To veto or not to veto

Yesterday, the Senate voted down the Federal Communications Commission’s new media ownership rules. With a vote of 55-40, the resolution sets to roll back industry deregulation passed in June. In reaction, FCC Chairman Michael Powell said the upper chamber’s move “would bring no clarity to media regulation, only chaos.” To undo the new rules, the stand-alone resolution would have to be passed by the House and then signed by the president, which seems unlikely, since House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin supports the new rules and the White House has issued a veto threat against attempts to overturn the FCC’s action. But if successful through another legislative means, disorder would result, because the changes are the product of a congressionally mandated review of the rules and replace practices rejected by federal courts. There is no way the FCC could craft new rules that would appease judicial mandates to deregulate and congressional efforts to regulate more.

Some Senate opposition seemed to be confused about what it was opposing. For example, Sen. Byron Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, railed against “radio consolidation.” The problem with this stand is that the FCC changes actually tighten the radio rule. Because it would overturn all the FCC’s new rules, Mr. Dorgan’s bill would lead to more radio industry consolidation — which is what he is against. The goal of such a broad rejection can only be to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Even with the Senate resolution not going anywhere, some FCC rules could be overturned by Congress if the Senate included an amendment rejecting them in other legislation, as the House did before the August recess. That would test the White House’s veto threat. There is a scale of significance that exposes the seriousness of a veto threat that depends on who issues it. The most serious and effective threat is one issued by the president on national TV. One made by a deputy assistant secretary is somewhat less meaningful. The warning in support of the new FCC rules was issued by the director of the Office of Management and Budget, which is very credible.

The list of laws that conservatives hoped the president would veto is long, with the bloated agriculture bill and campaign-finance regulations topping the list. It would be surprising if President Bush used his first-ever veto to defend media-ownership rules, an issue that is not overwhelmingly popular with the public and on which the Republican Party is split. But if he does, conservatives will be looking for further vetoes to control excessive spending and other bad policy. We hold the same expectation. We are not opposed to any veto to defend the new FCC rules on substantive grounds, but if the president chooses this course, we hope it serves as the honor guard for other strong vetoes in the coming months.