Does the FCC's failure to fine Limbaugh represent regulatory capture?

[onenote]

34. The FCC isn't failing to "enforce" the FD. The FD doesn't exist anymore

Before the FCC could enforce the FD, it would have to conduct a rulemaking proceeding (and survive the inevitable court challenge which, given the current make up of the SCt would almost certainly result in the reinstated rules being tossed out --not that I would necessarily agree with that decision, just being realistic about the likely outcome).

But the FCC can't "enforce" something that doesn't exist as part of its rules anymore.

Returning to the "regulatory capture" notion -- it may well be that the repeal of the license in 1987 (after essentially being directed to do so by the Court of Appeals) may reflect "regulatory capture"; however, its hardly clear cut in that the groups supporting the repeal of the FD was not monolithic. For example, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press was a major advocate of repeal.

Finally, even if the FD was in place, it certainly would not allow the FCC to silence limpy -- that would be the very "censorship" the Communications Act has barred the FCC from engaging in since 1934. Rather, the FCC could at most fine (or, in theory,revoke the license of) the stations carrying limipy on the grounds that they failed to provide a "reasonable opportunity" for the discussion of views that conflict with limpy's. Whether the FCC could/would make the necessary finding to support such action is an open question that would depend on what coverage each station carrying limpy gives or hasn't given to views counter to those espoused by limpy. It doesn't have to be a one-to-one ratio in terms of the amount of time given to each "side." More likely, if the FCC found that there was such disproportionate coverage given to views on issues of public importance that run counter to those expressed by limpy, it would essentially give the station an opportunity to clean up its act by providing more (again, not necessarily "equal&quot time to conflicting viewpoints.