WASHINGTON-For someone with a track record of botched nominations, President Clinton’s choice last August of Bill Kennard, then-general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, to succeed Reed Hundt as head of the agency looked like a bold stroke of political genius.
Bold because Kennard had such close ties to his mentor, Reed Hundt, the highly controversial, yet accomplished, FCC chief. Hundt campaigned for Kennard’s nomination, favoring his top lawyer over fellow Democratic Commissioner Susan Ness.
But Hundt burned bridges with nearly every telecom sector in becoming a political extension of the Clinton-Gore administration. Only Bill Gates and the rest of the wired computer community in Silicon Valley were in Hundt’s corner in the end.
The departure of Hundt was a chance for Clinton to shore up strained relations with telecom moguls in the business world and key lawmakers in Congress. For Vice President and presidential hopeful Al Gore, who got former prep schoolmate Hundt his job, the choice of the next FCC chairman was arguably even more important.
That being the case, were the president and vice president just looking for trouble in backing someone so closely associated with so much controversy during the past four years?
That’s what seemingly made the Kennard appointment as bold as it was brilliant. It went as much against conventional wisdom as did putting two Southerners on the Democratic presidential ticket in 1992.
The reality is that, despite being a member of Hundt’s inner circle, Kennard managed to escape unscathed. This was so, in part, because Kennard’s personality and professional style contrasted so strikingly with that of his former boss. Kennard would offer a kinder and gentler alternative to Hundt’s arrogant aloofness and cocky combativeness.
The Kennard nomination was particularly brilliant, too, it seemed at the time, because it solved a touchy political problem that arose in the ensuing contest to fill Hundt’s seat after the FCC chairman announced he would step down last May. Vice President Gore supported Kathleen Wallman, a White House aide and former FCC official, while the Congressional Black Caucus and others on Capitol Hill wanted the FCC chair to go to Ralph Everett, an African American ex-aide to Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.).
Another factor in the equation was that in addition to Hundt’s seat, three other FCC seats also were open.
After weeks of lobbying by proponents of prospective FCC candidates and several stops and starts, a deal was struck last summer between the Democratic White House and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Key GOP lawmakers would get their picks-Harold Furchtgott-Roth and Michael Powell. Gloria Tristani would fill the bill for rural, state, female and Hispanic interest groups on the Democratic side.
And Kennard would be the White House’s compromise choice for FCC. Pride hurt, the Congressional Black Caucus grumbled and vented, but ultimately rallied behind Kennard. What choice did it have? Kennard would become the first African American ever to head the FCC.
Sen. Hollings, Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) finally relented, too, and the nomination went forward.
The new FCC was in place and all seemed fine. Maybe not.
Today, after only two months on the job, Kennard has the Portals lease, wireless bankruptcies, auction corruption, telecom act litigation, mega mergers and other controversial issues competing for his attention.
As such, it would appear the White House might have underestimated a key consideration during the vetting process: baggage.
Kennard enters the scene under somewhat awkward circumstances. As general counsel, he helped formulate many of the policies and decisions that are under fire on Capitol Hill and in the courts. Kennard also owes his job to Hundt.
When pressed by Congress, industry or fellow FCC members to move this way or that way on universal service or C-block personal communications services debt restructuring or antenna siting pre-emption or digital wiretap, what will Kennard do?
So far, at least judging from recent events, Kennard is stubbornly holding the line-the Hundt line-insofar as defending telecom act implementation despite warnings from lawmakers against challenging appeals’ court decisions for the sake of litigating.
But does Kennard feel obligated to defend embattled policies that he, Hundt and others settled on previously? Would abruptly walking away from Hundt-era policies give an appearance of shallowness and weakness on Kennard’s part or perhaps produce the opposite effect? Is he damned either way?
Kennard is to Hundt what Gore is to Clinton. Each man is the anointed agent for carrying forward his boss’s legacy. Historians will judge each according to whether their policies stand the test of time.
Therein lies the conflict.
Precisely because of concern about the Hundt association, Kennard may want to prove to the industry, Congress and the media that he is not a clone of his predecessor and will shape his policies accordingly.
It’s a dicey proposition. Congress and telecom lobbyists will readily exploit any detection of indecisiveness on Kennard’s part on that score.
Thus, for Kennard, the challenge of dealing with Hundt-era baggage is as much one of perception as it is one of substance.
Someone without close ties to Hundt’s policies would not have this dilemma and would be freer-either out of political or policy necessity-to disassociate himself from past FCC policies.
That doesn’t mean that person would make a better FCC chairman than Kennard.
It is not a question of whether Kennard has the right stuff to lead. From most accounts, he does. The question is rather whether his past will allow him to advance his program forward. If the baggage gets too heavy, it could prove difficult.
