Is the FCC still trying to stifle political speech?

[Commentary] As a result of tremendous public outrage, the Federal Communications Commission was forced to walk back its “Critical Information Needs” or “CIN” Study. Unfortunately, I regret to say that the CIN Study is not an isolated incident.

In the midst of the CIN Study debacle, the FCC released a document compiled at FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s instructions entitled Staff Working Group Report on Process Reform. Buried deep inside this Report is Recommendation 5.44, which proposes to require everyone filing comments at the FCC -- from advocacy groups to academic institutions -- to disclose any direct and indirect financial support they may receive “from industry.” According to this recommendation, such a rule is necessary because: “In most cases, a filer’s motives are apparent, but sometimes they are hidden. For instance, an organization purporting to represent consumer interests may actually represent industry, or may be influenced by industry contributions.” Thus, reasons the report, the implementation of such a rule will permit the agency to “evaluate the credibility of factual and policy arguments by knowing who is making them.” (Emphasis supplied.) This statement is a naked admission by the FCC that it does not intend to evaluate the merits of the arguments before it, but that the agency will assess the “credibility of … arguments” based on “who is making them” and, thus, the filer’s presumed “motives.”

[Spiwak is the president of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies]