You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech — which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

Limbaugh goes on to point out that there are more than 2000 talk radio stations in the US. He also calls on President Obama not to misuse Government funding to silence free pseech.

I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.

Demint argues that while President Obama has come out against the Doctrine, many Democrats still support similar legislation. Info here and here.

President Barack Obama is opposed to any move to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, spokesman Ben LaBolt said Wednesday.

But as Sen. DeMint notes in a statement, some Democrats in Congress have indicated that they would support a reinstatement.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, asked in a recent interview if she favored reinstatement, said: “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.”

Back in June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by John Gizzi of Human Events if she personally supported the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, and she declared: “Yes.”

As recently as last week, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said in an interview: “We need the Fairness Doctrine back.”

Sen. DeMint stated: “I’m glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio, but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it.

“With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?”

Allahpundit of HotAir.com opines with his usual vigor and wit. He also invites, perhaps goads, Doctrine opponents to express themselves and their support for the Broadcaster Freedom Act by contacting the SC Senator.

If you want to say thanks, here’s your chance. Better yet, use the opportunity to urge him to make sure “localism” is covered in his amendment. The Democrats aren’t stupid; when they try to reinstate Fairness, it won’t be called Fairness. Raising public awareness means, first and foremost, calling attention to the backdoor means of reintroducing the doctrine. If it’s done, it’ll be done by stealth, not by The One ramming it down our throats.

Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the “Fairness Doctrine” without actually calling it such.

Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. “It’s all about diversity in media,” says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. “Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them.”

Co-host Mac Watson asked Carter, “Do you think the Fairness Doctrine is something that should be brought back in the 21st century? This is something that came out in the ’30s — should there be a place for the Fairness Doctrine?”

Carter responded, “Well, I liked it when it first came out, because I was just a child listening to programs, and I liked to hear some limits on some of the programs. But no. As a matter of fact, when I was president is when we deregulated radio, television, all the communications and relationships, so I have not been in favor of perpetuating the Fairness Doctrine since I’ve been in politics.”

President Obama said last week that he is considering lifting the ban on photographs and videos at Dover, in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, raising fundamental questions about the impact of such images on the public morale in wartime.

For Obama, changing the policy would carry some political risk as he ramps up the war effort in Afghanistan with tens of thousands of fresh troops, increasing the likelihood of combat deaths that could produce photographs of numerous coffins arriving at one time at Dover, the sole U.S. port of entry for the remains. At the same time, Obama has advocated transparency in government, and continuing to hide the Dover ritual from public view conflicts with that principle as well as with public opinion on the issue, polls indicate.

“Showing these pictures would remind people of the war,” said S. Robert Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University. But he added that “what turns people against a war is not knowledge that Americans are dying but the belief that they are not dying for something” worthwhile.

A majority of Americans favor allowing the public to see pictures of the military honor guard receiving the war dead at Dover, with about 60 percent responding positively and a third answering negatively in polls posing the question in 1991 and 2004.

Second biggest laugh: Press won’t apply the Fairness Doctrine to NPR. He wants government dictating content to commercial radio stations, but not to government-subsidized radio stations. Huh?

Biggest laugh: Press says he doesn’t want the Fairness Doctrine, but the “Fair and Balanced Doctrine”. That’s why libtalker marketing needs government intervention to survive. I’ll stick with the free market, thank you.

But 51% say it is at least somewhat likely that the Democratic-controlled Congress will restore the Fairness Doctrine, which requires holders of broadcast licenses to present balanced political coverage of important issues, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission. Fourteen percent (14%) believe it is Very Likely.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) say Congress is unlikely to restore the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC abolished in 1987, arguing that it was unconstitutional and no longer necessary given the variety of media outlets available to Americans. Six percent (6%) say it is not at all likely to be restored.

Rassmussen Reports breaks it down for us:

There are many different stats parsed from the survey. But here’s a sampling:

Democrats are more supportive of government involvement in the airwaves than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats favor it, and only 26% are opposed. Republicans and unaffiliated voters are fairly evenly divided.

Even Democrats say hands-off the Internet though but by a far smaller margin than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.

Only 45% of Americans say they are following recent news stories about the Fairness Doctrine even somewhat closely, while 15% say they are not following the story at all.

Democrats have been pushing the Fairness Doctrine in part because of the long-standing complaint by liberals that conservatives dominate talk radio. Conservatives counter that their political foes are just trying to use the government to push liberal talk radio even though it has been rejected by the marketplace.

In the new survey, 42% say there are more conservative radio talk shows because they get better ratings, but 28% believe it is because stations owners are biased. Seventeen percent (17%) attribute it to an unspecified other reason, and 13% are unsure.

Most Republicans (61%) believe conservative talk radio has flourished because of the ratings, with only 11% saying it is due to bias. Democrats, on the other hand, see bias as the reason over ratings by a 42% to 28% margin. Among unaffiliateds, 42% say ratings and 27% say bias.

It seems to be a foregone conclusion that America is about elect its first Black President. The ubiquitous “Hope and Change” mantra is ambitious in its reach. One change that may raise some hackles is the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.

Brian Anderson notes, “the language of “fairness” is seductive. Many Americans seem to agree.

A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer “equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary,” with 39 percent opposed.

Anderson further notes that there would be a certain struggle involved in this resurgance of imposed restrictions on commercial free speech. Obviously, talk radio heavies would feel he hit. However there are many other issues to be considered.

He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters’ public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater “local accountability” on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It’s a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.

Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.

It’s worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children’s programming.