Eshoo Undeterred by Opposition to Political Ads Amendment
Broadcasters haven’t seen the last of a Democratic amendment requiring more disclosure regarding political ads. House Communications Subcommittee Ranking Member Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., said in an interview Friday that she plans to offer it again when FCC reform legislation (HR-3309) reaches the House floor. Broadcasters oppose the amendment due to liability concerns, and separately have been opposing proposed FCC rules to require all TV stations’ political-ad files to go online. (See separate report in this issue.)
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Republicans defeated the Eshoo amendment in markup last week. The amendment would require that public inspection files of a broadcast licensee, cable operator or satellite broadcaster identify any donor who contributed $10,000 or more to political programming sponsors during the two-year period preceding a request to purchase programming time. At the markup, House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., said the amendment’s terms were too vaguely defined and could make broadcasters unfairly liable.
Eshoo plans to talk to Walden about the wording of the amendment and will ask the Rules Committee to allow her amendment on the floor, she said. A floor vote on HR-3309 could occur in the next 30 days, but Eshoo hasn’t heard official word, she said. Eshoo isn’t sure why Republicans are opposed because they support disclosure and transparency, she said. Even in the Citizens United decision, which precipitated disclosure bills in Congress, all the Supreme Court justices underscored the importance of disclosure, Eshoo said. Asked if she would offer her amendment instead as a stand-alone bill, Eshoo said the existing DISCLOSE Act (HR-4010) covers her concerns.
"NAB has concerns with the liability implications for broadcasters” under the proposed Eshoo amendment, an association spokesman said. The industry is concerned stations may be liable for the contents of the disclosure filings under the existing language of the amendment, a broadcast industry lobbyist said. It would be burdensome if broadcasters had to verify the accuracy of the donor reporting by those buying political ads, another industry lobbyist said. It’s more paperwork, regardless, especially if coupled with the FCC’s proposed rule requiring broadcasters to make public inspection files available online, the lobbyist said.
The amendment “simply improves the quality of information in the public file and it doesn’t place the burden on any of the broadcast mediums” but rather “the groups that are buying ads,” Eshoo said. “The public file already exists for all broadcasters” and was “designed to disclose who’s buying ad time.” It’s critical to require “real information about the sponsors” -- because after Citizens United, “we're in another stratosphere now,” she said.
Eshoo does appear to be open to suggestions for edits, a broadcast lobbyist said. “I think the broadcasters would be open to a constructive dialog on the amendment and disclosure issues in general.” Even if Congress accepts the amendment, the intended vehicle of HR-3309 appears unlikely to move in the Senate, which has shown little interest in FCC reform, a broadcaster lobbyist said.