The Fortune 500 company has consistently made news with its questionable policies and promotions, to wit: the axing of Howard Stern's show for alleged obscenity (while the racist, gaybashing hatemonger Michael Savage is allowed to continue polluting Clear Channel stations), huge pro-war rallies, censorship of the Dixie Chicks after Natalie Mains' remarks, and the personal and financial ties its corporate management has to the President himself. This sort of thing is why it's such a shame that Thomas Jefferson's objections to business gaining too much power was never written into the Constitution.

Is a loud concert a state service?

TAMPA - When 50 Cent raps about pimpin' and AK-47s, and when Toby Keith rouses a crowd with drinking songs, are they performing a governmental purpose?

Clear Channel Entertainment, owner of the $23-million Ford Amphitheatre, claims they are. The Texas-based company says its lease with the Florida State Fair Authority means Clear Channel, a private company, and the Fair Authority, a state agency, have the same rights.

Because of that link to the state, Clear Channel says it should have immunity from local noise laws.

And more. Clear Channel also says it should not be required to pay county property taxes.

Today in Hillsborough Circuit Court, Judge Charlene Honeywell will consider whether the music industry giant qualifies for "sovereign immunity," a legal distinction that normally shields governments, not Fortune 500 companies, from local regulation and liability.

...................

In a separate lawsuit filed in December, Clear Channel and the State Fair Authority sued Hillsborough County Property Appraiser Rob Turner, seeking to avoid paying $305,000 in county property taxes on the amphitheater.

In the property tax lawsuit, Clear Channel argues that as part of the Fair Authority, Ford Amphitheatre concerts "constitute essential governmental purposes."

.....................

On July 11, Honeywell said that the Fair Authority was an extension of the state, and therefore, outside the reach of local laws. What she did not rule was whether Clear Channel, as a Fair Authority tenant, qualified for that same immunity.

If she grants Clear Channel that immunity, she still could decide to waive the privilege because it causes too great a nuisance.

It's unclear what the ramifications would be if Clear Channel is deemed to be above local law. Hundreds of other tenants lease land from other authorities, such as the Tampa Port Authority, the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, which oversees Tampa International Airport, and the Tampa Sports Authority.

"I doubt very seriously any of this would affect our tenants," said Louis Miller, Tampa International's director. "We want to comply with local regulations. We want to be treated fairly and equitably."

At the Port of Tampa, about 80 companies lease property, but only one qualifies for immunity, said Charles Klug, the Port Authority's legal counsel.

Tampa Bay International Terminals is a nonprofit corporation that the authority created to maintain port operations, Klug said.

"We control it," Klug said. "That's the distinction that I would highlight. A private corporation that we have no control over, I would presume, wouldn't get that sovereign immunity."

That distinction is critical, said Tim McLendon, the attorney for the Center for Governmental Responsibility at the University of Florida College of Law.

"Traditionally, courts distinguish between a governmental operation and a proprietary function," McLendon said. "Sovereign immunity doesn't extend to a year-round, profitmaking private corporation like Clear Channel. I don't think they would be immune from taxes either." (More…)

Being a contractor for FL's Fair Commission does not make Clear Channel a part of the commission; it makes it a vendor and tenant, subject to the landlord's rules (the landlord in this case being Hillsborough County, FL). Clear Channel is a massive, national, for-profit media conglomerate which answers to no one but its stockholders. If it wishes to claim that it is part of the government, then it must submit itself to public regulation, full disclosure and public nomination and administrative confirmation hearings of its executives. As it will obviously never do such a thing, it is quite clear that Clear Channel's management simply wants it to be above the law.

Update 1: Welcome again, Buzzflash visitors! Linked twice in a week's time, wow!

Update 2: Score one for sense and reason. The judge ruled against Clear Channel :

Clear Channel, a San Antonio-based company that owns 41 amphitheaters and about 1,200 radio stations, had sought to attach itself to the Fair Authority, which Honeywell had ruled enjoys sovereign immunity as an arm of state government.

In her ruling, Honeywell cited the lease agreement Clear Channel signed with the Fair Authority in 2003. Clear Channel and the Fair Authority "have a landlord-tenant relationship," Honeywell said. "The Fair Authority has little or no control over Clear Channel. They (Clear Channel) are not an agent of the state."

The judge also pointedly urged both sides to stop wasting court time and taxpayer money and come to a settlement.