Readers will doubtless recall the Supreme Court's remarkable decision in Kelo v. New London, which turned the Constitution's "takings clause" (which requires just compensation when private property is seized for "public use") on its head.

Readers will doubtless recall the Supreme Court's remarkable decision in Kelo v. New London, which turned the Constitution's "takings clause" (which requires just compensation when private property is seized for "public use") on its head. A similar scandal is now brewing in Congress, currently in the midst of a major telecom overhaul. Television broadcasters (supported by some who should know better, including Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson) are seeking to expand their privileges vis-a-vis cable-television providers. At stake is a complicated issue called "multicasting." Today, cable-television providers must also transmit the primary video content of television broadcasters. The broadcasting giants are desperate to expand these "must carry" privileges to include up to six channels. The cable companies have properly balked at this property grab. Unlike broadcasters, who use the public airwaves to carry transmissions, cable companies built every iota of cable bandwidth they use. As it stands, however, broadcasters pay nothing for the cable space they use--and neither does the government. This is exactly the type of arbitrary wealth transfer the takings clause was designed to avoid. Congress should not expand existing must-carry requirements and, indeed, should reconsider this archaic and unfair requirement altogether.