[quote]
The solution is quite simple: as a cost of renewing a FCC broadcast TV-radio license, equal airtime during elections should be made available in identical formats to any candidate who has met the balloting requirements of state and-or federal law.   And no additional broadcast time should be made available for purchase outside that system.  The public airwaves would be used for public service. This should be the rule at least for federal races.
[/quote]

That seems surprisingly progressive for such a wingnut.

Also, confidential to Bob's webmaster: "Amendment" only has two m's in it.

decimating the First Amendment "progressive"?

That's just nuts.

it's how the system worked before Reagan came in and ended it.

First, what Crazy Bob Marshall seems to be proposing is 1) forcing broadcast stations to give away a set amount of time to any ballot-qualified candidate, and 2) barring any additional time purchase (i.e., speech) by candidates.  He's using the words "equal time", which is an existing set of rules, but it's hardly related.  In their current form, equal time requirements simply say that a broadcast station can't sell time to one candidate while refusing to sell time to another (there's more to it, but that's the core of it).

As for what Reagan demolished, that was the Fairness Doctrine, which seems to be a favorite of my fellow travelers on the left.  In my opinion, it was one of Reagan's few accomplishments.  In short, the Fairness Doctrine forced broadcast media (only broadcast - not cable, satellite, etc.) give equal time to competing viewpoints.  Some of the older among us tend to view those days through rose colored glasses, and imagine a media in which we'd have gotten equal airtime for both pro and anti war supporters in this Iraq fiasco.  So they're full force behind the idea of bringing it back.

Of course, that's just advocating government content regulation.  It's also called censorship.  Further, I am absolutely certain that if Congress and the (future) President were ever stupid enough to try and force that on broadcasters again, you could kiss anything more informative than So You Think You Can Dance? goodbye from the airwaves.  No broadcaster is going to deal with the risk and trouble and lawyers and fines that would come with a Fairness Doctrine.  And, in any event, this Supreme Court would probably kick it (rightly).

 

Saxman didn't decide not to run because he couldn't, but because he thought to do so would be ethically gray, since he would be soliciting donations at the same time he was in session voting on matters. There are ways to avoid appearances of impropriety, but Saxman felt it would interfere too much with his duties of being a Delegate.

Its a high standard, but there's no legal impetus to fall in line with it. I'd have to do more research, but considering the number of members from the General Assembly who at some point have run for higher office, or even for re-election, in the last ten years I'm sure has done some fundraising during the session.