September 2014

Public interest groups say they are disappointed that federal regulators will not require broadcasters to reveal the "true identity" of corporations that pay for political advertisements. One day after the Federal Communications Commission rejected a petition to strengthen the disclosure rules for political ads, Common Cause and other groups accused the agency of "shirking its responsibilities."

The public interest groups say the FCC's long-standing political disclosure rules are outdated in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010, allowing corporate spending on campaigns. Under the current rules, corporations can hide behind vague third parties that take their money to pay for the ads, the groups said. "When you see paid for by 'Americans for Prosperity,' well that doesn't really tell you who provided the money, who is the real sponsor," said Dale Eisman, spokesman for Common Cause. But Common Cause wants the FCC to require broadcasters to identify the corporations and wealthy individuals who fund these "fronts," Eisman explained. "The viewer ought to know who is exactly paying for this commercial, who would the candidate owe something to because they helped them?" he said.

The Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission have signaled they have no antitrust issues with the Scripps and Journal Communications deal to merge their broadcast station groups and spin off their newspaper holdings into a separate company. The DoJ’s Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust review has ended early with no government plans to condition or try and block the deal in court.

[Commentary] To win federal regulators' approval for its acquisition of NBC Universal, cable giant Comcast promised in 2011 to offer low-cost Internet connections to millions of low-income households in its service area for three years. Now, eager for the green light to acquire another cable operator -- Time Warner Cable -- Comcast has pledged to extend its generous discounts to TWC's turf as well. But such commitments to narrow the digital divide are meaningless if regulators don't demand results.

Comcast has kept its pledge to offer broadband to low-income families. But if the FCC is to approve another blockbuster merger for the company, it should insist that Comcast try harder to sell it. That means more effective outreach -- for example, by working through nonprofits that have a record in bringing services to low-income and immigrant-heavy communities -- as well as an easier sign-up process, more technical assistance and family-friendly equipment. Comcast can't be expected to close the digital divide alone, but it can do a better job of hooking up the low-income residents on its turf.

[Commentary] Sometime in 2015, the Federal Communications Commission plans to hold a voluntary incentive auction in which it will attempt to entice broadcasters to relinquish some of their prime spectrum for mobile broadband use. Should the FCC allow the politics of net neutrality to interfere, however, the commission could blow one of the last great opportunities both to alleviate spectrum exhaust and to make a significant contribution toward deficit reduction without raising taxes. Both the White House and the FCC are threatening to subject the mobile broadband industry to stringent net neutrality rules -- or, worse, to reclassify mobile broadband as a Title II common carrier telecommunications service. Should they make good on their threat, such heavy-handed regulation would make the broadcast spectrum less valuable and, in turn, depress much-needed auction revenues, throwing the success of the auction into doubt.

[Ford is the chief economist of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]