Not quite. Big names would remain successful, they'd still have enough health to pull through despite the leeches. Marginal talkers might face extinction as the number of stations starts to dwindle, especially in smaller markets. We'd also see fewer independent talk stations as forming "superstations" would be one of the few ways to survive. A few would try placing bland, viewpoint-free programming on their schedule, and everyone would be hearing more commercials on their airwaves.
And besides all that, censorship is censorship - and we have a thing called the first amendment that supposedly is there to protect us from it.
You are confusing the “Fairness Doctrine” (which was eliminated by Reagan in 1987) with the “Equal Time Rule” (in place since 1934) which simply says that if a station gives a free prime-time minute to a candidate, they must give a free minute to the opposing candidate (only if they ask). Neither one talks about forcing stations to provide equal programming time to competing political viewpoints. Since there is only one lonely Representative proposing a reintroduction of “Fairness”, it doesn’t seem like much of a threat when even Obama is against it.