Legislative Priorities
NRB's legislative efforts focus on public policy issues touching on the rights and interests of Christian communicators using electronic media, as well as those of the Christian church at large. While many of those topics can be narrowly focused and even technical in nature, NRB is diligent in engaging on broader legislative and regulatory matters involving First Amendment protections - particularly questions of free speech or the free exercise of religion.
Among NRB's legislative priorities for the 111th Congress are:
Opposing the DISCLOSE Act
Fairness Doctrine
Hate Crimes Legislation
Indecency Standards
Localism/Media Ownership
Performance Tax
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
•Opposing the DISCLOSE Act
Issue
The “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act,” generally referred to as the “DISCLOSE Act” (H.R. 5175/S. 3628), is legislation that passed the House of Representatives on June 24, 2010. It has been sent to the Senate. The DISCLOSE Act seeks to amend the Federal Elections Campaign (FEC) Act of 1971 in order to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in federal elections. The Senate version includes additional regulations on broadcasters with respect to media rates, and creates additional policing by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).
History
The first federal disclosure law was enacted on June 25, 1910. This early piece of legislation required political committees and organizations operating to influence congressional elections in two or more states, to disclose the names of all contributors who gave over a certain amount.
In 1958, the State of Alabama sought to enjoin the NAACP from its activities within the state for failing to comply with an order that required the NAACP to produce records that included the names and addresses of its members. In NAACP v. State of Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court held that compelling an association to disclose the names and addresses of its members and agents, without regard to their position or function within the association “trespasses upon fundamental freedoms protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” The courts have since looked at whether the right to remain anonymous regarding political speech on certain causes/candidates/issues is outweighed by the government’s interest in disclosure.
NRB Position
NRB opposes the DISCLOSE Act. The Act requires any covered organization that makes an independent expenditure or electioneering communication to file a report to the FCC, disclosing the identification of each person who made a donation over a threshold amount, with identification of the largest donor first. This report would be available to the public via the FCC’s website within 24 hours of receiving the report, and would remain for a period of one year. By publishing this information, members of organizations may face threats, reprisals, and harassment. Additionally, posting identifying information of donors beyond the date of election does not serve a compelling government interest.
There is a reasonable fear that public disclosure of members and donors of organizations that support controversial viewpoints or candidates would be subject them to threats, harassment, and reprisals. Supporters of traditional marriage in California and Washington State, for example, have been faced with everything from property damages to threats on their lives, and this has created a chilling affect on free speech. In addition, organizations rely on donations in order to continue supporting traditional values. If top donors fear reprisal from making a public disclosure statement for the organization, that organization will be unable to broadcast an independent expenditure or electioneering communication to support or oppose an issue or candidate for federal office.
Action Needed
Action on the Senate floor will begin on Tuesday July 27, 2010. NRB urges you to call your Senators and ask them to vote "NO" on DISCLOSE Act (S. 3628). You may do so by logging on to www.freedomtobroadcast.com.
July 26, 2010
(Back to Legislative Priorities)
•Opposing All Forms of the Fairness Doctrine
Issue
The Fairness Doctrine was a government regulation, created in 1949, which required all broadcast media to give equal airtime to opposing points of view whenever controversial issues were presented. For the 38 years that this regulation governed America’s airwaves, it had – by its very nature – a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
History
In 1987, the FCC, at the behest of President Ronald Reagan, eliminated the intrusive and ill-conceived Fairness Doctrine. Yet some sectors of the media and policy establishments continue to discuss re-implementing this regulation as a useful and necessary way to curb the overwhelmingly conservative nature of American talk radio, which grew exponentially after the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine were lifted.
In response to those troubling discussions, the Broadcaster Freedom Act was first introduced during the 110th Congress (2007-2008). This legislation never reached the House Floor for a vote, but its goal was to not allow any federal dollars to be spent for any FCC regulation that would reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
The Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 226/S. 34) has been reintroduced in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), and it currently has enough co-sponsors to indicate a significant Congressional following.
NRB Position
NRB strongly opposes re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine, whether overtly or through more ambiguous legislative means. While most Members of Congress know that calling for re-instatement of the Fairness Doctrine is unpopular, and even President Barack Obama has stated that he does not support the regulation, NRB is well aware of more subtle efforts to create a similar environment for radio through different legislative means. Thus, we strongly support the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
Action Needed
Please contact your Members of Congress and ask them to pledge to vigorously stand against any attempt to regulate, restrict, or otherwise reduce the ability of religious broadcasters to fully control their on-air content. Ask your House Member and Senators to co-sponsor the Broadcaster Freedom Act, as their pledge to support any and all efforts to pass legislation that would permanently prevent re-institution of the Fairness Doctrine.
January 15, 2010
(Back to Legislative Priorities)
•Opposing Hate Crimes Legislation
Issue
NRB opposes the passage of federal hate crimes legislation in any form. The 2009 legislative version of hate crimes legislation was the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913/S.909), which was attached in amendment form to the Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647/S.1390). NRB supported the Brownback Amendment (S.Amdt.1610) which amended the hate crimes language in the National Defense Authorization Act.
History
Every state in the Union has laws that separately address crimes committed against someone simply because of their sexual orientation – also known as “hate crimes” laws. For many years, proponents of a federal hate crimes law have sought to pass legislation that would create a new class of felony crimes, tied to the perceived motivation of the person committing the crime.
In the 111th Congress, the primary legislative vehicle for this concept was once again the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation sought stiffer federal, felony penalties for any individual who commits a crime against an individual (person or property) because of the offender’s perception of the victim’s gender (i.e. homosexual, lesbian, transgendered) or gender identity (sexual preference). The phrase “gender identity” was added to this bill for the first time during the 110th Congress (2007-2008), and remained in the legislation in the 111th Congress. Its addition was significant to pro-hate crimes advocates because it encompassed a much larger group, and therefore directly impacted the number of people who could make claims of “hate motivated” crimes against an individual.
In the 110th Congress, as in this Session of Congress, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed as a stand-alone bill in the House of Representatives, and was added to the Defense Authorization legislation in an effort to gain passage in the Senate. However, in the 110th Congress, all hate crimes language was removed at the proverbial eleventh hour because it was not germane to the purpose of the defense bill. The same argument was used during the first session of the 111th Congress (2009), but this time, hate crimes enjoyed tremendous support by the Democrat majority and the sitting President. It remained part of the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act – with most of the amending Brownback provision – and was signed by President Barak Obama on Wednesday, October 28, 2009.
NRB Position
NRB opposes the commission of any crime, and we do not support hate towards any group of individuals. Our association is based on the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and Jesus’ teachings are rooted in love for God and for all mankind.
Simultaneously, NRB’s Statement of Faith encompasses a literal, traditional, Evangelical Protestant interpretation of Scripture. Thus, members of our association believe that any type of sexual activity that deviates from the God-ordained mandate of one man and one woman, bound together in covenantal marriage, is sin. The broadcast ministries and evangelists who belong to NRB do and will continue to proclaim these Scriptural truths, and it is therefore our responsibility to ensure that they can speak the truth of the Gospel without fear of legal reprisal.
As the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act was written, it is conceivable that a minister or religious broadcaster could be sued as an accessory to a “hate crime” if someone hears a sermon in their church or on their radio/television station, then commits a crime against an individual because of their perception of that person’s sexual preference. In addition, there could be criminal liability for Christian broadcasters or other communicators under the rule of “incitement,” or “party to the crime” principals, as well as under “conspiracy” or other traditional criminal law theories.
Since hate crimes legislation therefore jeopardizes the First Amendment rights of our members, NRB’s General Counsel wrote an amendment, in coordination with other Constitutional experts, that offers the strongest possible protection for Christian broadcasters, pastors, Christian school administrators, and others. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) offered this amendment to the hate crimes language in the Senate on July 16, 2009, and it passed 78-13. Following that, the House and Senate versions of the primary bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, were reconciled during a conference committee consisting of members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. The hate crimes bill was signed into law by President Obama on October 28, 2009.
Action Needed
You can contact U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and urge him to adopt the Suggested Guidelines for U.S. Attorneys regarding prosecution of hate crimes drafted by NRB’s General Counsel. Now that hate crimes are federal law, it is up to federal prosecutors, under the authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Attorney General to decide how the law is to be enforced. Federal Judges will also be called upon to interpret the Brownback amendment language as cases arise. On December 10, 2009 NRB’s General Counsel, Craig Parshall forwarded written recommendations to Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Thomas E. Perez, recommending “guidelines” for U.S. Attorneys to use in interpreting religious and free speech protections in the Brownback amendment whenever they consider hate crimes prosecutions that implicate speech or religion. On December 15, the DOJ confirmed that the Assistant Attorney General was reviewing Mr. Parshall’s recommended prosecution guidelines. Those recommended guidelines for U.S. Attorneys can be accessed here. We would encourage you to read the written Congressional Testimony, for the U.S. Senate, of NRB General Counsel Craig Parshall. Mr. Parshall’s testimony provides a more detailed understanding of NRB’s stand against hate crimes legislation in general, and the dangers that religious broadcasters will face now that federal hate crimes legislation is law. You may access Mr. Parshall’s testimony here.
January 15, 2010
(Back to Legislative Priorities)
•Enforcement of Broadcast Indecency Standards
Issue
The Federal Communications Commission has standards on broadcast indecency during those hours when children will be most likely listening or watching broadcast programming (6:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m.).
History
During the 109th Congress (2005-2006), the Republican-led Congress began to give increasing legislative support to consumer concerns regarding indecent programming. In fact, a January 11, 2007 FCC report (Quarterly Report on Informal Consumer Inquiries and Complaints) showed that the 53,353 “Radio and Television Broadcasting Complaints” in the second quarter of 2006 more than doubled to 163,134 in the third quarter of that same year. Media analysts directly attributed the increase in complaints to consumer perception that Congress and the Bush Administration were generally more responsive to concerns regarding indecency in broadcast programming.
During that same period, however, several major television networks continued to claim that the increases in FCC fines for indecency were unnecessary and overly harsh. In June 2007, the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York struck down the FCC fine against FOX, ABC, NBC and CBS for “fleeting expletives in several programs that had aired in 2002 and 2003. The Appeals’ Court claimed that the FCC’s approach was simply “divorced from reality”.
In response, Sen. Jay Rockefeller IV (D-WV) introduced legislation in the 110th Congress that would give the FCC the authority to fine broadcasters for even accidental or one-time airing of an expletive. In the House, companion legislation (introduced by Rep. Chip Pickering of Mississippi) never made it out of committee. Sen. Rockefeller’s Senate bill was reported favorably out of Committee, but never voted on by the full Senate.
Then in September 2007, the FCC argued before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that CBS should be required to pay the $550,000 fine levied on them by the FCC for Janet Jackson’s infamous 2004 Super Bowl half-time show “wardrobe malfunction”. CBS argued that “fleeting, isolated, or unintended” images should not be “considered indecent”. The court ruled in favor in CBS, saying that the FCC’s rules were arbitrary and illegal. Then, in April 2009, the Supreme Court vacated the 3rd Circuit ruling, announcing its intention to send the case back to the Federal Court of Appeals. Since the Supreme Court affirmed the FCC’s indecency standards in FCC v. Fox (a case from the 2nd Circuit), the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals must now reconsider its opinion to not impose the FCC fine on CBS.
NRB Position
NRB continues to strongly support the application of indecency regulations. We believe that parents and children have the right to not be faced with indecent programming, whether fleeting or intentional. NRB’s Office of General Counsel filed an Amicus Curiae (“friend of the court”) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the FCC v. Fox case, urging the Court to affirm the actions of the FCC in enforcing indecency standards. We were delighted that the decision in FCC v. Fox had an almost immediate effect upon the 3rd Circuit case with regard to CBS.
Action Needed
There has not been legislation offered in the 111th Congress (2009-2010) with regard to indecent programming. However, we would urge you, whenever appropriate, to let your Members of Congress know that you strongly support the application of FCC fines to indecent programming.
January 15, 2010
(Back to Legislative Priorities)
•Media Ownership/Localism Rules
Issue
The concept of “media ownership” has been a hot button issue in recent years, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) being tasked with ensuring that no broadcast owner has an unfair advantage in the breadth and depth of its media ownership – particularly when cross-media ownership (i.e. ownership of both a television station and a newspaper) exists. “Localism” is a concept that supposedly addresses the need for broadcasters to better meet the news and information needs of their communities of license; however, it has become synonymous with a proposal for heavy-handed FCC control of broadcasting content and programming decisions.
History
As the FCC has worked through its mandate of ensuring that no one broadcast entity has a monopolistic media advantage, it has simultaneously advocated the importance of minority ownership – both in race and gender (e.g. women as broadcast owners).
In the process of encouraging minority broadcast ownership, the FCC continues to discuss the possibility of passing “ascertainment” regulations – also known as localism requirements. Such regulations would demand that local community boards be created to “advise” their local radio and television stations, on the pretext of ensuring that the needs of the local market are fully met.
NRB Position
NRB fully supports minority ownership of broadcast entities, while strongly opposing any federal regulation regarding media ownership or localism that would impact the variety, quantity or nature of the viewpoints or the content that is aired over the broadcast media.
We are particularly concerned about the creation of local advisory boards, which would be detrimental to religious broadcasters. Members of such a board would give advice with the understanding that if their perspective went unheeded, they would have the authority to recommend that the FCC not renew a station’s license. That heavy-handed approach would give a community advisory board the de facto ability to control content for the station. That could be particularly difficult for a religious broadcaster, whose content would not necessarily conform to the preferences of a broad cross-section of any community – especially communities that might have inherent resistance to religious messages.
Recognizing this problem, NRB’s General Counsel, Craig Parshall, and Vice President of Government Relations, Bob Powers, continue to work with Congress to insert legislative language, wherever applicable, that would bar the spending of federal dollars to enforce any localism regulations.
Action Needed
Contact your House Member and Senators and let them know that you do not support the mandating of local broadcast boards by any FCC regulation, past, present or future. Explain that religious broadcasting should enjoy full First Amendment rights, and should not, therefore, be subject to any back-door attempts at content control.
January 15, 2010
(Back to Legislative Priorities)
•Performance Fees for Terrestrial Radio
Issue
The Performance Rights Act (H.R. 848/S. 379) is legislation that would attach a “performance fee” to every piece of music played on a terrestrial radio station.
History
Proponents of “performance fees,” also known as the performance tax, claim these fees are needed as a matter of intellectual property – in order to fairly compensate artists for the airtime their music receives. However, radio and artists have historically enjoyed an important symbiotic relationship: radio plays songs for free and artists reap the benefits of listener recognition, along with increased music and concert sales. On three separate occasions, Congress has considered the concept of a performance fee for terrestrial radio, and each time it was determined that the existing relationship should not be changed by Congressional intervention.
Members of the House Judiciary Committee in the 111th Congress have tasked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with studying this issue in order to determine whether or not religious and minority broadcasters would be harmed by the imposition of a performance tax. In July 2009, Craig Parshall, NRB’s Vice President of Communications and General Counsel, and Bob Powers, NRB’s Vice President of Government Relations, sat down with GAO economists and made a detailed presentation outlining the ways in which a performance fee would be extremely detrimental to religious broadcasting. The GAO report to Congress is expected sometime during the first half of 2010.
NRB Position
NRB opposes a radio performance fee in any form. Congressional testimony during the 111th Congress demonstrated that the performance tax is nothing more than an attempt by record labels to pick the pockets of broadcasters – labels would receive 50% of the fees before artists ever received a dime. We also recognize that in an economic environment where many broadcasters are struggling financially, it would be detrimental to the industry to impose yet another cumbersome fee on broadcasters.
Instead, NRB advocates support for the Supporting Local Radio Freedom Act (H.Con. Res. 49, S.Con.Res. 14). This Congressional Resolution is a practical way for a Member of Congress to show their opposition to the concept of a performance tax on terrestrial radio, and the number of federal legislators supporting this resolution continued to grow throughout 2009.
At the end of 2009, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, asked that record label executives and those opposed to the concept of a performance fee sit down and negotiate. While the two sides did have a discussion, no agreements were reached. NRB President & CEO Frank Wright attended that meeting, and in response sent a follow-up letter to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), explaining in detail why NRB cannot support H.R. 848. (You may click here to access that letter.)
Action Needed
Call your Representatives and Senators and ask them to not support the Performance Rights Act should it be brought to the House or Senate Floor for a vote.
At the same time, ask your Representative and Senators to support the Supporting Local Radio Freedom Act by co-sponsoring this legislation. The more co-sponsors this legislation receives, the stronger the statement to Congressional Leadership that the Performance Rights Act does not enjoy broad, bi-partisan support and should not be addressed by the full House or Senate.
January 15, 2010
(Back to Legislative Priorities)
•Opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
Issue
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has been offered during every Congressional session for more than a decade. This legislation claims to be merely a civil rights bill that “prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity” (Congressional Research Service), but it is actually much more. As currently written, ENDA would give special employment rights to homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered individuals and individuals claiming any type of “gender identity” (sexual preference). Consequently, it would affect the hiring and firing decisions of any employer with 15 or more employees.
History
During the 110th Congress (2007-2008), ENDA passed in the House of Representatives (235-184) but it did not pass in the Senate. There was also a significant policy battle played out in the House of Representatives in the 110th Congress. For the first time ever, ENDA addressed not only “discrimination” on the basis of “gender,” but also on the basis of “gender identity”. While “gender” has been used to include homosexuals, lesbians, bi-sexuals and transgendered individuals, the phrase “gender identity” encompasses individuals with every conceivable type of sexual preference – thereby greatly expanding the scope and applicability of ENDA. The “gender identity” language was removed at the last minute in order to make the bill more palatable and get final House passage, but the removal of that phrase was extremely controversial among pro-ENDA advocacy groups.
In the 111th Congress (2009-2010), “gender identity” is back in the ENDA legislation. The House version (H.R. 3017) was introduced in June of 2009 by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), and NRB General Counsel Craig Parshall testified, on behalf of NRB, at the House Judiciary Committee hearing for ENDA on September 23, 2009. (Click here to access that testimony.) The Senate version of (S. 1584) was introduced in August, 2009, and Mr. Parshall was also asked to testify at the Senate’s Judiciary Committee hearing for ENDA, which took place on November 5, 2009. (Click here to access Mr. Parshall’s Senate testimony.) The legislation has not yet been marked up or passed by the Judiciary Committee in either chamber.
NRB Position
NRB strongly opposes ENDA. If it is ever signed into law, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act will have a particularly burdensome impact on Christian broadcasters, religious organizations and Christian schools.
In current law, the FCC provides a minimal but relatively effective EEO exemption for religious broadcasters who wish to make hiring and firing decisions based on faith-based criteria. By contrast, ENDA would collide with that hard-won protection. The pro-homosexual lobby claims that there is “religious exemption” language present in ENDA, but as NRB’s General Counsel Craig Parshall notes, that language is “insufficient, overly complex and vague”.
Action Needed
We expect ENDA to be one of the top legislative priorities for the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in 2010. Please call your Representative and Senators and tell them that you do not support ENDA in any form. It does not include adequate protection for religious broadcasters, and as such is a violation of the rights of religious organizations to practice employment policies that are in line with their religious beliefs.
January 15, 2010
