Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
Click here for statement of Chairman Michael K. Powell
Click here for dissenting statement of Commissioner Michael J. Copps
Click here for statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.


                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                 )
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS,    )    NAL/Acct. No. 200432080140 
INC.                             )    FRN No. 0005813753
AMFM RADIO LICENSES, L.L.C.,     )    FRN No. 0001656586
                                 )    NAL/Acct. No. 200432080016
CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING       )    FRN No. 0001587971 
LICENSES, INC. AND               )    NAL Acct. No. 200432080017
                                )    NAL/Acct. No. 200432080018
Licensees of Stations            )
WWDC(FM), Washington, D.C.,      )    Facility ID No. 8682
WRXL(FM), Richmond, Virginia     )    Facility ID No. 11961
and WOSC(FM), Bethany Beach,     )    Facility ID No. 4674
Delaware                         )
Notice of Apparent Liability     )
for Forfeiture released March    )
12, 2004 (FCC 04-47)1            )    NAL/Acct. No. 200432080012
                                )    FRN No. 0003474947
                                )    Facility ID No. 14376
Licensee of Stations             )    Facility ID No. 41066
WAVW(FM), Stuart, Florida and    )
WCZR(FM), Vero Beach, Florida    )
Notice of Apparent Liability     )
for Forfeiture released March    )
18, 2004 (FCC 04-36)2            )    NAL/Acct. No. 20042380023
                                             )    FRN No. 0004953659 
LICENSES, INC.                   )
                                )    Facility ID No. 53457
Licensees of Stations            )    Facility ID No. 53593
WBGG-FM, Fort Lauderdale,        )    Facility ID No. 13504
Florida, WTKS-FM, Cocoa Beach,   )    Facility ID No. 24958
Florida,                         )    Facility ID No. 60153
WTFX-FM, Louisville, Kentucky,   )
KIOZ(FM), San Diego,             )
California, WNVE(FM), Honeoye    )
Falls, New York and WXDX-FM, 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture released April 
8, 2004 (FCC 04-88)3


Adopted:  June 4, 2004                            Released:  June 
9, 2004

By the Commission:  Chairman Powell issuing a statement; 
Commissioner Adelstein approving in part, dissenting in part and 
issuing a statement; Commissioner Copps dissenting and issuing a 

     1.   The Commission  has  been investigating  whether  Clear 
Channel  Communications,  Inc.  and   its  direct  and   indirect 
subsidiaries that hold FCC authorizations (``Clear Channel'') may 
have violated restrictions on the broadcast of obscene,  indecent 
or profane material.4

     2.   The Commission and  Clear Channel  have negotiated  the 
terms of the Consent Decree, a  copy of which is attached  hereto 
and incorporated by reference.

     3.   After reviewing  the terms  of the  Consent Decree,  we 
find that the public  interest would be  served by approving  the 
Consent Decree and  terminating all  pending proceedings  against 
Clear Channel  relating  to  restrictions  on  the  broadcast  of 
obscene, indecent or profane material.

     4.   Based on  the record  before  us, in  particular  Clear 
Channel's admission that  some of the  material it broadcast  was 
indecent in violation  of 47  C.F.R. §  73.3999, the  significant 
remedial efforts that  Clear Channel  has already  taken and  the 
additional remedial efforts to which Clear Channel has agreed, we 
conclude that there are no substantial and material questions  of 
fact in  regard to  these  matters as  to whether  Clear  Channel 
possesses  the  basic  qualifications,  including  its  character 
qualifications,  to   hold  or   obtain  any   FCC  licenses   or 

     5.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections  4(i), 
4(j), and 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as  amended,5 
that the attached Consent Decree IS ADOPTED.

     6.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary SHALL SIGN the 
Consent Decree on behalf of the Commission.

     7.   IT  IS   FURTHER  ORDERED   that  the   above-captioned 
Commission Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeitures  against 
Clear Channel regarding  possible violations of  18 U.S.C.  §1464 
and 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999 ARE RESCINDED, VACATED and CANCELLED, all 
Enforcement Bureau investigations  regarding possible  violations 
by Clear Channel of 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999  ARE 
TERMINATED, and all third-party Complaints against Clear  Channel 
for possible  violations of  18 U.S.C.  § 1464  and 47  C.F.R.  § 
73.3999 pending before the Enforcement  Bureau as of the date  of 


                         Marlene H. Dortch
			 Consent Decree

     1.   The Federal Communications Commission and Clear Channel 
Communications, Inc., for itself and on behalf of its direct  and 
indirect subsidiaries that hold FCC authorizations, hereby  enter 
into this  Consent  Decree  for  the  purpose  of  resolving  and 
terminating certain  forfeiture proceedings,  investigations  and 
complaints currently being conducted  by, or pending before,  the 
Commission relating to possible violations of the Indecency  Laws 
by Clear Channel Stations.

     2.   For purposes  of  this  Consent  Decree  the  following 
definitions shall apply:

1)a.      "Act" means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
     47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.
1)b.      "Adopting Order" means an order of the FCC adopting 
     this Consent Decree, without any modifications adverse to 
     Clear Channel or any Clear Channel Station;
1)c.      "Bureau" means the FCC's Enforcement Bureau;
1)d.      "Clear Channel Station" and "Clear Channel Stations" 
     means one or more broadcast stations operated by Clear 
1)e.      "Clear Channel" means Clear Channel Communications, 
     Inc., and all of its direct and indirect subsidiaries that 
     hold authorizations issued by the FCC;
1)f.      "Commission" or "FCC" means the Federal Communications 
1)g.      "Complaints" means third-party complaints received by, 
     or in the possession of, the Bureau, alleging violations of 
     the Indecency Laws by Clear Channel Stations, including (but 
     not limited to) complaints that have resulted in letters of 
     inquiry from the Bureau (``LOIs'').
1)h.      "Effective Date" means the date on which the FCC 
     releases the Adopting Order;
1)i.      "Final Order" means the status of the Adopting Order 
     after the period for administrative and judicial review has 
1)j.      "Indecency Laws" means 18 U.S.C. § 1464 and 47 C.F.R. § 
1)k.      "Inquiries" means investigations of alleged violations 
     of the Indecency Laws by Clear Channel Stations that have 
     resulted in LOIs to Clear Channel, or to other licensees 
     that relate to Clear Channel Stations;
1)l.      "NALs" means Notices of Apparent Liability for 
     Forfeiture issued pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, 
     including (i) that certain Notice of Apparent Liability for 
     Forfeiture concerning AMFM Radio Licenses, L.L.C., et al., 
     released March 12, 2004 (FCC 04-47), (ii) that certain 
     Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture concerning 
     Capstar TX Limited Partnership released March 18, 2004 (FCC 
     04-36), and (iii) that certain Notice of Apparent Liability 
     for Forfeiture concerning Clear Channel Broadcasting 
     Licenses, Inc., released April 8, 2004 (FCC 04-88).
1)m.      "Parties" means Clear Channel Communications, Inc., and 
     the Commission;
1)n.      "Rules" means the Commission's regulations found in 
     Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
     3.   Both the Commission and Clear Channel acknowledge that 
any proceedings that might result from the NALs, the Inquiries 
and/or the Complaints will be time-consuming and will require 
substantial expenditure of public and private resources.

     4.   In order to conserve such resources, and to promote 
compliance by Clear Channel with the Indecency Laws, the 
Commission and Clear Channel are entering into this Consent 
Decree, in consideration of the mutual commitments made herein.


     5.   The Parties agree that the provisions of this Consent 
Decree shall be subject to approval by the Commission by 
incorporation of such provisions by reference in an Adopting 

     6.   The Parties agree that this Consent Decree shall become 
effective on the date on which the Commission releases the 
Adopting Order.  Upon release, the Adopting Order and this 
Consent Decree shall have the same force and effect as any other 
orders of the Commission and any violation of the terms of this 
Consent Decree shall constitute a violation of a Commission 
order, entitling the Commission to exercise any rights and 
remedies attendant to the enforcement of a Commission order.

     7.   Clear Channel agrees that the Commission has 
jurisdiction over the matters contained in this Consent Decree 
and the authority to enter into and adopt this Consent Decree.

     8.   As part of the Adopting Order, the Commission shall 
rescind, vacate and cancel the NALs, shall terminate the 
Inquiries, and shall dismiss with prejudice the Complaints.  From 
and after the Effective Date, the Commission shall not, either on 
its own motion or in response to any petition to deny or other 
third-party objection, initiate any inquiries, investigations, 
forfeiture proceedings, hearings, or other sanctions or actions 
against Clear Channel, any Clear Channel Station, or any pending 
or future application to which Clear Channel is a party 
(including, without limitation, any application for a new 
station, for renewal of license, for assignment of license, or 
for transfer of control), based in whole or in part on (i) the 
NALs, (ii) the Inquiries, (iii) the Complaints, (iv) any other 
similar complaints alleging violation by any Clear Channel 
Station of the Indecency Laws with respect to any broadcast 
occurring prior to the Effective Date, or (v) the allegations 
contained in any of the foregoing.  Without limitation to the 
foregoing, the FCC shall not use the facts of this Consent 
Decree, the NALs, the Inquiries, the Complaints, any other 
similar complaints alleging violation by any Clear Channel 
Station of the Indecency Laws with respect to any broadcast 
occurring prior to the Effective Date, or the underlying facts, 
behavior, or broadcasts that relate to any of the foregoing, for 
any purpose relating to Clear Channel or any Clear Channel 
Station, and shall treat all such matters as null and void for 
all purposes.

     9.   Clear Channel represents that it has adopted, and is 
currently in the process of implementing, a company-wide 
compliance plan for the purpose of preventing the broadcast of 
material violative of the Indecency Laws.  A summary of that plan 
is set forth in the Attachment.  Clear Channel agrees, to the 
extent it has not already done so, to implement this compliance 
plan within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date and to keep 
such compliance plan in effect for three (3) years after the 
Effective Date.  Clear Channel reserves the right to revise the 
plan from time to time, provided that the Commission shall be 
given not less than thirty (30) days advance written notice of 
any revisions to the plan.

     10.  Within five (5) business days after the Adopting Order 
becomes a Final Order, without any modifications to this Consent 
Decree adverse to Clear Channel or to any Clear Channel Station, 
Clear Channel shall make a voluntary contribution to the United 
States Treasury in the amount of One Million Seven Hundred Fifty 
Thousand Dollars ($1,750,000).  Clear Channel must make this 
payment by check, wire transfer or money order drawn to the order 
of the Federal Communications Commission, and the check, wire 
transfer or money order shall refer to Acct. No. 200432080140 and 
FRN No. 0005813753.  If Clear Channel makes this payment by check 
or money order, it must mail the check or money order to: 
Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal 
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 
606073-7482.  If Clear Channel makes this payment by wire 
transfer, it must wire such payment in accordance with Commission 
procedures for wire transfers.  

     11.  Clear Channel waives any and all rights it may have to 
seek administrative or judicial reconsideration, review, appeal 
or stay, or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of 
this Consent Decree and the Adopting Order, provided no 
modifications are made to the Consent Decree adverse to Clear 
Channel or any Clear Channel Station.  If the Commission, or the 
United States acting on its behalf, brings a judicial action to 
enforce the terms of the Adopting Order or this Consent Decree, 
or both, Clear Channel will not contest the validity of this 
Consent Decree or of the Adopting Order and will waive any 
statutory right to a trial de novo.  If Clear Channel brings a 
judicial action to enforce the terms of the Adopting Order or 
this Consent Decree, or both, the Commission will not contest the 
validity of this Consent Decree or of the Adopting Order.

     12.  Clear Channel admits, solely for the purpose of this 
Consent Decree and for FCC civil enforcement purposes, and in 
express reliance on the provisions of Paragraph 8 hereof, that 
the broadcast material at issue in the NALs and certain of the 
broadcast material at issue in the Inquiries is indecent in 
violation of 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999, assuming construction of this 
term as it is construed by the Commission as of the date hereof.  
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, it is 
expressly agreed and understood that if this Consent Decree, or 
Paragraph 8 hereof, or both, are breached by the Commission, or 
are invalidated or modified to Clear Channel's prejudice by the 
Commission or by any court, then and in that event the provisions 
of the immediately-preceding sentence shall be of no force or 
effect whatever, and Clear Channel shall not, by virtue of that 
sentence or any other provision of this Consent Decree, be deemed 
to have made any admission concerning any material broadcast on 
any Clear Channel Station.

     13.  In the event that this Consent Decree is rendered 
invalid in any court of competent jurisdiction, it shall become 
null and void and may not be used in any manner in any legal 

     14.  Clear Channel hereby agrees to waive any claims it may 
otherwise have under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 
504 and 47 C.F.R. § 1.1501 et seq., relating to the matters 
addressed in this Consent Decree.

     15.  Each party represents and warrants to the other that is 
has full power and authority to enter into this Consent Decree.

     16.  This Consent Decree may be executed in counterparts.


By:   _________________________________________   
     Marlene H. Dortch

CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC .                                                             

 (For itself and on behalf of its direct and indirect 
subsidiaries that hold FCC authorizations)

By:  _______________________________________
     Andrew W. Levin
             Executive Vice-President and Chief Legal Officer

                         COMPLIANCE PLAN

     Clear Channel has adopted, and is implementing, a company-
wide compliance plan for the purpose of preventing the broadcast 
over radio or television of material violative of the Indecency 
Laws.  This compliance plan, known as the ``Responsible 
Broadcasting Initiative,'' consists of the following four 

1.   Clear Channel will conduct training on obscenity and 
     indecency for all on-air talent and employees who materially 
     participate in programming decisions, which will include 
     tutorials regarding material that the FCC does not permit 
     broadcasters to air.  This training will also include 
     components that educate Clear Channel employees about its 
     values, mission and sense of corporate responsibility.  Such 
     training will be provided to all such Clear Channel 
     employees within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of 
     this Compliance Plan.  The training will be provided to all 
     such new Clear Channel employees promptly after they 
     commence their duties.  Refresher training will be provided 
     to all employees described above at least once every twelve 
     (12) months. 

2.   If a Clear Channel station receives a Notice of Apparent 
     Liability or other proposed action for a broadcast occurring 
     after the adoption of this Initiative that the Commission 
     believes to be obscene or indecent, the following steps will 
     be taken:

2)a.      The employees accused of airing, or materially 
     participating in the decision to air, obscene or indecent 
     content will be suspended and an investigation will 
     immediately be undertaken;

2)b.      Such employees will be required to undergo remedial 
     training on the FCC's obscenity and indecency regulations 
     and policies and satisfy station management that they 
     understand where the line between acceptable and 
     unacceptable programming falls before resuming their duties; 

2)c.      If any such employee who is on-air talent is permitted 
     to return on a Clear Channel station following remedial 
     training, his or her broadcasts will be subjected to a 
     significant time delay - up to five minutes - so that a 
     program monitor will have the ability to interrupt a 
     broadcast if its content crosses the line. 

3.   If a Notice of Apparent Liability or other proposed action 
     issued by the FCC is finally adjudicated and Clear Channel 
     is finally found to have aired or decided to air an obscene 
     or indecent program that results in enforcement action by 
     the Commission, the offending employees will be terminated 
     without delay.  This will ensure those employees who break 
     the law by broadcasting, or by materially participating in a 
     decision to broadcast, obscene or indecent material will not 
     work for Clear Channel.

4.   Clear Channel will fully participate with representatives of 
     the broadcast, cable and satellite industries in any efforts 
     that may emerge to develop a voluntary industry-wide 
     response to indecency and violence.  

                          STATEMENT OF
                   CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL

Re:  Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

     Today's consent decree marks a significant victory for the 
Commission and the American public.  Through the consent decree, 
we have secured the highest enforcement concessions by a 
broadcaster in Commission history.  Clear Channel has agreed to 
make the highest enforcement-related payment to the Treasury by a 
broadcaster in Commission history--$1.75 million.  In addition, 
Clear Channel has now formally admitted that it violated the law 
and has made binding commitments to clean up its act, including 
preventive measures such as training for on-air personalities and 
employees that participate in programming decisions and the use 
of time delays in its broadcasts.  In addition, those accused of 
violating the Commission's rules will be suspended and if 
ultimately found to violate our rules, will be terminated.

     Notwithstanding these accomplishments, the government's 
involvement in content regulation can be a dangerous game.  Even 
where well intended, in our desire, for instance, to protect 
children from indecent broadcasts, encroachments on content can 
have adverse affects on the public interest.  By its very nature, 
government action, or even mere threats, to quell protected 
speech can have the unintended consequence of depriving the 
public of a speaker's artistic, literary, scientific or political 

     Grounded in the First Amendment is our forefathers' concern 
that the policymaker could be tempted to misuse power for their 
own self-interest.  They knew that the sword that wields the 
power to intentionally abridge speech and information is the most 
potent instrument of all.  As the Commission is tasked with 
walking the delicate balance of protecting the interests of the 
First Amendment with the need to protect our children, it is 
incumbent upon us to make best efforts to avoid the realization 
of our forefathers' concerns.

     This task is made easier when our licensees wrestle the 
difficult decisions away from the government and take the 
responsibility for what they broadcast over our nation's 
airwaves.  In the case of Clear Channel Communications, they have 
done just that through the substantial commitments agreed to in 
this consent decree.

     Oddly enough, these actions are not sufficient for some on 
the Commission.  In their zealousness, they would prefer to 
expend valuable Commission resources to fully investigate each 
complaint against Clear Channel only to inflict more punishment.  
Enforcement of our regulations is not, however, simply a matter 
of punishment for past behavior.  More importantly, our 
enforcement regime is designed to deter future illegal behavior. 

     Where, as here, the licensee has taken significant steps to 
guard against future violations, the benefits of entering into a 
consent decree for the government and the public are obvious.  
Not only will a substantial amount of money be submitted to the 
Treasury by the company, but we achieve significant commitments 
from the company that the fines are intended to produce.  In 
addition, the government, and therefore the public, will save 
time and resources, which can be redeployed to focus on more 
egregious violators that are less willing to take preventive 
steps.  Finally, the government gains an admission of 
responsibility from the licensee without going to the laborious 
and expensive process of prosecuting these actions in court.

     For one to toss aside these public benefits and demand 
another pound of flesh suggests that nothing short of economic 
ruin or license revocation will truly satisfy.  I believe such 
stances are excessively chilling of protected speech in this 
country and fail to be respectful of the limits imposed upon us 
by the First Amendment.
                     DISSENTING STATEMENT OF 

Re:  Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

     Before the Commission enters into a settlement agreement, it 
should understand the full scope of what it is addressing.  
Today, the Commission instead enters into a consent decree with 
Clear Channel to settle all of the outstanding indecency 
complaints against the company without understanding the extent 
of the indecency that was broadcast.  Additionally, the 
Commission removes all consideration of this issue from the 
license reapplication process.  Despite my colleague's assertion, 
my dissent is about process¾and the process here is inadequate.  
What message do we send to citizens when we fail even to 
investigate their complaints before making a sweeping settlement?    

     Here is what we do know.  We know there are indecency 
complaints concerning at least 200 broadcasts pending against 
Clear Channel.  To the extent that some of these broadcasts were 
likely aired on more than one station, the number of indecency 
incidents could grow much larger.  We also know that over two-
thirds of the indecency fines proposed by the Commission since 
2000 have been against Clear Channel.  We further know that the 
Commission relies entirely on viewers and listeners to file 
complaints about indecent broadcasts.  The FCC places a heavy 
burden on complaining citizens to submit tapes, transcripts, or 
significant excerpts of broadcasts before it will even initiate 
an investigation.  Citizens have a right to expect Commission 
follow-through on their complaints.  Yet all too often, these 
complaints languish unaddressed at the Commission for a year or 
more.  Today a majority decides that, rather than investigate 
these pending complaints or even seek information about these 
broadcasts as part of the settlement discussions, it will wipe 
the slate clean for Clear Channel. 

     I recognize that Clear Channel in recent months has taken 
promising steps to curtail indecency on its stations.  I commend 
the company's initiative, yet I believe the Commission has a duty 
to get an accounting of the broadcasts at issue before finalizing 
a settlement agreement.  Absent this process, I do not believe we 
have the information needed to evaluate whether this consent 
decree truly serves the public interest or whether it even 
responds to the many pending but uninvestigated complaints.   

     I am also troubled by the possible effect of today's 
decision on the Commission's license renewal process.  The 
totality of a broadcasters' record is pertinent and should be 
considered when licenses are renewed.  Today's decision takes 
this entire part of the record off the table.  We are closing our 
ears to any citizen who believes that a station's indecency 
actions over the term of its license have any bearing on its 
fitness to continue using the public airwaves.  This settlement 
reaches too far and grants too much.  It is bad enough that our 
re-licensing process has degenerated to the point where the 
Commission generally does not even look at a station's public 
file or inquire further into the station's service to its 
community unless a citizen of that particular community brings an 
issue to our attention.  Today, the Commission tells those 
citizens that their complaints no longer matter.  If we are not 
actually changing the rules of the game, we are at a minimum 
sending a wrong and discouraging signal to those citizens upon 
whom we rely in implementing the law. 

     It should be a cautionary note that the Commission has gone 
down this road before.  Over eight years ago, the FCC entered 
into a similar kind of agreement with Infinity Broadcasting to 
settle a smaller number of proposed forfeitures and pending 
indecency complaints.  Under that agreement, Infinity paid 
practically the same amount that Clear Channel is paying here and 
adopted a similar compliance plan to reduce indecent broadcasts.  
At that time, the Commission praised the level of the payment and 
the steps Infinity took to ensure compliance with the indecency 
laws.  I don't know of anyone who claims that the 1995 consent 
decree has resulted in less indecency on the airwaves.  In fact, 
over the past few years, Infinity is second only to Clear Channel 
in the number of fines.   Some would have us believe these fines 
are powerful disincentives to big companies broadcasting 
indecency.  But one or two million dollar fines need to be seen 
in the context of these mega-companies' multi-billion dollar 
revenue streams.  

     Going forward, I hope my colleagues will accord prompt and 
vigorous attention to any future listener complaints against 
Clear Channel.  Perhaps the company will be so vigilant that 
there will be none.  In the meantime, I am reminded that 
President Reagan, whose passing America mourns this week, 
admonished us ``to trust but verify.''   His statement was made 
in a foreign policy context, but I think it is equally applicable 

     This Commission, charged with significant public 
responsibilities, must always be at pains to demonstrate to 
citizens that their complaints will not be brushed aside and to 
let industry know that Commission involvement in these issues is 
not a passing fancy.  Our job at the FCC is to enforce the law 
and to ensure that all avenues of citizen redress are open to 
those who wish to use them.  

                          STATEMENT OF 

     Re:  Clear Channel Communications, Inc.  

     I support much of today's action.  By admitting that certain 
broadcasts violated our indecency rules, by making a sizable 
contribution to the U.S. Treasury, and by entering into a 
company-wide compliance plan involving training, internal 
investigations and suspensions, and program delays, Clear Channel 
has shown that it understands its responsibility to prevent the 
broadcast of indecent material on its stations.  Faithful 
adherence to the compliance plan should obviate the need for 
Commission enforcement in this area.  

     Yet before the Commission enters into a settlement that 
seeks to resolve all pending matters involving a company's 
indecency compliance, it should have conducted at least 
preliminary investigations of those matters to understand the 
full extent of the possible violations and the suitability of the 
remedy.  With respect to many of the pending Clear Channel 
matters before the Commission, the staff has indeed investigated 
the nature of the complaint and in some cases sent out inquiry 
letters.  Yet some of the pending complaints have not even been 
investigated.  It's no threat to the First Amendment to, at a 
minimum, do some measure of investigation when we receive public 
complaints seeking to enforce a law that Congress tasked to us 
and that the courts have upheld under the First Amendment.  With 
respect to including these pending but uninvestigated complaints 
within the scope of this decree, I dissent in part.  


1 File Nos. EB-03-0121, EB-IH-0736 and EB-03-IH-0737.
2 File No. EB-02-IH-0564-AHB.
3 File No. EB-03-IH-0159.
4 18 U.S.C. § 1464; 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999.
5 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 503(b).