Read the Introduction and Core Argument
by Jonathan Lubell  Chair, Media Democracy Legal Project Legal Team
or download the entire article in Acrobat .pdf format

Summary of Our Constitutional Challenge to the
Media Assault on Our Democratic Form of Government

Rev. Paul Sawyer,
Chair, Media Democracy Legal Project
February 15, 2002

We now have in hand a 60 page case outline of a constitutional challenge to the Telecommunications Acts of 1934 and 1996 as administered by the Federal Communications Commission. Simply put: These laws have permitted the accumulation of our publicly-owned broadcasting channels for the use of a very few private, for-profit megacorporations. Through the use of networking, mergers, and expanded multiple ownership of broadcasting stations, the entertainment-telecommunications industry has achieved a systematic vertical and horizontal monopoly over mass communications. Half a dozen huge companies now control film and video production, as well as its distribution through broadcasting channels over the air and by cable, virtually controlling all that we see and hear. These companies also have large holdings in book, magazine, and newspaper publishing, and are beginning to dominate Internet access as well.

This cartel control of the realm of media imagery and information would be less of a threat to our society if it were simply a matter of controlling the production and selling of things such as automobiles or aluminum. However since the media monopoly dominates a large portion of the information we receive and the way we come to know what we know, even influencing what we take to be true and what we believe, it helps to shape our very society, sets limits to the functioning of democracy, and impacts our very survival.

The Founding Forebears instituted a constitutional government of "We the People." They specifically set up a Bill of Rights that established in the First Amendment, freedom of the press and freedom of expression – in short "the right to know." This was a right especially reserved to the people so as to allow the fullest diversity of information, dialogue, and knowledge. In short to know what’s going on and to permit the means for self-governance.

The present media monopoly of a few large private megacorporations that control information, by its very nature violates the first amendment by restricting that full diversity of information. The present system of allocating our airwaves contributes to the constriction of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The US government and its FCC limit public access and permits the corporate state's monolithic perspective to dominate our people's airwaves. In addition the 14th Amendment, which provides for "equal protection of the law," would necessitate that all classes and groups of people have equal rights to be licensed to broadcast so as to provide equal access to the media. This is demonstrably not so now. Class discrimination exists due to unequal financial means. In addition many cultural and advocacy groups do not have equal access to media. Thus there are clear constitutional violations inherently present in the present de facto commercially-dominated monopoly broadcasting system.

Our case will propose the following remedy:

That the use of the public’s airwaves be made more democratic.

That at least one half of the existing channels will be reserved for public use and control, governed by a nation-wide democratically elected commission.

These stations will be financially well-supported by a fair monetary value being returned to the publicly-held broadcasting for the use rights by the remaining broadcast spectrum licensed for commercial channels.

Of course all broadcasting would be subject to fairness and public interest regulation.

This remedy will provide the means for a far more diverse, democratic and informative broadcasting.

This in short is a brief statement of our case as our legal team has developed it. We now must recruit and prepare our plaintiffs for this case which will proceed against the US government and the Federal Communications Commission. We may file it in the Federal Courts here in California. The full legal complaint must be written. Along with the political organizing and outreach necessary for such a controversial case to succeed, there will be the needed raising of money for inevitable legal appeals.

The task ahead is most challenging.