We’ve all been there, planted somewhere in a car’s passenger seat as someone in control of the radio showcases their ghastly taste in music or talk radio. Powerless over the auditory assault, we hope the slight gnashing of our own teeth helps drown out the sound. Now imagine that same sinking feeling becoming part of our everyday lives if the government itself dictated what political discourse we must listen to.
This affront on our freedom to choose what we listen to comes courtesy of FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s efforts to revive the “equal time” rule against broadcast talk shows. Despite his good intentions to fight restrictions against conservative voices, this proposal is entirely unnecessary and will, in fact, do little but decimate right-of-center speech.
At a time when Americans have countless online platforms, podcasts, streaming shows and dominate the political talk radio format, authorizing government fairness referees to dictate what voices are heard seems downright Soviet. The First Amendment’s commitment to freedom of expression works as its own market; while everyone has the right to speak, nobody has a “right” to be heard. Liberal programming like Air America flopped, while right-leaning Greg Gutfeld came from nowhere to dominate late night. Note to Carr: free markets work.
Many talk shows on popular broadcast networks have long been accused of favoring left-leaning voices and appealing to particular audiences. But Carr’s latest plan to expand the use of the “equal time” rule to ensure conservative candidates get similar space on these shows is not worth the risk of backlash when Democrats are back in power, or have we already forgotten their regard for “free speech” when the Biden White House pressured social media platforms to censor and deplatform conservatives?
Political winds inevitably shift, meaning a time will come when Democrats regain power. Punishing shows like “The View” or “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” will feel good in the moment for their obvious bias, but the conservative media-sphere stands to be the big loser when a Democrat is back in the White House.
For instance, conservative radio has long been a bastion of Republican outreach and education from far-reaching rural communities to the center of urban cities. While many would consider these shows a form of news and thus exempt from the “equal time” rule, a Democratic administration could expand the enforcement of the rule to limit conservative speech and force their candidates onto right-leaning programs.
Carr’s plan also runs counter to President Trump’s fight to dismantle entrenched bureaucracies and defang unelected regulators who try to convert their personal beliefs into government policy. An equal time rule would thoroughly neuter this foundational aspiration of Trump’s agenda.
Let’s not forget that Democrats demanded a revival of "equal time" when Rush Limbaugh filled the vacuum of conservative discourse that TV networks had abandoned. Controlling speech is what the left does, not what the rest of us do. Equal time in the hands of a Democrat Administration will usher in new rules against “offensive” and “hate speech” which to no one’s surprise will always be conservative speech. Broadcast licenses will be held hostage against companies that don’t comply with their speech codes, and liberal judges who should be defending the First Amendment will look the other way. In short, this is the ultimate weapon for the left to eradicate conservative voices.
No doubt Democrats will further seek to expand the “equal time” rule to include other forms of media like streaming, podcasts, social media and maybe political entertainment itself. Joy Behar guest hosting “Gutfeld” while he’s tied in a closet? No one should put it past them.
Conservatives have long understood that once Washington gains power to regulate speech in the name of fairness, it rarely stops there. Today’s effort to counter perceived liberal bias will quickly become tomorrow’s justification for suppressing conservative voices under a different administration. That is not a hypothetical risk; it is the natural consequence of expanding government authority over political expression.
If the right is serious about protecting free speech, it must resist the urge to use federal power as a short-term fix for cultural grievances. The cost of doing so is far greater than any temporary satisfaction: it risks normalizing a system where bureaucrats, not citizens, shape the boundaries of public debate.
Matthew Kandrach is the president of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE).
