Voting along party lines, a House panel on Wednesday
rejected a new Federal Communications Commission rule that would shed some light on political advertisements by candidates and others — including secretive outside groups.
In late April, the FCC
voted to force broadcast stations in the top 50 TV markets to post on their websites detailed information about political ads that run on their airwaves, including the rates that the candidates or groups pay. Broadcasters are already required to make this information public, but the only way an individual can view these “political files” currently is by visiting each station in person.
Financial Services Subcommittee Chair Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) inserted a provision into the FCC appropriations bill that would prevent the FCC from posting political ad information online; it passed the subcommittee along party lines. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) sponsored an amendment to cut the provision, but Republicans, siding with broadcasters who have argued that required online disclosure would be too expensive for local TV stations, rejected it.
The information in the political files includes the names of key individuals involved with the groups purchasing the ads and how much they are paying for them. Many of the groups sponsoring the ads are registered as nonprofits, meaning they are not required to disclose any information to the FEC.
The
National Association of Broadcasters has been the most active group protesting the new FCC rule, launching an all-out lobbying effort to keep information about political ads offline. According to
ProPublica, NAB President Gordon Smith met with key FCC officials twice in early April to state his case against the rule. NAB also
sued the agency in late May over the requirement, arguing that it was “arbitrary” and “inconsistent with the First Amendment.” The FCC plans to defend the rule in court.
In addition to its show of force on lobbying, the NAB’s political action committee has contributed to the campaigns of several members of the subcommittee from both parties. Emerson received the most this cycle from NAB, $3,500, while three other Republicans on the subcommittee received at least $1,000, according to
Center for Responsive Politics data. The NAB’s PAC also donated $1,000 apiece to Serrano, the ranking Democrat on the panel, Rep.
Ed Pastor (D-AZ) and Rep.
Barbara Lee (D-CA).
Below is a table of the subcommittee members displaying how they voted and how much in campaign contributions each member received from the NAB.
The panel’s bill has an uphill slog before it could become law, though. It must pass through the Republican-controlled Appropriations Committee and the full House before making its way to the Democratic-controlled Senate. The Appropriations Committee is expected to take up the bill within the next few weeks.
Support Accountability Journalism
At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2022 midterm fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.