Republicans Back Down On Effort to Defund Transparency Rule
A House committee drops legislation that would have blocked an FCC rule to put political ad data online.
Ranking Member Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (Photo by Robert Giroux/Getty Images)
Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee today dropped an effort to defund a new Federal Communications Commission rule that will make political ad data available on the Internet.
The FCC rule, which was OKed by the commission earlier this year and is expected to go into effect sometime this summer or fall, would require TV stations to put detailed records on political ad buys on a new Web site. The files are currently public but are kept on paper at stations.
The broadcast industry has vigorously fought the rule. Earlier this month Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., chair of an appropriations subcommittee, added an amendment to a bill that would have blocked the FCC from using any funds to implement the transparency measure. The defunding amendment passed the subcommittee on a party-line vote.
The maneuver to defund the transparency rule attracted media attention and sparked outrage from outside public interest groups and Democrats.
But in a full committee hearing this morning, the Republicans backed down. Emerson offered a new amendment that removed the defunding language.
Under the revised bill, which passed the committee on a voice vote with bipartisan support, the General Accountability Office will simply conduct a study of the effect of the political ad rule on the TV ad sales market. The GAO will also look at the costs to broadcasters of putting political ad files online, which media companies have argued would costly.
The amendment requires the FCC to report to the committee on its response to the GAO study, which is due by July 2013.
Broadcasters are still fighting the FCC rule, which will not go into effect until the completion of a government review. The companies have sued in federal court to block the rule and also filed an appeal at the FCC.
Emerson, the subcommittee chair, did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
A Democratic aide on the Appropriations committee aide told ProPublica that the increasing attention on campaign finance after Citizens United made it difficult for Republicans to oppose the FCC’s transparency rule.
“The backstory is that the majority thought they would slip this language in and no one would make a ruckus over it,” the aide said. “I don’t think the staff quite realized what they were getting into.”
Latest Stories in this Project
- Crowdsourcing Campaign Spending: What We Learned From Free the Files
- FCC’s Plan for Fixing Its Political Ads Transparency Site? It Won’t Say
- What We Learned from Free the Files -- and How to Make It Better
- Outside Groups Dominated Las Vegas Airwaves in 2012 Campaign
- Meet the 10 People Leading ProPublica’s Free the Files Effort
Get Updates
Our Hottest Stories
- The 182 Percent Loan: How Installment Lenders Put Borrowers in a World of Hurt
- IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups
- Six Facts Lost in the IRS Scandal
- Medicare Drug Program Fails to Monitor Prescribers, Putting Seniors and Disabled at Risk
- Sound, Fury and the IRS Mess
- On Victory Drive, Soldiers Defeated by Debt
- A Prosecutor, a Wrongful Conviction and a Question of Justice
- The Most Important #Muckreads on Rape in the Military
- A Prolonged Stay: The Reasons Behind the Slow Pace of Executions
- Congressmen to Hagel: Where Are the Missing War Records?
- IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups
- Six Facts Lost in the IRS Scandal
- The 182 Percent Loan: How Installment Lenders Put Borrowers in a World of Hurt
- How the IRS’s Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional
- On Victory Drive, Soldiers Defeated by Debt
- Sound, Fury and the IRS Mess
- Medicare Drug Program Fails to Monitor Prescribers, Putting Seniors and Disabled at Risk
- Congressmen to Hagel: Where Are the Missing War Records?
- The Most Important #Muckreads on Rape in the Military
- A Prolonged Stay: The Reasons Behind the Slow Pace of Executions







7 comments
John
June 20, 2012, 2:27 p.m.
Seems like a bit of a smokescreen, to me. By backing off of a worthless proposition (how much could it possibly cost to enact this rule?), they’ve now delayed it, and now it goes to review.
Wanna bet that it doesn’t go into effect until Election Day 2012?
And then, there’s the GAO time bomb, implying that the law is somehow responsible for preserving the media’s profit margins. So, they’ll report lower sales and have it thrown out before the 2014 cycle.
Which brings me back to my question from a few weeks ago: With all the work going into suppressing the data, what are they planning to need to hide?
bicbic
June 20, 2012, 3:38 p.m.
Small donors donate because they believe in something.
Big and Huge and Humungous Donors donate to politicians because they expect a RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENTS.
That’s why we need to know who the Big and Larger Donors are and what they demand from the POLITICIANS THEY OWN.
Stephanie Palmer
June 20, 2012, 6:05 p.m.
Gee, don’t you wonder why JoAnn Emerson wants the information kept private? She may not be transparent, but it’s transparent that there’s money here.
Timothy McKeever
June 20, 2012, 8:16 p.m.
We will never have a true democracy until transparency in every thing becomes the default response. Right now the tendency is to obfuscate with back room parlimentary tricks. It is the modus operandi of the GOP.
stosh
June 21, 2012, 8:41 a.m.
It is the operating model of BOTH parties
CLARENCE SWINNEY
June 21, 2012, 10:56 a.m.
WHY NOT BLAME BUSH?
He took 1800 budget to 3500—debt 5700 to 11,900—surplus to 1400 deficit—237,000 jobs per month to 31,000—two wars—smashed housing-smashed financials-great recession
Show a worse record.
Fernando Cabrera
July 15, 2012, 9:06 p.m.
Republicans tried it; but after thinking twice they realize that it will work against them after the public begins to think what they had to hide.
Commenting on this story is closed.