Steve Moore, founder of the Club for Growth, and Cesar Conda, a former aide to Vice President Cheney, had an op-ed in today’s Washington Times endorsing FCC commissioner Kevin Martin to become the agency’s next chairman. Moore and Conda said that, with one exception, Martin has been the free market’s best friend on the FCC:
Many conservatives have opposed Mr. Martin because in 2003 he voted against Mr. Powell and with the Democrats on continuing the Gore-Hundt rules that forced the incumbent Bells to make the unbundled elements of their networks available to competitors at government-set prices. These deep-discount access fees undercut the profit incentive of Bells to invest in their networks and created an obstacle to last-mile broadband deployment to homes. We strongly opposed Mr. Martin’s stance on this issue.However, Mr. Martin has an impeccable free-enterprise pedigree, having worked with conservative heroes such as Judge Kenneth Starr and supply-sider Larry Lindsey. On all other issues than the Bell access decision on which he has taken tough stands, he has sided with free markets.
This argument is flawed, because mere association with “conservative heroes” does not make someone a free market advocate. Indeed, neither Judge Starr nor Mr. Lindsey—a former chair of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors—are entrepreneurs. They owe their reputations not to the free market, but to the growth of the state. Citing Judge Starr is particularly unconvincing, given his role in the Microsoft affair and other cases that have expanded the role of federal antitrust law. Commissioner Martin’s own official biography demonstrates that, like his “conservative heroes”, he is a politician, not an entrepreneur:
Before joining the FCC, Martin was a Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. He served on the Bush-Cheney Transition Team and was Deputy General Counsel for the Bush campaign. Prior to joining the campaign, Martin was an advisor to FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth. He has also served in the Office of the Independent Counsel and worked as an associate at the Washington, DC law firm of Wiley, Rein & Fielding. Before joining Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Martin was a judicial clerk for U.S. District Court Judge William M. Hoeveler, Miami, FL.
Moore and Conda also mislead readers when they state Martin’s only substantial departure from free market orthodoxy was his support for the left’s managed competition rules. There is also his support for the right’s censorship agenda. Here are some excerpts from Martin’s testimony before Congress in February 2004, just after Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction”:
The networks appear to be designing programs to “push the envelope” and the bounds of decency. At the FCC, we used to receive indecency complaints by the hundreds; now they come in by the hundreds of thousands. Consumers, particularly parents, are increasingly frustrated and, at times, outraged.. . .
For over a year, I have been calling on the Commission to aggressively enforce our statutory mandate against obscene, indecent and profane language. Our fines have been inadequate. We need to make the decision to air indecent or profane language a bad business decision. The Commission should levy higher fines by fining violators “per utterance,” not per program. I also strongly support the pending legislation to increase fines. We also should enforce the statutory prohibition against profanity, and respond to the hundreds of thousands of pending complaints. It doesn’t matter how tough our fining authority is if we don’t actually enforce the rules.
. . .
For over a year, I have been urging broadcasters to devote the first hour of prime time to family-friendly programs that parents and children could enjoy together. The Commission also should put out for comment Paxson Communications’s proposed voluntary Public Interest Code of Conduct, which includes the concept of a Family Hour.
. . .
With more than 85% of homes receiving their television programming from cable and satellite providers, we need a comprehensive solution. Over a year ago, I urged cable and satellite operators to help us address this issue. Thus far, there has been no response. Something needs to be done. . . . I am sympathetic to the many people calling for the same rules to apply to everyone—for a level playing field. If cable and satellite operators continue to refuse to offer parents more tools such as family-friendly programming packages, basic indecency and profanity restrictions may be a viable alternative that also should be considered.
If Moore and Conda want to defend free markets, they should call for the FCC’s abolition. Instead, they chose to endorse a potential FCC chairman who embodies the worst regulatory instincts of the left and right. Free markets don’t need “pedigrees” like Kevin Martin.
Comments on this entry are closed.