Free Minds & Free Markets

Congressman Threatens Major Networks With Hearings On 'Media Bias'

Rep. Kevin Cramer proves it's never too early for Congress to waste time.

Muh unbiased media!Rep. Kevin Cramer TwitterRep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) sent a letter to the heads of the four "major" TV networks—CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox—threatening to hold a hearing "to explore network media bias in coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign." To justify this grandstanding and overreaching display of concerned government, Cramer cites a recent Gallup poll which put Americans trust in "media" at around 32 percent and also asserted only 37 percent of Americans think the media's coverage of the 2016 campaign has been "balanced."

If the public's tepid views of the news business aren't enough to make your fear for the fragile state of American democracy, Cramer's not done. For him, the polls confirm that "national network news has devolved from fact-based journalism to surreptitious propaganda" in violation of their "moral obligation to provide balanced, unbiased news coverage for the American people."

Cramer wants the network executives to know that he's not in favor of re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine, but adds, "while the principle of an independent media is critical to our constitutional government, a news media free of political bias is required for a free system to flourish."

So instead of wielding the Fairness Doctrine as a means of forcing the networks to rid themselves of all political bias (which would be impossible to quantify, not least because bias is in the eye of the beholder), Cramer threatens their "the use of federally-allocated spectrum" afforded by their FCC licenses, writing "Your FCC license and the liberty that comes with your First Amendment rights are not a license to broadcast anything you want or in any way you choose."

Cramer appears to have not read the FCC's website, which explicitly states (emphasis theirs), "We license only individual broadcast stations. We do not license TV or radio networks (such as CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) or other organizations with which stations have relationships (such as PBS or NPR), except to the extent that those entities may also be station licensees." If Cramer has a problem with the national news media and wants to use the FCC as a cudgel, he'd need to sic them on hundreds of individual stations, not just four networks.

Though Cramer might want to use the FCC as his own task force, the FCC's website also states the commission "cannot prevent the broadcast of any particular point of view. In this regard, the Commission has observed that 'the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." They're not done:

The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) had responded to reports that Facebook's Trending News section was politically biased against right-leaning voices and stories by asking the company for extensive internal documentation and summoning senior employees to Washington, D.C. for a briefing with the senator, who is also the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Communication.

What Thune and Cramer—both Republicans in good standing and ostensibly pro-free market—fail to understand is that Facebook and the major television networks are all private organizations, and whether or not they cover the election or any news from a neutral point of view is absolutely none of the government's business.

(Note: This post has been updated to clarify Sen. Thune's actions.)

Photo Credit: Rep. Kevin Cramer Twitter

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Idle Hands||

    Stupid party.

  • IWasADemocrat||

    Laws can fix anything that is unfair.

    Didn't you hear about a new law stating exactly that?

  • Mr Lizard||

    Pay no attention to the blatant collusion between team blue (politics) and team blue (news)

    I am ok with them hauling the execs in and subjecting them to a public shit show. However the author is correct about their authority to actually punish the networks.

  • The Fusionist||

    I'm not OK with it because if the government can publicly humiliate anyone whose speech is biased (or which the govt thinks is biased), then farewell First Amendment.

    Just use consumer power to watch and read better media.

  • Red Rocks Dickin Bimbos||

    Just use consumer power to watch and read better media

    No kidding--look how many people are cord-cutting these days, not only because owning cable is so expensive, but why continue to subsidize people who hate your guts? There's actually plenty out there for every taste.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Does this mean people will stop saying I'm pretentious for not owning a TV?

  • Citizen X||

    Yeah, but you're still pretentious for all those other reasons.

  • UnCivilServant||

    That's fine.

  • You ARE a Prog (MJG)||

    You won't find a bigger First Amendment supporter than me, but

  • SQRLSY One||

    But Congress should investigate itself first, and for that matter... It should investigate all of Government Almighty, for being ALWAYS biased in favor of more money and more power to Government Almighty!!!

    Ya think I should be holding my breath for THIS particular suggestion to get implemented?!?!?!

  • The Fusionist||

    "in violation of their "moral obligation to provide balanced, unbiased news coverage for the American people.""

    Ah, yes, the famous clause in the First Amendment empowering Congress to enforce the "moral obligation[s]" of people who speak and publish.

    Now the MSM gets to strut and preen, marinating in its self-importance now that they're officially First Amendment Martyrs.

    And liberty-minded opponents of the MSM have to take their side.


  • thom||

    Next they should start hauling defense attorney's in and demanding answers on why their clients took the fifth.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    Thank The Good Lord Above that someone is finally going to save us all and put a stop to bias in the media!

    I have found that the 'Off' button works well for this purpose.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Selling public spectrum for $1 per unit, 1 unit per person and first come first serve would allow anyone to put on a tv show/ radio program. It would be better and worse than what we have now.

    Combine that with the "off" button on your tv and the biased media would have a tough time making ends meet.

  • Brochettaward||

    "Your FCC license and the liberty that comes with your First Amendment rights are not a license to broadcast anything you want or in any way you choose."

    You know what? Technically, he's right. When the government created a massive federal bureaucracy with the power to control media and censor in the name of protecting public morals, it established just this. It's what happens when you start believing that phrases like, "Congress shall make no law," really mean Congress can only make reasonable, common sense laws and regulations.

  • kbolino||

    While true, the use of spectrum allocation as a political weapon is a can of worms that should not be opened. It's especially stupid coming from a Republican; he can say he has no intention of reinstituting the "Fairness Doctrine" but once he puts that weapon in government hands, it won't be his to wield.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Based on the economically fascist notion that "the public" perpetually owns the airwaves. That is, that a private entity can only lease spectrum, they cannot own it.

  • Robert||

    No, based on the correct notion that the public owns it now. Doesn't mean it has to be that way forever, but those are the rules current licensees signed up under. You have to correctly acknowledge & assess the status quo before you can reform it.

  • jester||

    Lead balloons have failed in the past primarily due to design flaws.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I liked the results the mythbusters got with their lead foil design. The unfolding structure was rather elegant to boot.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    How about 99 luft balloons?

  • ||

    There's no way anyone is stupid enough to not know that the networks are biased. If anyone is that dumb, there's no hope from them. It's just all spin now, there is zero objectivity left. So people just watch to hear their delusions reinforced, that's all there is to it.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Of course.

    This is still completely idiotic, and the congressman should be pilloried for even thinking of doing this.

  • Hugh Akston||

    There never was any objectivity.

  • Raven Nation||


    My sense if the idea of objective media emerged in the 1950s. Another thing I blame Richard Hofstader for.

  • GILMORE™||

    My sense if the idea of objective media emerged in the 1950s.

    I think so too.

    My personal view is that the idea of an "objective, non-partisan" news-media was created by a combination of the creation of 1) Television, when networks were licensed by the govt, and which has a specifically 'unifying' effect by needing to create a 1-size-fits-all sort of broadcast....

    ... and 2) the Cold War, which had a huge influence on how news-narratives were formed. Even moments of the most viscous partisan conflict, you were always being reminded there was an "Us" versus a "Them", and that despite whatever disagreements domestic politicians might have, it was all fairly trivial in the context of the larger meta-narrative.

    the dissolution of this fake-'objectivity' began in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the soviet union. It wasn't the internet so much as the emergence Fox News which suddenly made all the networks suddenly decide that it was time to "take sides" again.

  • Raven Nation||

    Agree with this. I would add that the rise of a self-congratulatory elite which actively sought to marginalize anyone they disagreed with helped in the process.

    This is why I blame Hofstadter.

  • Possible Bot||

    I think the news was always leftist it's just that before the Internet nobody had a way to fact check what was reported. Once they could, their partisanship became apparent. I don't see any actual change in thier slant though.

  • Robert||

    You're right. Not the whole answer, because he idea of objective, "professional" journalism goes back to much earlier in the 20th C., but those factors were big drivers of it when they came along.

  • Robert||

    Of course it was only thought of as objective because the progressives who promoted the idea a century ago were blind to their own bias. They really thought the way they thought was objective.

  • kbolino||


    But then they should stop selling themselves as some kind of Constitutionally anointed priesthood.

    The press does not mean "journalistic" institutions. It means the act of publishing. The common man enjoys freedom of the press just as much as the New York Times or Fox News or Reason Magazine.

  • BearOdinson||


  • loveconstitution1789||

    That is the real deal. The media felt it could control more people by advocating that it was objective.

    Some of us knew from an early age that the media is not objective. Some just learned. Some will never learn.

  • Entelechy||

    PBS is terminally partisan , spanning the spectrum from LBJ's press secretary to The Guardian.

    Pull the plug.

  • kbolino||

    Eh, just cut their government funding. Let the networks survive or perish on their own merits.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||




  • kbolino||

    Less common but equally contradictory positions I've seen espoused:

    - PBS is a model of how to run non-profit organizations

    - PBS depends too heavily on funding drives

  • Eman||

    I strongly suspect sarcasm here, but those could totally both be true. The fraction of an organization's funding that comes from the govt is entirely unrelated to the fraction of total govt spending that it accounts for.

  • Scottzilla||

    Why do you hate Bert and Ernie? HOMOPHOBE!

  • Princess Trigger||

    In additional election-related retardation - Gloria Steinem (I didn't even know she was still alive) in the FT writes a screed defending the Hillary. [subscription]
    She throws in an aside for government press, which might be why the brits are publishing her rantings. -
    During the presidential primaries, for instance, he received an estimated $2bn in free exposure from corporate media in search of ratings to attract advertising, which may be the best argument for subscription-financed media, public television, investigative reporting and the simple act of fact checking.

    And to summarize:
    If we elect a woman as our national leader for the first time in the history of the republic, eight years after electing an African-American man, we may be moving toward democracy at last.

  • kbolino||

    I love how their solution to human fallibility is always to codify it. 100% of Soviet fact-checkers agree, Lysenkoism is sound science!

  • Microaggressor||

    Fact checking is so easy, even Politifact can do it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    And like the media fact checkers are objective.

    That is the huge joke. The media is so biased that they need to convince people that biased fact-checkers are objective.

  • The Fusionist||

    Janice Rogers Brown for President!

  • DesigNate||

    Cause nothing says responsible voting like pulling the lever only because the candidate is black or a woman.

  • kbolino||

    You know you're getting honest and sincere politicians when you choose them for completely superficial reasons.

  • Eman||

    That's true. Hilary could hardly fail to be the first female US president if she wins. If that's the most important issue to you a) you're sexist, and b) she will do exactlywhat you elected her to do.

  • Microaggressor||

    democracy at last

    Well thank god, I'm getting tired of all this fake democracy we've been having. You hear that guys? You can stop rigging the machines to save democracy because now we have real democracy.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Is there a name for that last holdout patch of hair on the forehead of dudes with MPB?

  • GILMORE™||


  • GILMORE™||

    *also possible - "the Bastogne Hairline"

  • Rich||


  • SugarFree||

    The Surrounded Platoon?

  • Citizen X||

    The Reverse Tonsure?

  • Swiss Servator||



  • Citizen X||

    The Schmohawk?

  • Idle Hands||

    pretty sure that's just a bad driver.

  • EDG reppin LBC||

    Kewpie baby.

  • jester||

    Forehead merkin?

  • Swiss Servator||


  • B.P.||

    If one grows the hairs in the holdout patch to produce a combover remnant, as shown in the photo, it looks a bit like an aerial view of smoke blowing off of a forest fire.

  • Rhywun||

    The Island of Sadness?

  • Voros McCracken||

  • bacon-magic||

    Top's off for Hitler?

  • Hugh Akston||

    oooh, I know! The Alamo!

  • GILMORE™||

    The only thing worse than the blatant media-bias is congress promising to "fix" media bias.

    It also plays directly into the left's hands. Whether you give them their entire "Fairness Doctrine" or not, they'll gladly take any new tools for regulating/browbeating/threatening media with regulatory powers.

    I fucking guar-rawn-tee that during the reign of Hillary I there will be a Expert Panel of silicon valley campaign-donors New-Media-Executives appointed to review ways to try and make the internet more "factual" and less prone to publishing "rumors" or other unsubstantiated/otherwise not officially-approved sources like those Russian Wikileaks, etc.

  • PurityDiluting||

    Agree. I've been aware of the MSNBC-CNN-Fox continuum, but this election showed me just how deeply in the tank the entire MSM has become. Only way it gets worse is if congress steps in to fix it.
    Is it possible to create a politifact type site to fact check the media itself?

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Is it possible to create a politifact type site to fact check the media itself?"
    Sure. And the exact same thing would happen as with all the current fact-checker sites. People would point to it when it supports them, and ignore/condemn it when it doesn't.

    To be clear: humans have spent millenia filtering the facts of the universe through their preferred narrative, and disregarding or excusing the facts that don't fit. Now, when they have more "facts" rushing towards them every day then ever before, we rely on our narratives to make sense of them, more then ever.

    And that's not something a new website will fix, even if the new website was 100% unbiased and perfect and never made mistakes. Because it wouldn't fit people's narratives, and would be considered biased and unreliable as a consequence (except when it agreed, whereupon it would be trustworthy and good. But only for the moment).

  • Azathoth!!||

    Polifact has covered a Republican and a Democrat saying the exact same thing while calling the Republican's comment 'false' and the Democrat's comment 'true'.

    People aren't and ignore/condemning it when it doesn't agree with them--they're doing it because they're demonstrably full of shit.

  • Microaggressor||

    In other words, Facebook.

  • GILMORE™||

    that's pretty much who I was thinking of when i thought of "Who the Clinton admin would make its new "Cleaning Up The Internet"-Czar

    Zuckerberg, maybe Ellen Pao, and of course the head of the MPAA to help eradicate fair-use, people like that.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Perhaps some sort of group of attorney generals can file some kind of lawsuit-- charging that media companies withheld crucial information from the electorate.

    What did the media companies know, and when did they know it?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "attorneys general"?


  • Sevo||

    The irony here is amazing: He's going to form a GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE to *force* the media to be un-biased?!
    Yep, that'll keep 'em free and stuff.

  • american socialist||

    It's time for the government to enact a Fairness Doctrine. It's so bad that right-wingers have to listen to the MSM besmirch Donald Trump's integrity by posting snippets of his speeches where he says that women who accused him of sexual assault weren't hot enough to be worthy of his interest. Lame. Who cares? What's important is that someone in Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton Foundation some money and that said criminal organization may have sent said ISIS sympathizer a thank you card. Priorities, people.

  • SugarFree||

    Please don't feed the troll.

  • Citizen X||

    But it's so desparate. It's bumming me out.

  • SugarFree||

    But look how fat it has gotten. It barely fits in its yurt.

  • Citizen X||

    Does it pay the mortgage on its yurt?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Give him a break, it was looking uncomfortably close, but looks like Republicans will manage to throw the election harder, after all. He's due for some relief trolling.

  • american socialist||

    I have to say. There's 30% of me that wants this one to go Trump. I want to see the desperate excuses made by libertarians on his behalf.

  • kbolino||

    Well, you would know desperate excuses for politicians, wouldn't you?

    Tell us more of Obama and Clinton's greatness.

  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: American Stultified,

    I have to say. There's 30% of me that wants this one to go Trump.

    And what are the other two voices in your head telling you?

  • bacon-magic||

    The good news: whoever wins this election he and others like him will still be crying.

  • Sevo||

    "Please don't feed the troll."

    Every 'hood had a Sammy. He's was an obnoxious twit who begged for attention and he'd jab somebody with a stick to get it. Harming others meant nothing to him; he was the center of the universe. Put down a piece of candy? Not when Sammy was around. He'd steal it instantly.
    Now we know what happened to the Sammys of the world when they got older.

  • american socialist||

    How am I-- as a left-libertarian-- who hates Trump like you do and who agrees with libertarians more times than not harming anyone?

  • Tundra||



  • OldMexican Blankety Blank||

    Re: American Stultified,

    It's time for the government to enact a Fairness Doctrine.

    Well, that certainly didn't take long, did it?

    What's important is that someone in Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton Foundation some money[...]

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

  • Citizen X||

    A guy who looks like that, you just KNOW he's got a millstone for a browser history.

  • Zero Sum Game||

    Don't know. To me he looks like he should be selling propane and propane accessories.

  • ||

    it's never too early for Congress to waste time.

    Feature, not bug. Best possible use of congressional time is on useless shit that won't go anywhere but only costs in the millions instead of trillions.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Cramer should be pilloried for suggesting this, though this pernicious notion is something the FCC was created around. Though ot would be amusing to see how the "corporations have no rights" Left attacks his actions.

  • kbolino||

    As you can see from a certain trolling above, their line of attack will be about hypocrisy. The greatest sin you can commit, as far as the left is concerned, is to oppose them and be a hypocrite (note the conjunction: you can be a hypocrite as long as you're on their side, in fact hypocrisy is a virtue as long as the values you pretend to hold are the right ones).

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Bring out the comfy chairs!

  • chemjeff||

    Of course the know-nothing right will eat this up and turn this Congressman into a hero. Soon to be featured on Breitbart, Drudge and Gateway Pundit. They hate the media even more than they hate the left.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    the idea of objective media emerged in the 1950s

    Walter Cronkite was dreamy. And nobody questioned the propriety of a small group of people in New York deciding what the nation should see on the nightly news.

  • Azathoth!!||

    We HAVE to fight.


    The media is essentially just another arm of the DNC. It does not provide information--it propagandizes for an increasingly totalitarian and authoritarian DNC.

    It has become Pravda

    And the people who disparage those who want to fight with 'well, if you didn't know they were biased....' What? When even the entertainment reporting is shot through with disguised political propaganda--when weather readers mix in a touch of leftist dogma, when the whole of the media complex is aimed at getting leftist catechism into your head, there are people who will get sucked in.

    How do I know? Because there are a whole lot of people who know this is going on who think our only course of action is to accept it.

    Worse, a whole bunch of you think citing the few news reports that show this glaring propagandizing IS propagandizing.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Dude, where have you been? We're all in on it too. Join us, joooooin usssssss.

  • kbolino||

    So, fight it. Just not with the government.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Exactly--if you want to win, don't use every weapon at your disposal--in particular, if you get the chance, refuse to use your enemies weapons against them.

    Because reasons.

  • Junior Juniorson, III||

    I get you, Azathoth!! - thing is, that particular weapon can and will get turned around and stuck right up against your temple the moment after you use it.

    It amounts to a temporary gain at best.

  • kbolino||

    And what happens when your faction loses an election? You will not hold power for long. The government is a poor choice of weapon because it can and will be used against you.

    I'd rather not be hoist by your petard, if you don't mind.

  • Azathoth!!||

    We are past this point.

    Our foe uses the weapon of government against us with impunity.


    We keep saying this--

    that particular weapon can and will get turned around and stuck right up against your temple the moment after you use it.

    It amounts to a temporary gain at best.

    and this--

    And what happens when your faction loses an election? You will not hold power for long. The government is a poor choice of weapon because it can and will be used against you.

    And never hoisting THEM on THEIR petard.

    We just let them get away with it. Over and over again--we're at the point now where WAY too many people think the Democrat's and the left 'getting away with it' is the normal state of affairs.

    They've buried your moral high ground under a mountain of shit.

  • kbolino||

    They are hoist by their own petard all the damn time. Their voters don't care. That is not a problem any application of government can fix.

  • MikeT1986||

    The question is are you an "anti-Prog" or a libertarian?

    If all you want is to punish your political foes then by all means, sow the wind, use the government to beat your enemies down.

    If you're actually a libertarian, or pro liberty you should give a shit about not creating precedent and appreciate that you will reap the whirlwind.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Now that I've seen the Department of Justice willfully refuse to empanel a grand jury because it might change people's perceptions of the progressive candidate for President, I'm not really surprised to see the progressives' opponents try to compensate for that by threatening broadcasters for their bias.

    If the American people are going to tolerate the Department of Justice pushing the letter of the law to the detriment of the Republican candidate, why shouldn't the Republicans press the letter of the law at the FCC to their advantage?

    . . . unless you're talking about some high minded conception of fairness, I guess?

    High minded fairness is a ridiculous notion if the American people will elect Hillary Clinton President after she accepted money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

    P.S. Has anyone announced an investigation into the Hillary Clinton campaign paying operatives to instigate violence at Trump events?

    Or would that not be high minded?

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.P.S. We should defund PBS and NPR and auction off their spectrum immediately, and their bias is just as good a justification as any.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yup. They are at the top of the cut 100% of their budget list.

    FBI should get 50%+ cut for not doing their job of recommending indictment when their is probable cause that a person(s) committed a federal crime.

  • Trigger Warning||

    This guy is stupid, even for a Congressperson.

  • ||

    interesting. But he may only be half right.

    .... the polls confirm that "national network news has devolved from fact-based journalism

    to surreptitious propaganda" in violation of their "moral obligation to provide balanced, unbiased news coverage for the American people.

  • Rich||

    Former Rep. Kevin Cramer]


  • Glide||

    Option 1) Americans are literally too stupid to navigate spin and form their own opinions. The government really can't do anything to fix this, so it's just a matter of force-feeding them good opinions.
    Option 2) Americans want to get unbiased news but dang it, they just can't find any. The government also can't do anything to fix this because all political news is ABOUT THEM, so they can't serve as an unbiased source themselves and any private sources that get government support will have their bias questioned.
    Option 3) Americans know that news is biased, but find it makes them happy to receive news matching their bias. Government interference will just lead to less people consuming news so they can hold to their personal views, again solving nothing.

    (I'm mostly a believer in #3 myself. But in none of these cases is there a useful government solution. The useful government solution only exists in Salon-world and Breitbart-world, where there are no differing opinions, only noble right-thinkers and poor fools who would be right-thinkers if they just flipped up two channels every day, in which case by all means get the government involved! We want everyone to be right-thinkers, right!?)

  • T.H. Steady||

    This issue is not going to go away as long as we keep allowing media companies to consolidate and internet companies (including FB and Google) to act as de facto corporate censors.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    So, we've entered the phony-baloney show trials phase of the death of the Republic.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It's either this or gladiators fighting to the death in the colosseum!

  • T.H. Steady||

    We had the hearings about Satanic rock music in the 80s. I'm sure we can survive this.

  • MarkLastname||

    Republican calling for government to step in to decide what appropriate speech is.

    I'm pretty sure that constitutes appropriation of leftist culture. Not ok!

    Anyhow, it'll be nice to see the anti-citizens united progs complain about how the state doesn't get to decide what is biased and what constitutes propaganda, or to regulate such things, completely without irony.

  • dan'o en barrel||

    I'm going to leave the latest wiki leaks showing collusion between the DNC and CNN here... http://www.washingtonexaminer......le/2606651

  • Gilbert Martin||

    If the Republicans want to hold hearings on something a better use of their time would be to haul in all those grandstanding State Attorney Generals who are misusing their subpoena power to harass and intimidate Exxon Mobil and others who don't toe the preferred leftist line on Global Warming.

    That is a blatant attempt to suppress freedom of speech.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Congressman Threatens Major Networks With Hearings On 'Media Bias'
    Rep. Kevin Cramer proves it's never too early for Congress to waste time.

    ...and money. As if Congress doesn't have better things to do than examine someone's free speech.
    Tax money well spent.

  • Rockabilly||

    No hearings are necessary.

    The fawning over the racist warmonger and for of individual liberty Hillary Clinton is self evident.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Dumb move.

  • Akira||

    OT: something sort of upbeat for this miserable election season...

    I've been talking a lot with a "progressive" relative of mine. Recently, I've noticed that his tune has changed from "regulation is good" to "regulation sucks, but it can be fixed". That's progress, right? Years ago, the only response I'd get in a debate about regulation was "deregulation is bad because it only benefits rich people and corporations".

    The next step will be demonstrating the futility of finding the right TOP MEN to write the regulations.

  • woodNfish||

    The lying LSM has proven it is nothing more that state propaganda and a danger to our freedom.

    This is all that needs to be said:

  • Jim Walsh||

    The media in North Dakota is a joke...bought and paid for by the Republican Party. All softballs and press releases. We can assume Mr. Cramer would find that more to his liking on the national scale as well.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online