87-11.
Via Alphecca.
| Question: On the Amendment (DeMint Amdt. No. 573 ) |
| Vote Number: | 71 | Vote Date: | February 26, 2009, 02:30 PM |
| Required For Majority: | 1/2 | Vote Result: | Amendment Agreed to |
| Amendment Number: | S.Amdt. 573 to S. 160 (District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009) |
| Statement of Purpose: | To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine. |
Here's the list of 'Nays" :
| NAYs ---11 | Bingaman (D-NM)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
| Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Reed (D-RI)
| Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI) |
|
|
|
1 comment:
The "Fairness Doctrine" may have been killed, but something a little more insidious was slipped through on a party-line vote a little later. It is:
S.AMDT.591
Amends: S.160
Sponsor: Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] (submitted 2/26/2009) (proposed 2/26/2009)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership, and to ensure that the public airwaves are used in the public interest.
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S2574
STATUS:
2/26/2009:
Amendment SA 591 proposed by Senator Durbin.
2/26/2009:
Amendment SA 591 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 57 - 41. Record Vote Number: 70.
Since the Government's only tool in "promoting" anything is coercion, I am not hopeful about what this will portend. The Fairness Doctrine was a dead horse, politically. Too much backlash associated with that title and you can see how much the Democrats ran for cover when they voted to kill it "officially". 30 minutes later, they slipped in the back door and got what they wanted anyway.
Either way, the citizen loses this one...
Pax,
Newbius
Post a Comment