March 2016

Strong pressure from Democratic Reps has not persuaded the Federal Communications Commission to take up a controversial proposal that would require some political TV ads to name the major individual donors behind them. In a letter, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said he understood that 168 House Democrats think he “should go farther” but gave no indication that he is willing to do so during an election year. “The fact that 170 members of Congress is a significant statement, the significance of which is not lost on me,” Chairman Wheeler wrote in response to a letter signed by all but 20 Democratic Reps in the House. Chairman Wheeler has said much of the same for the past year. Rep John Yarmuth (D-KY), who sponsors legislation on the issue, said he “certainly expected more than this,” referring to the letter as little more than a thank you note.

Currently, FCC rules require super-PACs and other outside groups to include a sponsorship announcement at the beginning or end of a television ad that reveals the group that is funding it. But Democratic Reps want the names of significant donors included on the screen. Democratic Reps say the current disclosure rules are based on a weak interpretation of the law. They say the sponsorship tags are of no real use to voters, who likely have no idea who is funding groups with generic names like Restore our Future, Priorities USA or Americans for Prosperity. Chairman Wheeler has defended his record on “expanding the public’s access to information about political advertising.” He pointed to the FCC’s rules that now require the FCC to maintain an online database that includes information about ads run on broadcast TV, radio, cable and satellite.

[Commentary] The Johnson report on how the Federal Communications Commission arrived at its decision to reclassify Internet Service Providers as common carriers under Title II is a 30 page version of that wonderful 20 seconds in Casablanca—Inspector Renault says “I’m shocked, shocked, to find that gambling going on in here” and then is provided his winnings—except that it completely lacks the Inspector’s self-awareness of its own comedy. A completely political document professing shock at discovering circumstantial evidence of politics inside the beltway? That’s pretty darn amusing.

There are two tragedies here. Neither involve actions by the FCC. The first is that taxpayer dollars were spent gathering information (including taking up FCC staff time) and writing the report, when the Committee said nothing that could not be gleaned by spending a buck to buy the Wall Street Journal story on the same subject. The other tragedy is the over investment of political capital on Title II, in ways that cause us to under invest in considering other issues. I admit to being in an exceedingly small minority that believes both the benefits and costs of the decision are exaggerated. For me, there are three core broadband questions: how do we deploy affordable, abundant bandwidth everywhere, how do we get everyone on, and how do we use the broadband platform to better deliver public goods and services? When we address those questions well, we improve the economic and civic prospects of our communities. The Johnson Report does nothing to help with those challenges. Rather, it is taxpayer-funded political theater—comedic yes, but not enough to justify the price–that distracts us from the important and more productive tasks required for leadership in the global information economy.

[Blair Levin is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Brookings Institute Metropolitan Policy Project]