Dems Urge A Race-Based Bailout

[NOTE: This post has been UPDATED twice]

According to an article in The Hill yesterday,

High-ranking House Democrats are urging the Treasury Department to prop up minority-owned broadcasters suffering from a lack of capital and lost advertising revenue amid the economic slump.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) is leading an effort to convince Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to take “decisive action” by extending credit to this sector of the broadcasting industry.

Clyburn and other senior members, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), argue that minority-owned broadcasters are sound businesses, but that the recession could undermine the government’s efforts to diversify the airwaves.

Not surprisingly, “[a] number of members from the Congressional Black Caucus signed the letter, too.”

At this late date there is no reason to be surprised by yet another example of “diversity” meaning nothing more than a racial spoils system urged by Democrats, operated by Democrats, for (black) Democrats.

UPDATE

For a hilarious discussion of a visit to the Disney World national meeting of the National Multicultural Business Conference, put on by DiversityBusiness.Com (the largest organization of “diversity-owned businesses”), see Matt Labash’s article in The Weekly Standard, “Where Everybody Is Disadvantaged: Postcards from the Diversity Follies.” (HatTip to, as usual, Roger Clegg)

UPDATE II [21 May]

Roger Clegg argues that the Supremes would be unlikely to go along with such a race-based scheme. “The Court upheld the use of racial preferences by the Federal Communications Commission in 1990, but overturned that decision in 1995,” he notes. “Also, among the 1990 dissenters was Justice Kennedy (and Justice O’Connor, by the way).”

An additional thought: the letter from the Black Caucus members, noted above, stated:

While many jobs are at stake, a more important principle — the government’s fundamental interest in promoting a diversity of voices, including service to underserved communities — is severely threatened.

But, is a radio “voice” by definition “diverse” simply because the station is owned by a black person? What if that station hired white or Asian announcers, news readers, disc jockeys? (That has happened, hasn’t it?) Are their voices “diverse,” too? What if a black-owned station played primarily classical music — wouldn’t that, too, be “service to an underserved communit[y]”? If so, why should a station providing such programming be bailed out only if its owner is black?

For that matter, what if a “black talk” radio station — or perhaps that should be black “talk radio” station [but, given the “diverse” argument, perhaps not] — featured a talk diet heavily slanted toward black conservatives, including prominent slots for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? Would the Black Caucus crown argue that such a station did not provide a “service to underserved communities,” even though the station owner was black?

Is it asking too much to hope that someone in Congress or the FCC will ask these, and similar, questions?

On second thought, don’t answer that.

Say What?