Upon further review, the smear story against McCain looks worse - for the New York Times

Yesterday, I defended John McCain against the scurrilous nonsense cooked up by the New York Times.  As I mentioned in that post:

If the folks at the Times actually possessed any objectivity, they would have noticed all of the above and given McCain’s actions the proper context.  Of course, there wouldn’t have been much of a story either.

The McCain campaign provided further context late yesterday afternoon (NRO - The Corner).  They addressed the two McCain-FCC issues the Times mentioned and the minority-ownership tax incentive bill.

Here’s the Times  paragraph:

A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.

Here are McCain’s responses (emphasis added):

No representative of Glencairn or Alcalde and Fay, met with Senator McCain in 1998 to discuss the issue of local marketing agreements (LMAs). On July 20, 1999, Senator McCain met with Eddie Edwards, the head of Glencairn, regarding LMAs and minority media ownership issues. This meeting was several months after Senator McCain had weighed in at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding its expected December 1998 decision on media ownership rules. There were no other meetings in 1999 between any representative of Alcalde and Fay and Senator McCain regarding the issue of LMAs.

Senator McCain’s Commerce Committee staff recalls meeting at least once with representatives of Alcalde and Fay concerning the issue of LMAs. The staff also recalls meeting with many other representatives of media companies, as well as groups advocating for consumer and public interests, regarding the issue of LMAs during the time the FCC was considering the issue.

As to the December 1998 letters and the February 1999 letter, those letters were not written in support of any one party or in favor of a particular interest. Those letters were simply written by Senator McCain as the Chairman of the committee that oversees the FCC to express his opinion that the agency should not act in a manner contradictory to Congressional intent. In both his December 1, 1998 letter and his December 7, 1998 letter, Senator McCain makes clear that Section 202(h) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act unambiguously directs the FCC to review its media ownership rules every two years with an “eye to lessening them, not increasing them.” Additionally, the letters quote from the 1996 Telecommunications Act and its report language, as well as language from the 1997 Budget Reconciliation Act. The letters do not express an opinion on the merits of LMAs, but strongly encourages the FCC to recognize the “clear language” in the statute.

. . .

Senator McCain introduced the “Telecommunications Ownership Diversification Act” and Commissioner Powell voiced his support. As the Senator explained in his introductory floor statement on October 8, 1999, he introduced this bill due to his concern that small businesses face “significant barriers in trying to enter the telecommunications industry … These barriers are even more formidable when the entrepreneur happens to be a woman or a member of a minority group, due to their historically more difficult job of obtaining needed financing.” The legislation was referred to the Senate Finance Committee because the bill amended the tax code.

The bill was supported by many broadcasters, and for this reason a group of over 30 companies formed a coalition to lobby on behalf of the bill, which included several of Alcalde and Fay’s clients. The coalition included the major broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, as well as the National Associations of Broadcasters. Other members included the Minority Media and Telecommunication Council, National Asian American Telecommunications Association, National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations, National Council of Churches, National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, National Hispanic Media Coalition, National Indian Telecommunications Institute and National Urban League.

. . .

Senator McCain’s Commerce Committee staff recalls meeting with representatives of Alcalde and Fay concerning the FCC’s failure to act on the transfer application. Staff also met with public broadcasting activists from the Pittsburgh area about the transfer application. While the two parties differed in their desired outcome from the FCC, both parties expressed to staff members their frustration that the proceeding had been before the FCC for over two years. Both parties asked the staff to contact the FCC regarding the proceeding.  Senator McCain’s personal staff did not meet with any parties regarding this transfer.

While neither the Senator nor his Staff agreed to take, nor did they ever take, a position on the proposed transfer, Committee Staff did agree to draft a letter from Senator McCain to FCC Chairman Bill Kennard, dated November 17, 1999 that began, “I write today to express my concern about the Commission’s continuing failure to act on the pending applications for assignment of the licenses of WQEX(TV) and WPCB(TV), Pittsburg (sic), Pennsylvania.” The letter did not call for the Commission to resolve the matter in favor of either party, and specifically stated, “This letter is not written to secure a favorable resolution for any party on any substantive issue pending before the Commission. Please treat this letter in full compliance with all applicable, legal, ethical, and procedural rules.” Clearly, the purpose of the letter was to request action on the transfer application, not to promote a resolution favorable to a particular applicant.

When the Senator received no response from Chairman Kennard, the Senator’s Committee Staff drafted and sent a letter on December 10, 1999 to the other four members of the Commission and attached the original letter Senator McCain sent to Chairman Kennard. Senator McCain explained to the four Commissioners that he had received no response from Kennard’s office and therefore he was bringing the matter to the attention of the remaining four Commissioners. The letter stated, “The sole purpose of this request is to secure final action on a matter that has now been pending for over two years. I emphasize that my purpose is not to suggest in any way how you should vote – merely that you vote.” (Italics used in original letter.)

During this time, the average time for the FCC to decide a broadcast license transfer was 418 days. Senator McCain wrote the Commission after the parties had waited over 800 days for a decision and again, did not request the FCC to decide the transfer in favor of Paxson or any party. Several other legislators were interested in this proceeding, especially Congressmen Oxley, Stearns, Pickering and Largent who also wrote the FCC regarding the proceeding. Additionally, the FCC’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 99-393) for this proceeding states that some Congressmen had threatened to offer legislation regarding the transfer application.

In other words, all McCain did was ask the FCC to follow the law and stay out of the telecommunications market, craft a bill that had broad support in the industry (unless his critics would like to claim that entire list of groups were clients of Ms. Iseman), and call on the FCC to make a decision on an issue at the request of both sides.

McCain’s people did not address the bill allowing ownership in overlapping markets, but as I mentioned yesterday, that is perfectly consistent with McCain’s longtime support for getting the government out of the telecommunications industry.

Once again what we have here is not unethical behavior by John McCain, but rather a combination of political ignorance about free-market policies, liberal arrogance, and partisan bias all leading the Times to make laughable decision to run this ridiculous “story.”