WASHINGTON — Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Republican Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi rarely find themselves on the same side of the aisle.
But when the Federal Communications Commission voted 3 to 2 to ease media ownership restrictions last week, a bipartisan jolt rattled Capitol Hill, tossing together the liberal Boxer, the conservative Lott and scores of other lawmakers positioned somewhere in between.
"In all the years I've been here," Boxer said, "I've not seen such deeply held feelings across ideologies."
The outbreak of unity in a Congress usually beset by partisan bickering illustrates the immense power of the broadcast industry in the political process. Already, the Senate is poised to possibly overturn some of the new rules, which expand the number of TV stations and newspapers that media companies can buy. A more contentious battle is shaping up in the House but not one based on party loyalties.
"For once, we have an issue that has surprisingly little to do with the usual ideological alignments in Congress," said political scientist Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia.
"This is about the lifeblood of successful political candidacies.... Every member of Congress thinks immediately of his or her state's or district's media organizations. And they ask one big question, silently: Will this change have a desirable or undesirable effect on my next candidacy?"
Lawmakers are well aware that television is crucial to maintaining their image and getting reelected. Many worry that permitting media companies to expand their national presence would give them greater power over everything from public opinion to the rates candidates must pay for campaign commercials.
"I'm not one that has believed always that big is necessarily always bad," Lott said recently. "But when you allow this type of concentration, where you could have a market where one company could own and dominate the print media, could theoretically own one of the dish networks, could own the local cable, could own the local television station or two stations, where's the limit?"
For some, opposition is rooted in personal experience.
Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), for example, says that in one of his first election campaigns many years ago, the local newspapers joined to endorse his opponent. So he turned to then-emerging television to get his message out. The experience cemented his belief that local newspapers and TV stations should not be co-owned.
