. This is the time rather to push harder than ever before. The tide is moving. Momentum is shifting to our side...
Do not judge where we are today by the victory or loss of the moment. Look at the trend. See the shift in momentum. And remember, it is not necessary that we score a touchdown today. It is only necessary that the ball be advanced, one yard at a time, down the field in the direction we want it to move. As long as that is happening, we're winning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sizemore is a registered Independent who works as executive director of the Oregon Taxpayers Union as a self-described "Anti-tax activist." Bill was the Republican candidate for governor of Oregon in 1998 where he and his family live on 36 rural acres. Bill was raised in the logging communities of the Olympic Peninsula of Washington state and is a graduate of Portland Bible College where he taught for two years. |
See also:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Bill/sizemore6.htm
|
|
Anti-Tax Conservative Guilty Of Defrauding The Public |
by William McCall
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
23 Jul 2003
|
JUDGE JUNKS SIZEMORE'S FOUNDATION
William McCall, Associated Press, May 1, 2003
PORTLAND - In a sharply worded ruling, a judge on Wednesday effectively dried up the main source of funding for Bill Sizemore's decade-long career as Oregon's most prominent TAX ACTIVIST by shutting down a "SHAM" charity that Sizemore used "for his own financial gain."
Multnomah County Circuit Judge Jerome LaBarre said Sizemore "acted in concert with and CONSPIRED with" the Oregon Taxpayers United Education Foundation to ILLEGALLY FUNNEL MONEY money from the foundation into the initiative petition-gathering efforts of a political action committee and a PRIVATE CORPORATION Sizemore created.
Sizemore, who was not in court to hear the ruling, later said he plans to continue his work as a tax activist.
"We're still free to raise money and collect signatures and put measures on the ballot," Sizemore said. "Even this judge recognizes there is still a First Amendment."
His attorney, Greg Byrne, said Sizemore would appeal.
"This is no surprise considering the judge's previous rulings," Byrne said. "But this is a case that should never have been tried in the first place."
Sizemore founded Oregon Taxpayers United in the early 1990s to draft anti-tax ballot measures that have appealed to voters but pitted him against LABOR UNIONS- who helped bring about his downfall with a RACKETERRING lawsuit that resulted in Wednesday's ruling.
The judge expanded a $2.5 MILLION jury verdict against Oregon Taxpayers United last September by ruling that "Bill Sizemore was actively involved in the WRONGDOING which occurred."
The jury found the education foundation and the PAC guilty of FRAUD and FORGERY, and determined Oregon Taxpayers United engaged in a pattern of racketeering to obtain signatures on initiative petitions for tax measures.
The jury also found the foundation and the committee filed FALSE campaign finance and tax reports.
Sizemore had insisted at his trial that sloppy record-keeping was to blame for mingling contributions to the education foundation - which qualified as a charity - with the PAC.
But LaBarre ruled that "he large amounts of money which were donated to the CHARITY by his supporters were SECRETLY funneled to the PAC and to Mr. Sizemore's corporation, I&R Petition Services, in order to serve Mr. Sizemore's own personal and political goals."
"In effect, Bill Sizemore ran a sham charity," LaBarre said.
LaBarre DISSOLVED the education foundation Wednesday and also issued an injunction preventing Sizemore from organizing any similar charity "to avoid the type of racketeering violations which have occurred in this case."
The judge also BLOCKED the PAC from receiving any donations for the next five years from any similar charity or tax-exempt organizations defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The ruling, in addition, prevents the Oregon Taxpayers United Education Foundation and the PAC from doing business with I&R Petition Services for the next five years or from transferring any assets until the $2.5 million jury award is satisfied.
Kris Kain, president of the Oregon Education Association, called the ruling "a great day for Oregonians."
She said Sizemore had a "negative impact" on public education with various tax cut measures and a measure to tie teacher pay to student performance. "He misused the initiative process, and the things he did try to get on the ballot were just appalling," Kain said.
Asked whether the ruling could end Sizemore's political career, Byrne said it was certainly a serious setback.
"But he's not going to allow this judgment to silence him politically," Byrne said.
Byrne had claimed that the Oregon Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, which filed the racketeering lawsuit that led to the ruling, were targeting Sizemore for his ANTI-UNION ballot measures and violating his constitutional right to free speech.
Gene Mechanic, an attorney for the teachers' unions, called that claim "outrageous."
"This case was not about trying to suppress Mr. Sizemore's speech or his involvement in politics - he should be allowed to do that," Mechanic said. "But if he is going to be involved, he must play by the rules - and for years he abused the process."
See: http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/05/01/a1.sizemore.0501.html |
|
Surprising Backlash To FCC's Libertarian Ruling |
by Sean Higgins
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
23 Jul 2003
|
House Votes To Reverse TV Cap In Stinging Rebuke Of The FCC
Sean Higgins, Investor's Business Daily, July 24, 2003
In an extraordinary rebuke of the Federal Communications Commission, the House voted 400-21 Wednesday to block a recent FCC ruling on media ownership. A similar effort is gathering momentum in the Senate. The House's actions will likely boost it.
The rollback effort has prompted a veto threat from the White House. It may turn into a real showdown, lawmakers say. "It could drop on the president's desk," said Rep. Paul Gillmor, R-Ohio, who favors the rollback. Support may even be strong enough to override a veto, he says.
Backlash Was Unexpected
This situation was scarcely imaginable when the FCC voted 3-2 on June 2 to let broadcasters own enough TV stations to reach 45% of U.S. households. The old cap was 35%. Though controversial, the FCC vote had the support of the White House and key congressional leaders. The major networks all strongly support the new rule.
But a bipartisan backlash has grown in Congress. It overwhelmed the GOP leadership, which lost almost the entire caucus in the vote. The reason is that many lawmakers are personally worried about the effects of the FCC's 45% rule.
By necessity, these lawmakers are close to their local media, since it is a key means for them to talk to constituents. Many fear what may happen if a large corporation absorbs those local news outlets. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said the FCC would allow "Citizen Kane to look like an underachiever," referring to the classic film about a power-hungry media mogul. Many Republicans echo that argument.
"It's just the fact that the trend toward concentration is so strong," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a moderate. Advocacy groups lobbying Congress for a rollback have pushed this angle hard. It has strong appeal to lawmakers angry over the coverage they get from chain-owned newspapers or TV stations.
"Many members of Congress have had their own bad experiences with media consolidation," said Liz Rose, spokeswoman for the Consumers Union. "This isn't just a liberal thing." Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., agrees. The former Senate majority leader said he was worried the change might let a Viacom, which owns CBS News, crowd out News Corp., which owns Fox News.
That's why conservative groups like the National Rifle Association have joined in. Their presence has helped win over Republicans. "Only of late have conservatives had a voice in the media," said Lott. The FCC's ruling could threaten that, he says.
It's a far cry from the concerns FCC Chairman Michael Powell used to justify the 45% ruling. He said lifting the cap was needed to help broadcast media compete in today's media marketplace. Diversity, he said, would not be threatened.
"We are confident in our decision," Powell said in a Wednesday statement. "It would be irresponsible to ignore the diversity of viewpoints provided by cable, satellite and the Internet." His press release cited FCC research suggesting that none of the major networks would expand too far beyond the old 35% limit.
Wednesday's vote was only the latest frustration to hit the FCC chairman, who is an appointee of President Bush and the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell. The original 3-2 vote prompted a barrage of criticism. The commission's two Democratic members mounted an unprecedented public campaign against it.
Last February, Michael Powell lost a high-profile FCC vote on telecom policy when a Republican voted with the Democratic minority. Activist groups and lawmakers say Powell's libertarian instincts are out of step with the demands of the job. To them, he's too passive. "His philosophy is that of Pontius Pilate," said Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center. "He just washes his hands of everything."
Others say anybody would have a hard time navigating the changing media environment. "He's in an impossible position," said one lobbyist, noting that Powell has had to deal with a number of difficult issues. Earlier this week, the FCC shot down media reports that Powell would leave in the fall. It declined to comment on Wednesday's vote.
The rollback effort still has a ways to go. The Senate must pass a similar bill and then reconcile it with the House's bill. House GOP leaders have vowed to return to the 45% limit during that process. But the pro-rollback forces have proved to be clever and persistent. They put their provision in the Commerce Department's budget, letting them bypass the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has official jurisdiction over the FCC.
That was necessary because Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La., supports the 45% limit and vowed not to let the rollback pass. On Tuesday, the House defeated an amendment that would have rolled back other FCC media rules. Supporters voted to kill it, worried about galvanizing the opposition. |
See also:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/general.asp?v=7/23
|
|
