2012 Candidates for President

Select an Issue and Scroll the Candidates

Abortion

The Economy

Health Care

Debt, Deficit, and Spending

Immigration

Social Security

Energy and the Environment

Taxes

Gay Marriage

Trade Policy

The War in Afghanistan

TARP

Libya

Iran

The Federal Reserve

Israel

China

Education

Ethics

Cuba

Homeland Security

Illegal Drugs

Monetary Policy

NASA

Net Neutrality

North Korea

Nuclear Weapons

Quantitative Easing

Stem Cell Research

Supreme Court Justices

TARP and GM

The Constitution

The Fairness Doctrine

The Filibuster

The Paul Ryan Plan

The Second Amendment

The Stimulus

The Tenth Amendment

The War in Afghanistan

The War in Iraq

Unions

Welfare and Unemployment

Ron Paul

Congressman Paul opposes the fairness doctrine. He has co-sponsored legislation that would prevent the reinstatement of the provision.

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

Session-111; Bill Number-H R 226; Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 - Cosponsor

Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), notwithstanding any other provision of any Act, from having the authority to require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the Fairness Doctrine.

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 2905; Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 - Cosponsor

To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

Michele Bachmann

Summary

Congresswoman Bachmann is opposed to any reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. In 2009, she stated that the measure was an effort to promote liberal talk radio in the wake of failed attempts to create left talk radio stations, and referred to the practice as ridiculous.

Congresswoman Bachmann has co-sponsored the Broadcaster Freedom Act each session that she has been in Congress. This legislation would prevent the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine.

Reviving the Fairness Doctrine

In August of 2009, Congresswoman Bachmann wrote an opinion article that spoke about attempts to revive the fairness doctrine and her opposition to such a measure.

Reviving the Fairness Doctrine
8/17/2009
One of the issues being overshadowed by the administration's massive deficit spending, cap-and-trade energy tax, and government take-over of our health care system is the effort to diminish freedom of speech on the airwaves by reviving the Fairness Doctrine.
In contrast to its name, the Fairness Doctrine would effectively ensure that the liberal viewpoint is promoted on the air to give a "fair and balanced" take on important issues of the day. It's a ridiculous notion, as today we are blessed with a myriad of news outlets and formats: cable news, the internet, and satellite radio, to name a few. If you don't like what you're hearing and find it biased, you can change the station and you will surely find something to your liking. What the Fairness Doctrine is about is the popularity of conservative talk radio.
The Heritage Foundation points out that "in such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as 'unbalanced' views." The Fairness Doctrine was shelved in the 1980s.
Yet, sadly, the revival of the Fairness Doctrine is a very real possibility – particularly with this Administration.
In fact, Mark Lloyd, a former senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, has been appointed as “Chief Diversity Officer” of the FCC. It's been reported that "Lloyd is a vocal proponent of the Fairness Doctrine and recently wrote that the Doctrine, and other regulatory tools such as localism and diversity mandates, should be employed by the FCC to limit the number of conservative voices on the air and supplant them with liberal voices. He also suggests fining conservative radio stations up to $250 million and giving the proceeds to national public radio."
Now, Mr. Lloyd is in a position to make his ideas into policy. Clearly, while this issue has taken a backseat in the headlines, it remains alive and well.
To learn more about the dangers of the Fairness Doctrine, check out "Don't Touch My Dial," a website and coalition set up by several radio show hosts to counter censorship efforts by the FCC.

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

Session-112; Bill Number-H R 642; Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2011 - Cosponsor

Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from having the authority to require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the Fairness Doctrine.

Session-111; Bill Number-H R 226; Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 - Cosponsor

Session-110; Bill Number-H R 2905; Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 - Cosponsor

To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

Herman Cain

Summary

As a former radion talk show host, Herman Cain strongly opposes any possible reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. He has referred to it as “The Censorship Doctrine”. He states that the Democrats believe conservative talk radio has gained too much influence over how the public thinks.

EFCA and the Fairness Doctrine

In November of 2008, Herman Cain wrote an article discussing the Employee Free Choice Act and the Fairness Doctrine.

November 24, 2008
Employee Free Choice? Fairness Doctrine? Most Absurd Names Ever
The “Employee Free Choice Act” is an insult to anyone with an IQ greater than zero. Let me get this straight: Take away a worker’s right to cast a secret ballot for labor union elections and that’s free choice. That’s just plain stupid, which is also what the Democratic leaders in Congress think of the voters who elected them.
The union bosses want to replace the secret ballot with a “card check” system, so the union officials can see how people voted as they collect the cards. I think that’s called open intimidation, but they probably have a cutesy name for that also.
If a worker votes to not unionize, the union officials would be able to let all the other workers know who voted against unionizing. This would allow pro-union workers to harass other workers on the job until they changed their vote the next time around, or until they quit.
How can it be all right to vote with secret ballots when we vote for public officials, but not when the unions want to unionize a business? How can it be all right for our country to encourage the rest of the world to use secret ballots for their elections, but for the unions be exempt from this practice, which started with the founding of this nation?
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was asked these questions recently on Fox News, and this was his response: “The percentage of union workers has dropped from 25 percent of the workforce to 6 percent of the workforce, because employers have gained too much power.”
I am not making this up.
Sen. Schumer and the Democrats cannot conceive of the fact that maybe a lot of employers are doing something right, and their workers are happy. So they want to increase the power of the unions by intimidating the workers to unionize.
That’s not democracy. That’s communism, except in communism the workers don’t even bother to vote.
Here’s another cutesy gem of Democratic deception. It’s called “The Fairness Doctrine”. A more accurate name would be “The Censorship Doctrine”. The anti-free-speech Democrats believe conservative talk radio has gained too much influence over how the public thinks. Too many people are thinking for themselves with facts and better information, and the Democrats do not like that.
Democrats do not want people to think at all. Just do as they say.
Since the Democrats won the White House and a larger majority in both houses of Congress, one might wonder why they would want to pass these two silencing laws. I offer two possibilities.
First, it is partial payback to the labor unions for their unwavering, consistent and solid support of Democratic candidates at all levels of government. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want to oblige the unions even if the payback stabs the American people in the back.
Second, if the Republicans ever recover from their political crash landing and present state of wandering in the wilderness, then these two stupid bills would make it harder for Republicans to regain control of Congress and the White House.
Therefore, keep the public intimidated, uninformed and in the dark, and the Democrats might be able to keep control indefinitely.
Oh yeah. Don’t forget to throw some manure to the people every once in a while. Just like mushrooms, it helps them to survive in the dark.
What a brilliant strategy with two stupid ideas!