Stern wants Kerry? Better watch what you wish for!

It is now a widely known fact that Howard Stern is trying to throw his weight behind Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry, largely because he feels he is the object of a witch hunt orchestrated by President George W. Bush and his FCC, headed by Michael Powell.

However, another widely held belief is that should Kerry win the prize in November, the FCC will likely come under the chairmanship of its current senior Democrat, Michael Copps. This is despite the fact that neither Kerry nor Copps has commented, nor is likely to comment, on that topic. It remains a widely held speculative belief.

Powell was mostly seen as holder of a free-speech, don't-regulate-content philosophy. But that has definitely changed. He has been pursuing the allegedly indecent with vigor since the Super Bowl.

And he still hasn't gone far enough to satisfy Copps, who almost beyond doubt wants nothing less than some revoked licenses to place in his trophy case. He is the world's leading utterer of the phrase "race to the bottom." He took the anti-indecency baton from Gloria Tristani upon taking office and has run with it and then some, waging a ferocious battle against people like: Howard Stern.

So if Kerry wins, and Copps is promoted, will Stern have won? What do you think?

In the final analysis, it probably doesn't much matter for Stern who wins. He has no port in this storm - - not in Washington, anyway. About 20 members of the House voted against the Broadcast Decency Act of 2004, meaning about 415 were for it. The Senate went for a version of the same bill by a 99-1 margin. None of the five FCC commissioners are defending Stern or Bubba or anyone of that ilk.

No - - the prevailing sentiment is to find a way to extend broadcast restrictions to basic cable programming that will get around the courts.

And there lies Stern's ultimate hope - - the courts. Viacom/Infinity has reiterated its vow to fight for its radio star. It will refuse to pay any fines associated with allegedly indecent programming. It will wrap itself in the First Amendment and dare the FCC to bundle up in its vague, confusing indecency regulations for a little get-together in front of a federal judge.

Now a conservative judge is liable to grant regulators more leeway into the First Amendment than would a liberal First-Amendment lover. And a Kerry administration would be more likely to appoint that sort of judge than is the Bush administration. But it probably wouldn't happen in time to help Stern, so again, the identity of the president probably is immaterial.

By the way, it is easy to stay far, far away from the cutting edge covered by the FCC's indecency rules. Radio Disney does it every day, and so do thousands of broadcasters.

But the rules are the rules, and the FCC rules are incredibly vague, despite Powell's attempt to clarify them. Enforcement, to use terminology popular with appeals court judges, has always been arbitrary and capricious. Since this country in general is proud and defensive of its free speech rights, it's hard to see how those regs will stand up under vigorous court challenge.

And in the current climate, even Radio Disney is not safe. If the guy in the Mickey Mouse suit stubs his toe and lets the wrong word slip out near a mic, the Mouseketeers could be looking at a six-figure assessment which could balloon instantly into the seven- and eight-figure range when its affiliates are figured in.

Say what you want about Viacom - - every broadcaster should secretly be thanking them for preparing to fight this battle.