dropped out of the radio business. In 1984, Lim-
baugh returned to radio as a talk-show host at KFBK,
an AM station in Sacramento, California.
After just over three years in Sacramento, Lim-
baugh began searching for a way to break into the
national market. With help from friend and col-
league Bruce Marr, Limbaugh began broadcasting
nationally from New York on WABC on August 1,
- Limbaugh’s audience size in 1988 was approxi-
mately 250,000 listeners, and his show was carried on
fifty-six stations. Limbaugh’s format was unlike any
other on talk radio at the time. He did not have
guests or do interviews. Rather, he addressed what
he deemed relevant social and political issues as they
occurred. He was told that such a format would not
work, but it made him the voice of the political con-
servative movement by the early 1990’s.
In 1992, Limbaugh began airing his “Morning
Update,” a ninety-second blurb on AM radio during
morning rush hour. In 1993, he was inducted into
the Radio Hall of Fame. By the end of the 1990’s,
Limbaugh’s audience had grown from 250,000 per
week to approximately twenty million, and the num-
ber of stations that carried him had grown to nearly
six hundred.
From 1992 through 1996, Limbaugh had a syndi-
cated half-hour television show, which he used as an-
other vehicle to provide commentary on contempo-
rary politics and society. He also authored two books
in the 1990’s,The Way Things Ought to Be(1992) and
See, I Told You So(1993), both of which reached num-
ber one onThe New York Timesbest-seller list.
Impact Rush Limbaugh was credited with helping
the Republicans win control of Congress in 1994. By
the end of the 1990’s, Limbaugh’s show was the most
popular talk radio show in America.
Further Reading
Barker, David C.Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Per-
suasion, and American Political Behavior. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2002.
Limbaugh, Rush.See, I Told You So. New York: Pocket
Books, 1993.
___.The Way Things Ought to Be. New York:
Pocket Books, 1992.
AWR Hawkins III
See also Abortion; Christian Coalition; Conserva-
tism in U.S. politics; Elections in the United States,
midterm; Elections in the United States, 1992; Elec-
tions in the United States, 1996; O’Reilly, Bill; Re-
publican Revolution; Right-wing conspiracy; Talk ra-
dio; Television. Line Item Veto Act of 1996
Identification Federal law authorizing the
president to exercise a limited line-item veto
Date Signed into law April 9, 1996; declared
unconstitutional June 25, 1998
Congress, unable to control its own spending, permitted the
president to cancel specific items within appropriations and
tax bills after signing the bill into law.
A line-item veto permits the executive to veto parts
of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. In the 1980’s,
with the annual deficit and national debt rising,
President Ronald Reagan proposed that the presi-
dent be given the authority to discourage wasteful
spending and reduce the national debt. Although
Reagan’s efforts were unsuccessful, the executive
was subsequently given this power, however briefly,
by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. The act, which
went into effect on January 1, 1997, authorized the
president to “cancel” individual spending and tax
benefit provisions contained in a bill within five days
after signing the bill into law.
On January 2, 1997, two representatives and four
senators filed a lawsuit asserting that the law uncon-
stitutionally strengthened the presidency. Although
the federal district court declared the law unconsti-
tutional, the U.S. Supreme Court, inRaines v. Byrd,
dismissed the lawsuit, holding that the litigants did
not have standing. Shortly thereafter, President Bill
Clinton canceled one provision in the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 and two provisions of the Tax-
payer Relief Act of 1997. These provisions, if not can-
celed, would have benefited two public hospitals in
New York City and a potato farmers’ cooperative in
Idaho. These parties filed suit in federal district
court, which declared the statute unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court granted expedited review.
InClinton v. City of New York, decided on June 25,
1998, the justices held that the cancellation provi-
sions set forth in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 vio-
lated the presentment clause of Article I, section 7,
clause 2 of the Constitution. Writing for six members
of the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens noted that
there were important differences between the presi-The Nineties in America Line Item Veto Act of 1996 517