If there is one argument I constantly hear from advocates of media democracy, it is that the battle against media consolidation has enormous support on both sides of the political aisle.

This is a "bipartisan issue," media reform groups and advocates constantly remind us: decent Democrats and Republicans united.

"Media consolidation is too important to be reduced to partisan bickering," wrote Ryan Blethen of the Seattle Times a few days before the Federal Communications Commission ran its last hearing on its media ownership rules, held in that city on Friday.

"An independent press is at the core American democracy. That should be enough to unite and defeat what really is a threat from the Bush administration."

The allegedly bipartisan nature of the struggle against relaxing the FCC's necessary media ownership caps is a comforting bullet point. I've emphasized it myself. But there are some days when I don't think it is true. This seems to be one of them.

Does a bipartisan coalition really exist?

It cannot be denied that conservatives and Republicans periodically raise their voices against media consolidation. Back in 2003 when Michael Powell's FCC prepared to relax almost every media ownership rule in its book, New York Times conservative William Safire famously joined the debate.

"Michael Powell, appointed by Bush to be F.C.C. chairman, likes to say 'the market is my religion'," Safire wrote on January 20th. "My conservative economic religion is founded on the rock of competition, which - since Teddy Roosevelt's day - has protected small business and consumers against predatory pricing leading to market monopolization. . . . Republicans in the House, intimidated by the powerful broadcast lobby, don't admit that some regulation can be pro-business."

Then the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre sent out a "Media Monopoly Alert" to its members, urging them to oppose media concentration.

"[Y]ou better believe that if these Big Media executives get the control they want over America's radio and T.V. airwaves, it will be all but impossible for your NRA to fight our grassroots battles in the way we have done so successfully in the past," Pierre told his members on May 12th, " - by putting your message on the air, telling your fellow citizens the truth, and getting them involved."

These two actions have been cited ever since as evidence of the bipartisan nature of the fight against media consolidation. There is further data to bolster this happy thesis. Shortly after Powell's FCC issued an Order relaxing many of its media ownership limits, the Senate, by a vote of 55 to 40 passed a resolution disapproving of the Commission's action and declaring that the move "would have no force or effect."

Much was made of the fact that Mississippi's Trent Lott and two other Republicans co-introduced the statement into the Senate. It had "overwhelming bipartisan support," Bill Moyers' timeline on the controversy explains.

But, in fact, it didn't. The resolution eventually won 24 co-sponsors. All but four of them were Democrats and independent Senator Jim Jeffords.

Thirty-eight Senate Republicans voted against the measure, including John McCain. In contrast, only one Democrat voted no: Zell Miller of Georgia.

Maurice Hinchley, Democrat from New York introduced the parallel resolution in the House. Its co-sponsorship list was similarly top-heavy with Blue State personnel. But the Republican dominated House blocked the move from going any further, referring it instead to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

Raining on the bipartisan parade

The Bipartisans-Against-Media-Consolidation claim is not supported by the case of Clear Channel's relentless lobbying for the end of the FCC's rule limiting the number of radio stations an entity can own in a market. To convince the agency to change this valuable regulation (which it did not in 2003), it appears that Clear Channel recruited 23 members of Congress to write a letter to the Commission urging its modification.

I presume that these solons did not compose this June 30th, 2006 missive by happenstance. All of them received campaign contributions from Clear Channel. After reviewing Federal Elections Commission records, I averaged the loot out to about $5,395 a politician.

In any event, 19 of those 23 reps were Republicans. Michigan Republican Fred Upton, then chair of the crucial House Telecommunications and Internet subcommittee where that Senate disapproval resolution died, sent his own personal letter to the FCC on behalf of Clear Channel. I estimated Upton's recent Clear Channel campaign booty at $12,500.

Then there is the most obvious point. Since 2000, the Republican majority on the Federal Communications Commission has regularly supported media consolidation. The Commission's two Democrats: Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps, have consistently and passionately opposed it.

Sorry, but that's evidence of a partisan divide over the FCC's media ownership rules.

Again, you can always pony out a lonely Republican who courageously rings the right bell on this issue. Olympia Snowe, Republican Senator from Maine, has joined Trent Lott and six Democrats in sponsoring a bill that would halt FCC Chair Kevin Martin's efforts to fast track the elimination of the Commission's long standing ban on a newspaper owning a TV station in the same market.

But by any measure, conservative opposition to media consolidation is a mile wide and an inch deep. Case in point—while the National Rifle Association may have sent out an "action alert" on the issue in 2003, my FCC proceeding database searches indicate that the organization has never submitted a formal statement to the Commission on its media ownership rules.

Who does submit? The overwhelming majority of anti-consolidation filings come from liberal, consumer, and civil rights oriented groups. Plus organized labor.

I suppose that the media democracy movement could still call a coalition that consists of a huge number of Democrats and a handful of Republicans "bipartisan." But should it? The Grand Old Party knows that it is extremely vulnerable on this issue. It has no sound-bite response to public alarm at the possibility of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation being able to own three TV stations, ten radio stations, and at least one big newspaper in some major American city (not to mention the Wall Street Journal).

The Red Staters have no catch phrase to save them here, like "Support the Troops," "War on Terror," "Pro-Life," or "Secure Our Borders." So as more sunshine falls on this issue, the more Republicans will scatter and divide.

And so as Election 2008 approaches, the media democracy movement will have to make a choice. Will it continue to act like it's still 2003 and play up the "bipartisanship" card? Or will it tell the public that if we want a broadly and democratically owned mass media, we're most likely to get it via a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President?

Even some conservatives make the answer look obvious.

"I sincerely regret that Mr. Martin, Ms. Tate, and Mr. McDowell couldn’t be here today to join you," talk radio show host John Carlson told the audience at Seattle's 2003 hearing on its media ownership rules. The former candidate for governor of Washington referred to the Commission's three Republicans, none of whom bothered to come to that hearing.

"For one thing," Carlson explained, "if they had, there would be at least four Republicans in the room."