The Fairness Doctrine is a “ghost that doesn’t exist” and neither Democrats nor Republicans are interested in seeing it restored, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning.

“The Fairness Doctrine – what a ghost that doesn’t exist,” said Reid. “None of us want to go back to the way it was before. It is an issue they brought up to talk about. No one wants to re-establish the Fairness Doctrine – Democrats or Republicans.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday that she supports an amendment to a Senate bill that would force the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.”

The amendment’s language is viewed by many media experts as a means to regulate conservative talk radio, particularly popular programs such as the Rush Limbaugh Show and the Mark Hannity Show, among many others.

Note Congressman Pence’s response:
“It’s clear to me that Democrats, having failed in their frontal assault on talk radio in America through the Fairness Doctrine, are now shifting strategy to a form of regulation that is essentially the Fairness Doctrine by stealth,” Pence said. He added that he is not surprised Pelosi has endorsed Durbin’s plan.

“It should come as little surprise that Speaker Pelosi, who openly supports returning the Fairness Doctrine to the airwaves of American, would support a new version of it,” Pence told CNSNews.com.

The American people love a fair fight and so do I, especially where the issues of the day are debated. In a free market, fairness should be determined based upon equality of opportunity, rather than equality of results. Some voices are calling for Congress to enforce their idea of “fairness” on our broadcast airwaves. But our nation should proceed with caution whenever some would achieve their “fairness” by limiting the freedom of others.

The so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is an Orwellian Federal Communications Commission rule that beginning in 1949 required radio and television broadcasters to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner. But there's nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. To avoid administrative costs and hours of paperwork and legal fees, broadcasters opted to offer noncontroversial programming. As a result, talk radio, as we know it today, simply did not exist.

Putting unelected FCC bureaucrats back in charge of rationing free speech would be dangerous to democracy in America. The free marketplace of ideas – not a government bureaucracy – should determine the content of broadcast media. As a former radio talk show host, I know what the reinstatement of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ would mean – effectively muzzling American talk radio.

Recognizing the chilling effect that the regulation was having on broadcast freedom, the FCC began to revoke the Fairness Doctrine in 1985. The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.” That statement is just as true today as it was then. Following repeal of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and President Reagan’s veto of attempts to reinstate it, the results have been dramatic.

The lifting of the Fairness Doctrine opened the public airwaves to a free and vigorous discussion of controversial issues that never existed before its repeal. When Rush Limbaugh began his legendary career, there were 125 talk radio stations in America. Today, there are 2,000. While Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and other conservative giants dominate the national syndicated market, many moderate and liberal programs succeed admirably at the local level.

Sadly, some of the most powerful elected Democrats in America have said that Congress should bring back this outright censorship of the American political debate. Should the liberals succeed in their effort to reimpose the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ or anything like it they will inflict great damage on the First Amendment and send talk show hosts—left, right and center—packing. Freedom of speech and of the press are cherished pillars of our society and nowhere would their loss be more keenly felt than on our airwaves.

During my years in radio and television, I developed a great respect for a free and independent press. Since being in Congress, I have been the recipient of praise and criticism from broadcast media, but it has not changed my fundamental belief that a free and independent press must be vigorously defended by those who love liberty lest the frank and informative discussions now blossoming on the airwaves of America should one day fall silent.

Together with Congressman Greg Walden, I have authored the Broadcaster Freedom Act, a bill to make permanent the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by taking away the FCC’s power to reinstate it without an act of Congress.

If the Broadcaster Freedom Act is brought to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, we have every confidence it will pass, because when freedom gets an up-or-down vote in the People’s House, freedom always wins. 

The latter will achieve the Left's ultimate goal of shifting licenses away from networks who air conservative talk and toward minority owners who will broadcast liberal programming.

The new strategy came on several fronts:

First, the White House said President Obama has no plans to revive the Fairness Doctrine, a 1948 policy that required radio and TV users of the public airways to present contrasting views on important issues. President Ronald Reagan did away with the rule - which conservatives have taken to calling the "censorship doctrine" - as contrary to free speech.

Second, the man who now heads the commission that has the power to resurrect the doctrine -- acting Federal Communication Commission chairman Michael Copps -- said Feb. 11 that his top priority was to usher in more minority broadcast owners.

“Last week’s vote was the first nail in the coffin of the Fairness Doctrine, but it was not the end of the attempt on the part of liberals to regulate the airwaves,” Inhofe said.

“In a straight party-line vote, Democrats chose to adopt Senator Durbin’s amendment 591, which calls on the FCC to ‘encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest,’ and essentially makes an end-run around the Fairness Doctrine.

“This legislation is so incredibly vague and so potentially far-reaching that I can’t say with any certainty what the end result will be. This is not good governance and it is not good legislative practice to cede such authority to any agency of our government, especially when the right to speak freely over the airwaves will most certainly be impacted.

But again, the question remains, why? There is only one simple answer. By making Rush Limbaugh the target of their attacks, they have the ability to rally their political capital around the Fairness Doctrine, or elements of it. It can be the only reason why this battle against free speech has been waged. The timing is impeccable. It was only two weeks ago that Rush Limbaugh wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal asking the President to “keep the airwaves free.” Only days later, the White House was pulling together their official government muscle to silence him.

As has been documented here before, there is little question that one of the top priorities of Washington’s liberal leaders is to muzzle conservative and religious broadcasting. It is also well known that American public opinion tends to favor the first amendment and free speech, and oppose measures to limit it. The only opportunistic time for such a measure would be in the early days of a popular presidency. And the only way to make it palatable to the American people is to vilify a recognizable name of the opposition. Much like Senator Joe McCarthy needed Edward R. Murrow; David Plouffe needs Rush Limbaugh.

Although the Obama administration has said it is not inclined to support a new Fairness Doctrine.

But here's the reality: A new Fairness Doctrine, which could be imposed either by legislation or through FCC rule changes, wouldn't achieve more balance.

The campaign for more "diversity" in media ownership wouldn't kill Limbaugh, but it could kill the next Limbaugh before he or she has a chance to succeed.

And that is what this fight is about. Even though the issue under debate is media ownership, the real issue is content. Democrats want to change the political character of talk radio, and they intend to use their powers to make it happen.

Indeed, if those on the left worry their opinions -- and, perhaps just as important, their self-righteous and humorless manner -- have proved less popular with audiences than those of moderate Republicans such as Mr. Limbaugh, better to heed the judgment of the free market and inspect their message, rather than use the power of government to quash the opposition.

The Fairness Doctrine was a massive demonstration of unintended consequences when it was in effect. To go back to it today, when even the feeble excuse that limited TV and radio licenses "restricted what the public could hear" has long expired, would be absurd.

And it doesn't hurt for Congress to say so.

More information and past updates on the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' are available HERE.