The FCC's decision has touched off a flurry of activity on Capitol Hill, where few politicians are willing to step out front and forcefully defend the FCC's deregulation agenda.

"The most dangerous place to stand is between a politician and a broadcast camera," says Baca at the Precursor Group. "These rules affect politicians' perceived ability to talk to constituencies and get their message out. And a lot of them have had personal experience with TV and newspapers in home markets who didn't support them in a campaign, and they don't want that media group to become more powerful. So it's personal politics."

This week, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Commerce Committee, who has examined the issue at length, is holding his third media-consolidation hearing of the year. In the previous two, executives from large broadcasting companies were often grilled by skeptical senators, Democrat and Republican alike, who questioned the wisdom of allowing fewer and fewer conglomerates control more and more media outlets.

A three-pronged attack is being waged on Capitol Hill in an effort to water down the June 2 decision. The first volley came on June 19, when the Republican-controlled Commerce Committee easily passed legislation that would essentially undo the FCC's ownership vote. The swiftness of the bipartisan motion -- and the support from Republican Sens. Conard Burns, R-Mont., Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas -- raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill, "The fact it was supported by traditional broadcast friends like those senators signaled that the issues had moved beyond a traditional progressive issue and cut across both parties," says Michael Bracy, director of government relations for the Future of Music Coalition, which opposes media consolidation.

Odds are, though, that despite some Republican support for the bill, the party's top leadership will not allow the bill to come to the Senate floor for full consideration.

Next came an unusual procedural maneuver that would essentially veto the FCC vote. Known as a Senate Joint Resolution under the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, "It would say we, elected members of Congress, do not approve of this rule," say Fratrik. The so-called resolution of disapproval has been successfully used only once before, in 2001 when the new Republican Congress voted to overturn ergonomic rules adopted in the waning days of the Clinton administration.

Thanks to its 35 cosponsors, the CRA can bypass committees and will likely go the Senate floor for 10 hours of debate and an up-or-down vote. However, it's unlikely a similar resolution will be introduced in the House, preventing it from becoming law. And, of course, the White House opposes it.

The procedure is being spearheaded by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., as well as Lott, the former Senate majority leader. His participation is unusual since he's normally a staunch ally for network broadcasters who's also breaking ranks with the White House and Republican leadership on the high-profile media issue.

Still, prior to last week, the consensus seemed to be that while senators were making noise about the FCC vote, the revolt remained largely symbolic since members in the House of Representatives were not going to embrace the cause. That all evaporated last week when the House Appropriations Committee, by a wide margin of 40-25, voted to attach an FCC amendment, or rider, to one of the nation's 13 must-pass appropriations bills -- a legislative end-run. If the appropriations bill passes the full Congress with the FCC rider included, the commission would be forbidden from implementing its ownership rules, at the cost of forfeiting its annual budget from Congress. "Suddenly the victories aren't so symbolic anymore," says a former veteran Hill staffer who worked extensively on telecommunication issues. The Senate amendment is a relatively narrow one, though, pertaining only to the number of local television stations networks can own.

On Thursday, a similar rider is expected to be introduced and to pass the Senate Appropriations Committee, where bipartisan opposition to the FCC's vote remains strong. There is one possible hitch: Some senators, such as Hutchison of Texas, want to both rescind the TV cap and wipe out the cross-ownership provision that now allows companies to own TV stations and newspapers in the same market. That sort of wide-ranging amendment could be harder to pass.

The White House has vowed to veto the $38 billion spending bill for the Commerce, Justice and State departments if it contains the FCC amendment. But to do so, Bush would also be vetoing the entire spending bill, which includes must-have money for the FBI, law enforcement and judges.

"If I were the White House I'd be very wary of creating an issue for Democrats, who have very few right now," says one Democratic Hill staffer. "And if he vetoes this, he'll have created a big issue for them."

Instead, Republican leaders in the House, including Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Commerce Committee chairman Tauzin, have vowed to strip the FCC rider out of the House version, which would save the White House from having to veto the bill. That could be done behind closed doors in conference when House leaders meet with their Senate counterparts to hammer out the final appropriations bill. But sitting across from DeLay and Tauzin in conference will be senate Appropriations Committee chairman Ted Stevens, a strong opponent of media consolidation who is unlikely to agree to yank the FCC rider.

"Nobody's going to let this sleeping dog lie," says Rose at Consumers Union. "It's too big of a deal."

Recent Stories