JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
April 26, 2012
The Honorable John D. Dingell
U.S. House of Representatives
2328 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Dingell:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal to update for the 21 st
century broadcasters' disclosure of their public files. You will find responses to your questions
attached. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Julius Genachowski
Enclosure
445 12TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 • 202-418-1000
Page 2-The Honorable John D. Dingell
1. Why has the Commission chosen to revise its political file disclosure requirements with
respect only to television broadcasters?
Congress has specifically required television broadcasters to disclose their political file.! The
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that proposes to transition television
broadcasters' public file from paper to digital is part of the larger DTV Public Interest
Obligation proceeding that has focused on television broadcast stations since its inception in
1999. As our record in this proceeding indicates, approximately 60% of all political
advertising dollars have been spent to date in the 2012 election cycle on affiliates of four
largest networks in the top 50 markets? Another proceeding at the Commission has sought
comment on whether to require online disclosure of public file information for radio
licensees.3
2. Does the Commission intend to apply similar such requirements to multichannel video
programming distributors, such as cable and satellite providers, in the future? If so,
please explain when the Commission will issue a Notice of Inquiry and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to that effect. If not, please explain why.
As noted above, there is a separate proceeding that has sought comment on transitioning
radio licensees' public file from paper to digital, and the FNPRM noted that the Commission
"will consider at a later date whether to apply similar reforms to radio licensees." Others in
the proceeding have suggested that the Commission require cable systems to maintain an
online public file. 4 The Commission and its staff is considering this issue.
3. Has the Commission considered the misleading effect that the partial disclosure of
candidates' political advertising purchases may have on the public? Please explain
your response.
The FNPRM proposal is an update of existing requirements, converting paper-based
disclosures to online disclosures for television station licensees, and will not result in a
1 The statutory requirement for television broadcasters to maintain a political file was added to the
Communications Act of 1934 by Section 504 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002, Pub. L.
No 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (2002).
2 Letter from Kenneth M Goldstein, President, Kantar Media Campaign Media Analysis Group, to
William Lake, Chief of the Media Bureau, FCC, MM Docket No. 00-168 at 1 (Apr. 5,2012).
3 See Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service,
Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 10344, 10391 (2007).
4 LUC Media Comments in MB Docket No. 00-168 at 2.
Page 3-The Honorable John D. Dingell
partial disclosure of political advertising purchases. Other entities will continue to maintain
political advertising disclosures in their existing public files for public inspection.
4. Similarly, please explain to us the public good that is achieved by the partial disclosure
of candidates' political advertising purchases.
As many in the record have demonstrated, there are many public benefits to having broadcast
television stations' public file records available online. The public will no longer have to
physically travel to the station's main studio during regular business hours, request
documents and wait for copies to be made. Materials in the file will be more easily
accessible by candidates, as well as the general public.
There is not a partial disclosure of political advertising purchases as the public will still have
access to the political files of radio stations and cable operators.
5. Further, does the Commission believe that centralizing information about political
advertising purchases in a readily searchable online database will stimulate campaign
spending instead of curtailing it? Please explain your response.
Congress explicitly mandated that FCC licensees "maintain, and make available for public
inspection, a complete record of a request to purchase broadcast time" with the passage
of Section 504 ofthe Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002, Public Law 107-155,116
Stat. 81. The purpose of the public file is to make information concerning broadcasters'
services more accessible to the public thereby improving communication between broadcast
licensees and the public. We are proposing to update an existing record-keeping requirement
to allow for easier public access to that information.
6. Lastly, does the Commission believe it has the necessary resources (i.e. sufficient
number of employees, funding, and technological capacity) with which to carry out the
proposed rule? We are aware of reports that the Commission's systems were unable to
cope with prior substantial uploads of information and are concerned that such alleged
technological limitations may delay the prompt disclosure of political advertising
purchases.
Yes, the Commission has sufficient resources to implement the proposed update. It was the
suggestion of the Named State Broadcasters Associations (in their 2007 Petition for
Reconsideration) that the Commission host the online public files itself. In the FNPRM, the
Commission agreed that such a proposal would lessen the burdens on broadcasters, and
provide a simple, easy-to-use portal on FCC.gov
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
..JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Gene Green
U.S. House of Representatives
2470 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Green:
April 26, 2012
Thank you for your letter regarding the Commission's proposal to update for the 21 st
century broadcasters' disclosure of their public files. You will find responses to your questions
attached. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.
Julius Genachowski
Enclosure
445 12n-i STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 • 202-418-1000
Page 2-The Honorable Gene Green
1. Why has the Commission chosen to revise its political file disclosure requirements with
respect only to television broadcasters?
Congress has specifically required television broadcasters to disclose their political file. 5 The
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that proposes to transition television
broadcasters' public file from paper to digital is part of the larger DTV Public Interest
Obligation proceeding that has focused on television broadcast stations since its inception in
1999. As our record in this proceeding indicates, approximately 60% of all political
advertising dollars have been spent to date in the 2012 election cycle on affiliates of four
largest networks in the top 50 markets.6 Another proceeding at the Commission has sought
comment on whether to require online disclosure of public file information for radio
licensees.7
2. Does the Commission intend to apply similar such requirements to multichannel video
programming distributors, such as cable and satellite providers, in the future? If so,
please explain when the Commission will issue a Notice of Inquiry and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking to that effect. If not, please explain why.
As noted above, there is a separate proceeding that has sought comment on transitioning
radio licensees' public file from paper to digital, and the FNPRM noted that the Commission
"will consider at a later date whether to apply similar reforms to radio licensees." Others in
the proceeding have suggested that the Commission require cable systems to maintain an
online public file. 8 The Commission and its staff is considering this issue.
3. Has the Commission considered the misleading effect that the partial disclosure of
candidates' political advertising purchases may have on the public? Please explain
your response.
The FNPRM proposal is an update of existing requirements, converting paper-based
disclosures to online disclosures for television station licensees, and will not result in a
5 The statutory requirement for television broadcasters to maintain a political file was added to the
Communications Act of 1934 by Section 504 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002, Pub. L.
No 107-155, 116 Stat. 81 (2002).
6 Letter from Kenneth M Goldstein, President, Kantar Media Campaign Media Analysis Group, to
William Lake, Chief of the Media Bureau, FCC, MM Docket No. 00-168 at 1 (Apr. 5, 2012).
7 See Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service,
Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 10344, 10391 (2007).
8 LUC Media Comments in MB Docket No. 00-168 at 2.
Page 3-The Honorable Gene Green
partial disclosure of political advertising purchases. Other entities will continue to maintain
political advertising disclosures in their existing public files for public inspection.
4. Similarly, please explain to us the public good that is achieved by the partial disclosure
of candidates' political advertising purchases.
As many in the record have demonstrated, there are many public benefits to having broadcast
television stations' public file records available online. The public will no longer have to
physically travel to the station's main studio during regular business hours, request
documents and wait for copies to be made. Materials in the file will be more easily
accessible by candidates, as well as the general public.
There is not a partial disclosure of political advertising purchases as the public will still have
access to the political files of radio stations and cable operators.
5. Further, does the Commission believe that centralizing information about political
advertising purchases in a readily searchable online database will stimulate campaign
spending instead of curtailing it? Please explain your response.
Congress explicitly mandated that FCC licensees "maintain, and make available for public
inspection, a complete record of a request to purchase broadcast time" with the passage
of Section 504 ofthe Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of2002, Public Law 107-155,116
Stat. 81. The purpose of the public file is to make information concerning broadcasters'
services more accessible to the public thereby improving communication between broadcast
licensees and the public. We are proposing to update an existing record-keeping requirement
to allow for easier public access to that information.
6. Lastly, does the Commission believe it has the necessary resources (Le. sufficient
number of employees, funding, and technological capacity) with which to carry out the
proposed rule? We are aware of reports that the Commission's systems were unable to
cope with prior substantial uploads of information and are concerned that such alleged
technological limitations may delay the prompt disclosure of political advertising
purchases.
Yes, the Commission has sufficient resources to implement the proposed update. It was the
suggestion of the Named State Broadcasters Associations (in their 2007 Petition for
Reconsideration) that the Commission host the online public files itself. In the FNPRM, the
Commission agreed that such a proposal would lessen the burdens on broadcasters, and
provide a simple, easy-to-use portal on FCC.gov