The Senate recently took the unusual step of passing a resolution of disapproval of a Federal Communications Commission rule. The lawmakers apparently want to ensure that the federal government maintains a heavy hand in determining who owns a newspaper. Investors and all Americans should take notice.

The FCC’s rule slightly weakened a 1970s regulation prohibiting ownership of a newspaper by a local broadcast station. In essence, the new rule would allow, in a few instances, combinations of broadcast stations and newspapers.

Now that the Senate has gone on record as disapproving of the FCC’s efforts to roll back restrictions on newspaper and broadcast ownership, the next vote will be in the House of Representatives. Rep. Jay Inslee, a Democrat of Washington state, has introduced a resolution identical to the one approved by the Senate. A vote has not yet been scheduled.

If the House passes Mr. Inslee’s resolution, the resolution goes to President Bush’s desk, where his senior advisers have promised a veto.

Our federal government closely scrutinizes who owns newspapers to ascertain that the “wrong” people do not own them. For a local broadcaster to own a newspaper is a per se violation of federal law.

President Nixon, so the story goes, wanted to punish the Washington Post for its investigative journalism, and his FCC obliged with rules restricting newspaper and broadcast ownership. These rules have nothing to do with legitimate antitrust review or other forms of reasonable government review. America has the dubious distinction of being among those countries whose government reviews and, in some instances, vetoes who may own a newspaper.

The very process of government review is lengthy and uncertain. The Tribune Company and Dow Jones are but two recent examples.

Yet Internet companies are different. Consider Yahoo: With a market capitalization of approximately $38 billion, it can reach every American household and business. Aside from antitrust laws, the federal government has no limitations on who may own Yahoo, and several groups are vying for control of the company.

The First Amendment prohibits restrictions on freedom of the press; it was a reaction to the common 18th-century government practice of restricting newspaper ownership. Nixon’s FCC simply codified what our Founding Fathers feared. Over the past 35 years, no court has been willing to state the obvious: The FCC ownership rules violate the Constitution.

The courts have consistently reached this conclusion with the help of individuals who believe that the Constitution can mean exactly the opposite of its plain language. For them, the Constitution is a pretext for government agencies and judges to have uncircumscribed discretion to do what they think is right — in this case, allowing the government to decide who may own a newspaper.

Some, such as Senator Obama, have developed a detailed rationalization to expand Nixon’s policy. Mr. Obama recently declared, “Our nation’s media market must reflect the diverse voices of our population, and it is essential that the FCC promotes the public interest and diversity in ownership.” Simply stated, the government must determine who may or may not own newspapers and broadcast stations.

One rationalization given is that “diversity of ownership” leads to “diversity of content” and “diversity of viewpoint.” Yet in this Internet age, Americans have access to any form of content with any viewpoint owned by practically anyone.

Another rationalization is that “diversity of ownership” leads to less concentration in ownership. No special new rules are needed, as we already have antitrust laws enforced by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.

A modern-day Nixon might not be satisfied with restricting newspaper and broadcast ownership and could seek to restrict ownership of Internet assets or programming, or real estate or financial assets. If the courts are silent on constitutionally dubious restrictions on the ownership of newspapers, how can they object to governmental restrictions on ownership of any other asset in the economy, such as Internet companies?

When the government engages in the identity politics of promoting “diversity of ownership,” we are all the poorer. One government may find our ownership diverse, the next may not.

House members may want to review the First Amendment before voting to continue the federal government’s blanket authority to regulate ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations.

A former FCC commissioner, Mr. Furchtgott-Roth is president of Furchtgott-Roth Economic Enterprises. He can be reached at hfr@furchtgott-roth.com