HOME > ADVOCACY > PUBLIC POLICY PRIORITIES

Public Policy Priorities

NRB's Government Relations office consistently concentrates its political engagement on issues affecting electronic communications and on questions of free speech and the free exercise of religion.

Among NRB's legislative and regulatory priorities are:


•Broadcast Indecency Standards

Position
NRB supports the application of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) broadcast indecency regulations and supports the FCC position in the pending FCC v. Fox Supreme Court case.

Summary
The FCC 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.). 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 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. The Court upheld the FCC's administrative procedures in a 5-4 decision. However, this issue is an ongoing constitutional dispute. In January 2012, the Supreme Court heard another round of oral arguments for this case, this time to decide whether the FCC's "indecency enforcement regime" violated the free speech or due process clauses of the Constitution. NRB again filed an Amicus Curiae brief with the Court supporting the FCC's prohibition on broadcast indecency during children's viewing hours.

(Back to Public Policy Priorities)

•Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

Position
NRB opposes ENDA.

Summary
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (H.R. 1397/S.811) would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. NRB's opposition to ENDA particularly focuses on its lack of an effective exemption for religious employers. In the 111th Congress (2009-2010), NRB testified on this legislation before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. This perennial bill remains a priority for the LGBT lobby, so Senate action in the 112th Congress is possible. However, its path through the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would be far more difficult.

(Back to Public Policy Priorities)

•Federal Election Communications Protections

Position
NRB opposes the DISCLOSE Act and similar proposals.

Summary
The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (DISCLOSE Act) would amend the Federal Elections Campaign (FEC) Act of 1971 to establish additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in federal elections. While it has not yet been reintroduced in the 112th Congress, NRB firmly opposes the DISCLOSE Act. Previous legislation would have required covered organizations that made electioneering expenditures or communication to file a report with the FCC, which would publicly post the report online. There is concern that public disclosure of members and donors of organizations that support controversial viewpoints or candidates might subject them to threats, harassment, and reprisals. Many 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. Similarly, NRB has urged the FCC to reject a related proposal to require mandatory Internet disclosure by television stations of "political files" and information related to issue-advocacy organizations.

(Back to Public Policy Priorities) 

•Fairness Doctrine

Position
NRB opposes the Fairness Doctrine and supports the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 642).

Summary
The Fairness Doctrine, first introduced in 1949, enabled the FCC to compel broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues deemed to be of public importance. The Fairness Doctrine was abandoned by the FCC in 1987. NRB supports the Broadcaster Freedom Act (H.R. 642), sponsored by Representative Mike Pence (R-IN), which would deny the FCC the ability to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine. Similarly, NRB publicly supported the efforts of House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) to urge FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to finally and completely eliminate the text of the Fairness Doctrine from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The FCC formally took this step in August 2011.  NRB then thanked the FCC Leadership and encouraged vigilance that the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine not creep into other rules or proceedings, such as those promoting "localism."

(Back to Public Policy Priorities) 

•Hate Crimes Law

Position
NRB opposed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which added "gender identity" as a special protected class. NRB supports the enforcement of the provisions of the Brownback Amendment that was adopted as part of this law.

Summary
The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which added "gender identity" as a special protected class, was signed into law by President Obama in 2009. There is concern that a minister or religious broadcaster could be sued as an accessory to a "hate crime" if someone should hear a sermon in their church or on their radio/television station, and then commit a crime against an individual because of their perception of that person's sexual preference. NRB, which had previously worked with the Senate Judiciary Committee on this bill, helped then-Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) draft and secure passage of an amendment that offers the strongest possible protection for Christian broadcasters, pastors, Christian school administrators, and others. NRB continues to call on the Department of Justice to heed the religious and free speech protections of the Brownback Amendment as relevant cases arise.

(Back to Public Policy Priorities) 

•International Religious Freedom

Position
NRB supports religious freedom domestically and abroad. NRB supports H.R. 440/S.1245, legislation specifically promoting religious freedom in the Near East and South Central Asia.

Summary
Noting persistent and widespread international persecution of Christians around the world, the NRB Board of Directors approved a 2011 Resolution calling on the President "to make a bold public statement against the international persecution of Christians, and to further enforce that position through his choice of Executive Branch appointments and through his foreign policy decisions." Stemming from that, NRB sent letters of support for H.R. 440, a bill promoting religious freedom in the Near East and South Central Asia, to President Barack Obama and Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA), the bill sponsor. Since that correspondence, H.R. 440 was passed in a bipartisan fashion by the House on July 29, 2011, and a companion bill (S. 1245) was introduced in the Senate by Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Carl Levin (D-MI).

(Back to Public Policy Priorities) 

•Internet Freedom

Position
NRB supports religious freedom on the Internet and opposes "net neutrality."

Summary
The debate over whether and how to regulate various forms of Internet traffic continues in earnest. In December 2010, the FCC voted 3-2 (on partisan lines) to pass net neutrality regulations that allow the federal government to regulate the Internet for the first time in history. Legislative efforts for and against net neutrality continue. Notably, Representative Greg Walden (R-OR), Chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, authored an amendment to the FY2011 Continuing Appropriations Bill, stripping funds from the FCC to enforce its net neutrality decision. The House approved this amendment 244 – 181. However, the President and the Democrats controlling the Senate are much more favorable to net neutrality. This debate will continue. NRB wants Christian content to be accessible on the Internet unfettered by any government or corporate religious discrimination. NRB is wary of the current "Open Internet" plan set forth by the FCC as excessive in its regulatory reach and under-inclusive in ignoring free speech concerns. NRB formally filed these positions in public comments with the FCC in 2010.

(Back to Public Policy Priorities) 

•Localism/Media Ownership

Position
NRB opposes any federal regulation regarding media ownership or localism that would impact the variety, quantity, or nature of the viewpoints or content that is aired over broadcast media.

Summary
The concept of "media ownership" has been a hot button issue in recent years, with the 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. 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. 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 content that is aired over the broadcast media.

(Back to Public Policy Priorities)

•Performance Tax

Position
NRB opposes a performance tax on broadcasters and supports a Concurrent Resolution "Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act" (H.Con.Res 21/S.Con.Res. 7) that upholds that long-held position by Congress.

Summary
The Performance Rights Act, last introduced in the 111th Congress (2009-2010), is legislation that would attach a "performance fee" to every piece of music played on a terrestrial radio station. NRB opposes a radio performance fee in any form. Congressional testimony during the 111th Congress demonstrated that record labels would receive 50% of the fees before artists received anything. 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. NRB has been actively involved in cross-spectrum discussions on this issue; however, no agreement has been reached. Instead, NRB supports a Concurrent Resolution "Supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act" (H.Con.Res 21/S.Con.Res. 7), which declares that Congress should not impose any new performance fee, tax, royalty, or other charge relating to the public performance of sound recordings on a local radio station for broadcasting sound recordings over-the-air, or on any business for such public performance of sound recordings. More than one-third of all House Members and one-fifth of all Senators have cosponsored these Resolutions thus far in the 112th Congress.

(Back to Public Policy Priorities)

•Spectrum Rights

Position
NRB opposes spectrum re-allocation that would lead to signal degradation, loss of services, additional taxes, or other deleterious effects on religious broadcasters.

Summary
NRB has been tracking spectrum allocation debates for some time. The National Broadband Plan, issued by the FCC in 2010, suggested redirecting 500 MHz of spectrum for wireless broadband use. In that plan, 120 MHz of the redirected 500 MHz would come from airwaves currently licensed to television broadcasters. Our association submitted detailed comments to the FCC on this idea. Specifically, NRB's public filing noted an auction's "substantial risks to NRB TV members, including the potential loss of spectrum, loss of coverage area, channel changes, and infrastructure costs." A number of bills regarding spectrum re-allocation have been advanced in the House and Senate, and the ongoing search on Capitol Hill for new revenues is fueling arguments for a spectrum auction that many lawmakers think could generate billions of dollars for the US Treasury. NRB has actively voiced concern during debt reduction and tax debates, insisting that any plan not lead to signal degradation, loss of services, additional taxes, or other deleterious effects on both those who choose to or not to participate in the re-allocation of their spectrum. NRB continues to remind Capitol Hill that our association includes a significant number of full power, Class A, and low power television broadcasters. As relevant legislation advances in Congress, we are steadfastly urging continued consideration and inclusion of explicit provisions that fairly honor the services and investments of all Christian television broadcasters in their local communities.

(Back to Public Policy Priorities)