Reaction to Regulation: 1934 vs. Today

Eight decades ago, when Congress passed the Communications Act of 1934 and created the Federal Communications Commission, Republican lawmakers objected just as loudly as they did to the FCC’s network neutrality decision, and with similar concerns.

Two senators -- Lester J. Dickinson (R-IA) and Thomas D. Schall (R-MN) -- strongly opposed the 1934 legislation. They called President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration “desperate” and overreaching. The senators said the act was an attempt to “censor the press” by seeking to regulate telegraph companies and broaden the Radio Act of 1927, according to news coverage at the time from The New York Times. In February 1934, President Roosevelt had asked Congress to create the FCC to centralize authority over radio, telephone and telegraph services.

On Feb. 26 of that year, the NY Times, on its front page, reported the recommendations made by the president and a committee he had created to study electronic communications: “The committee’s study led it to believe that rates for the various services could be lowered through regulation of company profits, overhead expenses and intercompany charges. The committee felt, further, that a single independent government agency could prevent discrimination, regulation of annual depreciation charges and extension of service to localities and homes not now served.”

By June, legislation along the lines of President Roosevelt’s vision passed both the House and Senate and was signed into law by the president on June 19. But leading up to that, the NY Times reported on strong Republican dissent.

Still, when the law took effect on July 1, 1934, reaction was more moderately characterized in the NY Times. As a story published on that date read, “Leaders Foresee No Material Shifts in Broadcasting — Much Depends Upon Personnel of Commission.” It speculated that the impact of the new act would depend on whether there was a Democratic or Republican majority. That same sentiment was expressed repeatedly recently, with lawmakers and nonpartisan experts alike wondering how enforcement of some new rules might change based on which party holds the majority.