This is regarding legislation currently before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." This legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993," is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. This seems to be a version of the Communications Act of 1934, which called for stations to offer ”equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates running for office. A bill to make the Fairness Doctrine law was passed by Congress during the Reagan administration and was promptly vetoed by the President. 

The Fairness Doctrine has been strongly opposed by prominet conservatives such as Laura Ingraham who view it as an attempt to regulate free speech on the airwaves.

This outlandish bill is being put forward again.   Senators, Richard Durbin and John Kerry support the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine also known as the "Media Ownership Reform Act" or MORA. Speaker, Nancy Pelosi also supports a renewal of the Fairness Doctrine. In fact she has stated that she will not let Rep. Mike Pence's Broadcaster Freedom Act", which prohibits the Fairness Doctrine, see the floor of the 2008 Congress. (How can she have this kind of power?)

            In truth, isn’t the Fairness Doctrine much like Affirmative Action? Doesn’t this indicate that left wing or liberal broadcasting cannot stand on its own merit but must disalow conservative views and replace them with a liberal perspective?   Those wishing to offer a contrasting viewpoint should win sponsors and buy broadcasting time. To force broadcasters to give equal time does not indicate fairness by any stretch of the imagination and, in fact, seems to restrict the journalistic freedom of broadcasters to the detriment of the public. It is also suggested that the doctrine be considered a violation of the First Amendments rights of free speech and a free press.

This should alarm any congressperson enough to investigate this act thoroughly and to send a resounding no when the bill is brought to a vote.