START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
2,034,629 people care about Politics

FCC Political Ad Vote Comes Down to the Wire

FCC Political Ad Vote Comes Down to the Wire


Written by Michael Winship,

With the Federal Communications Commission scheduled to vote this Friday on TV stations posting political advertising data online, we know for certain the final tally will be 2-1. What we don’t know is on which side of the issue Democratic FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn will fall.

She’s the swing vote and reportedly under enormous pressure from the broadcast industry to vote against Chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposal for full online disclosure and instead support a watered down version that some transparency advocates refer to as “fettered access.”

National Journal reports, “While they are currently required to make such data available on paper at their stations, broadcasters are resisting having to post the rates they are charging political candidates online, saying it could pose competitive challenges.” The Journal quoted Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell:

He said that if broadcasters are required to make such information easily available online for all to see, prices could go up ‘because they’re all gonna know’ what each other is charging.

But according to Timothy Karr, senior director of strategy at the media reform group Free Press:

This would hamper our ability to see in detail how much super PACs, campaigns and other third-party groups are spending, when they’re spending it and on how many ads. It would also delay — by as much as a month — disclosure of this spending, as the broadcasters would ask for time to aggregate amounts.

The non-partisan Sunlight Foundation concurs, arguing that “broadcasters are not entitled to cherry pick the quality or type of information to be made public.” In an April 20 letter to Chairman Genachowski, Sunlight’s executive director Ellen Miller writes that broadcasters want to omit “information about whether a station accepted or rejected a request to purchase time, the date and time a political advertising message aired, and the class of time purchased.”

The broadcasters also appear to suggest keeping offline — in effect hiding — information about ads purchased by non-profit organizations, including so-called ‘super PACs,’ that purchase ad time for electioneering communications or making independent expenditures.

We’re not sure which way Commissioner Clyburn will vote in part because of two somewhat cryptic statements. During a recent Catholic University speech, Clyburn said disclosure had to be “handled carefully, and in a manner sensitive to the capacities of differently situated broadcasters.” A few days later, speaking at the Las Vegas meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters, she remarked, “I would just affirm to you… that this office is still open to engagement.”

It’s impossible to seek clarification because under the FCC’s Sunshine Rule, no further contact can be made with commissioners on the rule until the vote is taken. But watch this space — we’ll report the Friday results as soon as we know them.

This post was originally published on


Related Stories:

Uproar Over Oreo Ad With Breastfeeding Baby

Why the FCC Fined Google Just 68 Seconds in Profits

American Crossroads Takes Aim at Buffett Rule


Read more: , , ,

Photo of Mignon Clyburn from Knight Foundation via flickr

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
11:47PM PDT on Apr 26, 2012

Online disclosure is in the best interests of good Democracy. It is sad that this has become a partisan issue. Why are these people opposed to an open democratic society?

3:00PM PDT on Apr 26, 2012

All businesses and government actions need to be transparent.

2:59PM PDT on Apr 26, 2012

All businesses and government actions need to be transparent.

8:43AM PDT on Apr 26, 2012

Anything to keep big buisness in mone and the sleeze of campaigns from showing their true colors.

8:00AM PDT on Apr 26, 2012

The more transparency, the better. And the argument that the competition will know how much they're charging is completely bogus. The competition already knows. I've worked in the business - advertisers tell you what so and so is charging for such and such, and everyone knows it. Hopefully, she will come down on the side of transparency.

7:13AM PDT on Apr 26, 2012

I would like to see political ads on TV being charged 10 billion dollars per 10 seconds of time. That way, the tax on the profits would, on a yearly basis, bring down the national debt. It would also increase program time, instead of trash talk.

6:19AM PDT on Apr 26, 2012

Yay huzzah. FCC granted our amateur radio licenses, happy to see them doing Something Else good. Spouse sez of political campaigns 'Tis the season to abandon reason. Copyright 2012 - me'

10:30PM PDT on Apr 25, 2012

scary how much pressure and how few decide something with such a significant impact on all and the entire country and our individual and collective futures......

10:16PM PDT on Apr 25, 2012

Transparency now! And do away with political advertising while you are at it.

9:01PM PDT on Apr 25, 2012


add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

They're better at dealing with it than the UK at present moment, here veterans who have lost limbs get…

Why haven't microbeads been banned from all products? Exfoliating is great for your skins and feels…

Tab is saved, good people triumph and as a result, the world is a much better place.

ads keep care2 free

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!