1. United States
2. Va.
3. Letter

I'm not asking you to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. I'm asking you to create FAIR AMERICA—a constitutionally protected system where government and powerful institutions have to show their evidence, distinguish fact from opinion and uncertainty, disclose conflicts, correct demonstrably false information, and face accountability for misconduct, while every American remains completely free to believe and say what they want. Nobody gets to decide for everyone. The evidence is published, the methodology is public, competing arguments are presented, citizens deliberate, and the institution itself is subject to scrutiny. Because the fundamental objective shouldn't be "make America agree." It should be: Make disagreement safer, more informed, more honest, and less exploitable by people who possess extraordinary power. That is a much stronger—and more constitutionally defensible—political proposition than simply resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine. The Civic Fairness & Accountability Act “Fair Facts. Free Speech. Equal Rules.” A 21st-Century Framework for Truthful Public Information, Political Fairness, and Accountability for Power Executive Summary The Civic Fairness & Accountability Act (CFAA) would establish a politically independent national framework for improving the quality of America's public conversation without giving the federal government power to censor political viewpoints. The Act would not require Americans to agree. It would require institutions and people exercising substantial public power to follow transparent, viewpoint-neutral standards concerning evidence, disclosure, corrections, conflicts of interest, and accountability. The guiding principle: Free speech means everyone has the right to speak. Civic fairness means the public has the right to know what is fact, what is opinion, what is uncertain, and who is accountable for the claims being made. 1. What the Act Would—and Would Not—Do It WOULD: Establish national standards for identifying and presenting factual claims. Require transparent sourcing for certain factual claims made in official governmental communications. Create independent, bipartisan citizen review panels for major national issues. Require meaningful corrections when government institutions publish demonstrably false factual information. Strengthen disclosure of conflicts of interest and financial relationships affecting public communications. Create a publicly accessible National Civic Evidence Library containing primary documents and supporting evidence. Establish consequences for misconduct, fraud, corruption, deliberate falsification, or abuse of governmental authority, consistent with existing constitutional protections and law. Give citizens better tools to distinguish facts from opinions and legitimate disagreements. It WOULD NOT: Make the government the "arbiter of truth." Ban political opinions. Require equal time for every political position. Require journalists to give equal weight to unsupported claims. Punish people merely for being wrong. Punish unpopular political beliefs. Give a president, Congress, FCC, or political party authority to determine acceptable ideology. Require social-media companies to promote particular political viewpoints. That distinction is the foundation of the proposal. 2. The Three-Part Civic Fairness Test Every major public claim would be evaluated using three questions: FACT What evidence supports this claim? Is there reliable, independently verifiable evidence? FAIRNESS Has relevant information been presented honestly? Has important contradictory evidence been concealed or materially misrepresented? ACCOUNTABILITY Who has the power to act on this claim, and what responsibility do they have for its accuracy? This creates a very different standard from simply asking whether two opposing political viewpoints received equal airtime. 3. Create the American Civic Information Board Establish an independent body tentatively called the: American Civic Information Board (ACIB) Its purpose would be public education and transparency—not censorship. It would publish: Evidence summaries Primary-source documents Competing expert interpretations Areas of scientific or factual consensus Areas of legitimate disagreement Known uncertainties Corrections Methodologies Financial/conflict-of-interest disclosures The Board would have strict structural protections against political capture. Membership No president or political party would control its membership. For example: 1/3 appointed through bipartisan congressional agreement 1/3 selected through an independent professional process 1/3 selected from randomly chosen American citizens Members would have staggered terms so that no single election could replace the institution. 4. The Citizens' Civic Jury This is where your proposal could become especially powerful. For major national controversies, Americans would be able to see a Civic Jury Report. A representative group of citizens would receive: Evidence supporting competing claims Evidence contradicting those claims Expert testimony Primary documents Statistical information Arguments from competing political perspectives They would then answer: What can reasonably be established as fact? What remains uncertain? Where is legitimate disagreement? Which claims are unsupported? The result wouldn't be legally binding. It would be a public reasoning document for the country. The purpose isn't: "Here's what Americans must believe." It is: "Here's what a representative group of Americans concluded after having access to the same evidence." 5. A Political Claim Should Carry Its Evidence For elected officials and government agencies, major factual claims made in official communications would receive an Evidence Label. For example: 🟢 Verified/Strong Evidence 🟡 Evidence Mixed or Inconclusive 🔵 Prediction/Projection 🟣 Political Opinion 🔴 Claim Contradicted by Available Evidence The labels wouldn't prohibit anyone from saying something. They would simply make the epistemic status of the claim visible. A politician could still say: "I believe this policy will create 500,000 jobs." But the public should be able to see: Prediction — methodology and assumptions available here. That's fundamentally different from government saying: "You are forbidden from making that statement." 6. Accountability for People With Power This is perhaps the most important component of your proposal. The system should recognize that a private citizen and a person exercising enormous governmental authority don't have identical responsibilities. A president, governor, senator, judge, agency head, or senior public official can make statements that directly affect millions of people. Therefore, the Act would establish enhanced transparency requirements for people exercising public power. But consequences would attach to conduct, not political beliefs. Potential consequences could include: Mandatory corrections Public findings Ethics investigations Inspector-general referrals Congressional disciplinary procedures Civil penalties where authorized by law Removal proceedings where existing law permits Criminal prosecution where existing criminal law has actually been violated No new crime of "political misinformation." That safeguard should be explicit. 7. The Media Component This is where you avoid recreating the original Fairness Doctrine. Don't tell broadcasters: "You must give both sides equal time." Instead, establish a voluntary Civic Fairness Certification. Participating organizations could receive certification if they demonstrate: Clear separation of news and opinion Corrections policies Source transparency Disclosure of significant conflicts Standards for anonymous sources Clear labeling of commentary Corrections that are reasonably prominent Distinction between established facts and allegations Disclosure when significant factual claims remain disputed The government wouldn't decide