Media ownership - how our Reps voted

http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=422

The bill passed 400-21.

A YES vote is what we need to block these rules.

These people voted NO:
Akin (MO)
Hensarling (TX)
Pence (IN)
Costello (IL)
Jones (NC)
Royce (CA)
Duncan (NY)
McCarthy (NY)
Tancredo (CO)
Flake (AZ)
McInnis (CO)
Tauzin (LA)
Franks (AZ)
Musgrave (CO)
Taylor (MS)
Green (WI)
Oxley (OH)
Udall (CO)
Hefley (CO)
Paul (TX)
Van Hollen (MD)

These people DID NOT VOTE:
Berkley (NV)
Gephardt (MO)
Pryce (OH)
Bishop (UT)
Gutknecht (MN)
Sullivan (OK)
Emerson (MO)
Kennedy (RI)
Walsh (NY)
Ferguson (NJ)
Lewis (GA)
Ford (TN)
Norwood (GA)

Everyone else voted YES.

this was a vote on the overall bill containing the provision that tossed the rules. No separate vote on the rules was held.

Of the 21 who voted no, 5 are from Colorado.

Anyone know why Colorado is so opposed to this?

I'm so sick of living in Colorado... biggest repug nutstate in the nation, if you ask me. Not even the south and Texas have anything on Colorado anymore, and never will since the gerrymander actually worked. I live in the district of Tancredo, the biggest fuckpig of them all (though Musgrave has certainly given him a run for the money with her proposed marriage amendment).

Clear Channel owns a larger percentage of stations in Denver than any other city around the US. Radio in Denver just flat-out sucks. With only classical and NPR excluded, I have a motto: "My car can't start without a CD in the CD player."

I can't wait until the people of this state wake up, but with Fuckus (aka, Focus on the Family) holding an iron grip on the state, and with the most damaging repug governor west of Florida, I don't think it'll ever happen.

how disgusting, even Mark Udall (D-From Boulder) voted NO. When I phoned his office, they said it was because he would have lost funding, but really wanted it overturned. Lame excuse IMO.

Does he not know how important it is to have freedom of the airwaves?

nt

n/t

Cause I don't see any of the Alabama delegation there.
Not even the repugs.

My Rep (McCarthy D-NY) voted NO.

I have some phone calls to make...

:mad:

Boehlert(r)

My question is what is in it for the congress. They voted along party lines in the FCC to get this done, now they are voting bipartisan to overturn it. Something is up besides the rent. What was the full text of the bill?

when I saw that my rep voted "yes", as well! Beauprez (R) was the ONLY Colorado repub out of 5 to vote yes - the two dems split with one voting no and one voting yes. I had written Beauprez previously on this issue and in his response, he said he would oppose any efforts by the FCC to weaken the restrictions that limit a single corporation from dominating any local media market. I don't believe there has been even one single issue prior to this on which he and I have seen eye to eye, so I had to call his office to thank him on this one. Ol' Billy Bob Thornton gained some respect from me when I learned of his vote, (Ever seen him? That's exactly who he looks like!) ... he voted against party lines in his state and he was true to his word. (I'm sure he'll piss me off again here real soon, though ... ! LOL)

jamesinca, In response to your question, as the vote was part of a decision to approve a bill funding the Commerce, Justice and State departments, here is the portion of the text specific to this issue:

______________________________


7/22/2003 4:06pm:

H.AMDT.289 Amendment (A004) offered by Mr. Hinchey. (consideration: CR H7278-7284, H7284-7288, H7298-7299; text: CR H7278)
An amendment to prohibit any funds in the bill for the Federal Communications Commission to implement part of its recent ruling which would allow ownership of a newspaper and radio or television station in the same market. The amendment would prohibit the use of funds for the granting of a radio or television broadcast station license if the owner also directly or indirectly owns, operates or controls a daily newspaper in the same region, or, with certain exceptions, the granting of the license would result in the party controlling two television stations in the same Designated Market Area.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR02799:@@@S

______________________________