At its meeting today, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a rule requiring the top four broadcasters in the biggest fifty media markets to make their “political files” public. The political file includes information about individuals and groups that purchase political ads on the station. In this era of Super PACs and dark money groups flooding the airwaves with ads, the political files could contain important information allowing reporters and voters to better follow the money behind this year’s campaigns. The political file is supposed to be public, but, before now, “public” has meant paper documents buried in some file cabinet in a broadcaster’s office. By requiring the information to be put online on the FCC website, this ruling takes the political files out of the dark ages and recognizes that public means online.

We are hopeful that the ruling marks an exciting opening salvo in the fight for broadcaster transparency and is not the end of the story. For while the ruling puts information about political ad buys online for the first time, the coverage is incomplete. As our reporting group pointed out, 160 media markets will be exempt from making their information public this election year. Those missing markets include some key presidential battleground states, as well as states and districts with close congressional campaigns. Moreover, by limiting the coverage to ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox, the ruling omits coverage for political advertising on Spanish language television that could be especially important this year. Coverage should expand in 2014, when the FCC has said all stations must be prepared to put their political files on line.

When we submitted comments to the FCC on this issue, we urged the commission to ensure that the information from the political files be put online in a searchable, sortable format. Unfortunately, the FCC did not heed this important recommendation. It will allow broadcasters to file images of their political file, making the information much less useful than if it were readily able to be parsed and analyzed.

Despite the shortcomings of the new rule, the FCC should be applauded for not bowing down to broadcaster demands that the agency adopt a bifurcated system where the only information available online would have been redacted and aggregated. We hope they show the same strength a year from now, when the commission hears from the broadcasters on whether the rule is burdensome or anticompetitive.

Television broadcasters will make billions from political ad sales this year. They will undoubtedly use some of that cash to lobby to push back on the rules the FCC adopted today. Transparency advocates should push just as hard to ensure that all broadcasters in all media markets, regardless of size, post their complete political files in a searchable format. Time will tell whether this ruling is the start of something big, or if it’s just enough to take the issue off the table.

The Sunlight Foundation sent a letter to the FCC urging them to stay strong and adopt transparency rules that would require broadcasters to place their entire "political file" online, rather than bowing to industry demands that a redacted, aggregated version be made available on the Web.

Under the law, broadcasters are required to make public their political file, information including which groups are buying political ads, which candidates the ads support and when and where the ads aired. But for too long, "public" has meant the information has been buried in the file cabinets in the offices of the local broadcasters. Yes, that's right, in this day of the Internet, if I want to access public information about who is running political ads in the state where grew up, I have to get on a plane to find out.

The FCC is poised to change that. Unfortunately, it seems the broadcasters, ever wary of making anything public, are suggesting that the FCC adopt a bifurcated system where the only information available online would be redacted and aggregated. The detailed information, you know, the stuff that is actually meaningful, would remain on paper, hidden from public view, in a file cabinet somewhere.

Sunlight hopes the FCC will see the broadcasters' proposal for what it is, a transparent (pardon the pun) effort to keep the public in the dark about who is paying for our elections.

Update: There is no doubt the broadcasters have used all the weapons in their arsenal to convince the FCC to adopt weak disclosure rules. The week before the FCC is scheduled to decide a matter, all contacts with the Commission are prohibited under the FCC's "Sunshine Rule." The Sunshine period for the broadcast rule decision begins today, as the issue is supposed to be decided on the 27th. Conveniently, the NAB held their convention from April 14-19 in Las Vegas, and based on FCC ex parte disclosure reports, the broadcasters took the opportunity to make their case to the commissioners in Sin City, getting the last word before the Sunshine Period begins. Not that we are complaining. It's great that there is such complete disclosure on the FCC's site. (We only wish Congress would do the same.)

Additionally, in a report today, ProPublic points out the irony of big news outlets that normally demand transparency in this case fighting for secrecy. There's no question the FCC Commissioners will have gotten the message against transparency loud and clear. We hope they have also heard us.

Sunlight Foundation Letter to FCC on Broadcast Rules

The House is voting today on the H.R. 3309, the FCC Reform Act. Rep. Eshoo is offering an important amendment that would require groups airing political ads to disclose contributors of $10,000 or more as a condition for purchasing ad time.

This is an important amendment that would help shine some light on the dark money that is being used to pay for campaign ads. It would not go as far comprehensive disclosures and disclaimers that would be required by the DISCLOSE Act, but would be a powerful first step toward greater transparency. The broadcast lobby will be working hard to defeat this amendment. We hope members of the House will ignore that pressure, and instead vote in favor of the amendment as one way to ensure the money, interests and influence behind political ads is not hidden in shadows

Yesterday, the House Commerce Committee killed an amendment to the FCC Reform Act that would have required groups airing political ads to disclose contributors of $10,000 or more as a condition for purchasing ad time.

The amendment, offered by Rep. Eshoo, is among any number of reasonable attempts to address the avalanche of dark money unleashed since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Sunlight is disappointed by the vote, however the defeat of the amendment does not have to sound the death knell for FCC disclosure. The FCC is currently drafting rules that could shine a light on some of the dark money that is behind the often negative and misleading political ads being paid for by secret special interests.

During the rulemaking process, the Commission asked for comments addressing whether the agency should require broadcasters to disclose the names of the executives behind any entity sponsoring political ads. Broadcasters have been required to collect this information for decades, and the technology is now available to include the information on a centralized database so the public may access it. There is no reason the information should remain hidden from public view.

Opponents of transparency—perhaps the powerful broadcast lobby—appear to have flexed their muscles with the members of the Commerce Committee who voted against the Eshoo amendment. The FCC, on the other hand, should be applauded for considering stronger disclosure rules. Rules must be adopted to ensure the money, interests and influence behind political ads is not hidden in shadows.

Today the Sunlight Foundation submitted comments encouraging the FCC to quickly create a centralized, publicly accessible database of information about the political ads buys. The current system, in which valuable information about political ads is located in the file cabinets of broadcasters across the country, prevents the information from being shared, analyzed or understood. To truly make the most use of the data, information from broadcasters’ political files should be available to the public on a centralized, searchable, sortable database on the FCC’s website.

As we noted previously, broadcasters will likely complain loudly that online filing requirements will be too burdensome. The FCC should recognize that such a complaint is disingenuous at best. Most data regarding broadcast ads is already submitted in an electronic format. Electronic filing would make it easier to ensure information is complete, timely and publicly available. Moreover, broadcasters have a responsibility to serve the needs of the public in exchange for the use of the public spectrum. Making public information about who is placing and paying for the political ads people are forced to watch is fundamental to serving those needs. Finally, the information about political advertising is already supposed to be public. But in the 21st Century, burying paper in filing cabinets at broadcasters’ offices across the country is anything but public. Public means online.

It is currently too easy to mislead the public about the source of money behind a political ad. A searchable FCC database of ad buys would enable the public to learn who is behind any given political advertisement and allow for big-picture analysis about the money being spent to influence our elections. We applaud the FCC for opening this rulemaking and hope it adopts meaningful rules to create a more transparent system of political advertising.

Sunlight Foundation Comments to FCC on Broadcast Rules                                                     ...

Today, the Federal Communications Commission voted to open a rulemaking calling for online disclosure of information that broadcasters collect about the political ads they air. If robust disclosure rules are put in place before the 2012 elections get into full swing, it will be a huge victory for the public, who has a right to know who is paying for the avalanche of political ads that will blast from their televisions in the months ahead.

Political advertising has an overwhelming impact on the election process. Making public information about who is paying for political ads, which candidates the ads support or oppose, where they are being run, and how much is being spent on them has always been in the public’s interest. In the post Citizens United era, where it is not only easy but commonplace to mislead the public about the source of dark money behind a political ad, such disclosure is even more important, and fully in-line with the Supreme Court’s embrace of transparency in that decision. If the FCC adopts a meaningful online disclosure system without delay, it will secure its leadership in using technology for information gathering and disclosure, setting an example for other agencies to follow.

A searchable FCC database of ad buys would not only enable the public to go directly to the FCC’s website to ascertain who is behind the nasty, misleading political ad that just interrupted their enjoyment of Dancing with the Stars, but would allow for re-use of the data and in-depth analysis by local journalists, scholars and others who could analyze whether the ad money being spent on races in Kansas is coming from New York, whether more money is being spent by outside groups than the candidates themselves, and where races are heating up as determined by spending.

Efforts to make information about political advertising more publicly accessible have been thwarted before, and certainly the National Association of Broadcasters is likely to object to rules that they will claim are burdensome. But that powerful special interest should not be given a free ride this time around. The public has a right to know the true source of the funding behind the political ads they see, and broadcasters across the country have an obligation not to be complicit in the conspiracy that keeps the public in the dark.

The Federal Communications Commission announced a new initiative that demonstrates that the agency understands and welcomes full disclosure. As of June 1, the FCC began requiring that details about ex parte communications—meetings with agency staff where only one side of an issue is present to make its case—must be filed electronically. Not only will transparency at the FCC be improved, but the initiative serves as an example of how transparency should work throughout government.

According to the FCC’s general counsel, “disclosing the contents of oral ex parte contacts on the record ensures that interested parties, the public, and the Commission staff all have complete information about the data and arguments that are presented to Commission decision-makers.”

Makes sense to Sunlight. An ex parte contact at the FCC sounds a lot like a lobbying contact on Capitol Hill. Nothing wrong with it, but details need to be disclosed so that interested parties have a chance to know who is saying what about important public policy issues. We’ve called for improving disclosure of lobbyists contacts by, among other things, including naming the Member of Congress’ office with whom the lobbyist met and providing details of the lobbyist’s request. It sounds a lot like the FCC’s requirement that ex parte notices must list of everyone who participated in the meeting and a summary of all data presented and arguments made.

These types of disclosures will improve the dialogue at the FCC and would do the same for Congress. Fundamentally, lobbyists are educators. More disclosure about meetings would ensure that decision makers have a more complete understanding of all sides of the issue at hand.

Naysayers who say that agency communications are different than lobbying Congress should look to the example of Sen. Gillibrand. She publishes all of her official meetings online the day after they occur. She knows that if a voter sees that she has met with a lobbyist whose views they oppose, they can contact her office to make sure their viewpoints are heard too.

The same principle is at work with the FCC’s ex parte rules. The FCC gets it. Hopefully Congress will too.

In the most recent, and possibly most repugnant, turn of the revolving door, FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker will join Comcast just months after approving the Comcast/NBC Universal merger. The move spurred the New York Times to call for expanding the definition of lobbying. We agree. While Baker’s hiring may be a done deal, the lobby laws need to be changed so that we know who she is lobbying, about what, and when.

Rules put in place by the Obama administration mean that Baker will not be allowed to lobby anyone at the FCC for two years. That’s a sliver of an exclusion that leaves her plenty of opportunities to spread the Comcast/NBC message inside the beltway. The day after she starts, this well-connected, high-ranking administration official can start lobbying Congress on any issue, including the Comcast/NBC merger.

The current laws do next to nothing to inform the public about the ways Baker will wield her power on Capitol Hill. Sunlight is calling for changes in the current Lobbying Disclosure Act that would require her and others like her to report the names of the offices she lobbies—whether in person, on the phone, in writing or email—and link the names with the specific issues on which she sought government action. We would require that reporting to happen in real time and online.

We may not be able to close the revolving door, but we can find out what happens whenever people pass through it.

Two of the biggest proponents of net neutrality rules for broadband providers involved in closed door congressional committee negotiations have hired 112 former government officials to lobby as Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have both pushed new broadband Internet policies.

For the first three months of 2010, seventy-four percent of the lobbyists hired by both Google* and Microsoft have previous experience in government, according to data obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics and lobbyist disclosure forms. This is a very similar number when compared to the percentage of former government officials hired to lobby for the top six telecommunications organizations.

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation and the House Committee on Energy & Commerce are holding meetings with industry and consumer organizations in response to a series of actions by the FCC including a court decision that blocked the FCC's attempted implementation of net neutrality rules. Net neutrality rules would disallow broadband service providers from discriminating against users and content by preventing them from slowing access to certain users and charging money to acesss certain content.

The committees held their first meeting last Friday and plan to host another meeting on July 2.

Google and Microsoft are spending the most on lobbying among the pro-net neutrality organizations invited to the behind the scenes discussions with the two committees.

According to first quarter lobbying disclosures, the two companies have spent a combined $2.1 million on lobbying. By comparison, the two lobbying spenders opposed to net neutrality that were invited to the congressional meetings shelled out $10.5 million in the first quarter of 2010.

Despite spending far less than organizations opposed to net neutrality, Google and Microsoft have fielded a quality team of lobbyists with experience working for important lawmakers and on crucial committees.

Combined the companies have hired thirteen former staffers of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation or members of the committee and nine former staffers of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce or their members.

These lobbyists include Barry LaSala, the former chief of staff to the Senate committee's number two Democrat Sen. John Kerry, who lobbies for Microsoft. LaSala also lobbies for net neutrality opponent Verizon.

Andy Scott Wright, lobbying for Google, worked previously as the Chief of Staff to Rep. Rick Boucher, chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet. Boucher is leading the meetings for the House Committee on Energy & Commerce.

The representatatives in the closed door congressional meetings for both Google and Microsoft have experience on the committees. Google’s Johanna Shelton previously worked on the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and Microsoft’s Paula Boyd used to work for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation.

Other Internet companies supporting net neutrality might be spending far less than Google and Microsoft, but they are also largely hiring former government officials to lobby for them.

Over eighty percent of the lobbyists retained by both eBay and Amazon.com—of these two only Amazon.com is engaged in the congressional meetings—have experience in government.

(*Disclosure: Google senior manager Kim Scott sits on the Advisory Board of the Sunlight Foundation. Kim Scott sits on the Advisory Board of the Sunlight Foundation, but no longer works for Google.)

Last Friday, two congressional committees held closed door discussions with 31 representatives from industry and activist groups to discuss writing a new broadband Internet policy, largely focused on whether and how to implement net neutrality rules, into the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While the meeting contained more proponents of net neutrality, opponents of implementing the policy hold a lop-sided advantage in lobbying spending and contributing to political campaigns.

In attendance were some of the major organizations on both sides of the debate. The biggest organizations in attendance in support of the legislation included Google, Microsoft, Amazon.com and two service providers breaking with their industry, DISH Network and Sprint. Opponents included AT&T, Verizon, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Communications Workers of America and the US Telecom Association. A number of public interest and consumer groups were also present.

According to data obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics, net neutrality opponents represented at the meeting combined for $19.7 million in lobbying in the first quarter of 2010. Supporters, on the other hand, only combined for $4.7 million in first quarter lobbying expenses. (Organizations with undefined, or unidentifiable, positions combined for just under $1 million.)

The major campaign contributors opposed to net neutrality gave $6.9 million to political candidates from 2009-2010 while major contributors in support gave $2.2 million.

Both sides of the debate sent lobbyists with previous government experience into the closed-door meetings with the committees. Eight of the 31 organization representatives present at the meeting previously worked in Congress. Five of those eight previously worked for one of the two committees holding the meeting.

Lobbyists for net neutrality proponents had good connections to the lawmakers in the room. Google's Johanna Shelton previously worked on the House Committee on Energy & Commerce; Microsoft's Paula Boyd used to work for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation; Amazon.com sent lobbyist Emmett O'Keefe, a former staffer to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation member Sen. Byron Dorgan.

Two organizations in opposition sent lobbyists with similarly good connections: National Cable & Telecommunications Association sent James Assey, a former staffer on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and US Telecom Association sent Walter McCormick, another former staffer from the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

The meetings, held jointly by the House Committee on Energy & Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, are the result of years of efforts by Congress to pass net neutrality legislation and recent developments involving the Federal Communications Commission's attempts to impose net neutrality rules the industry.

Net neutrality rules would disallow broadband service providers from discriminating against users and content by preventing them from slowing access to certain users and charging money to acesss certain content.

The FCC attempted to impose these rules after Comcast slowed service to certain users using the BitTorrent file-sharing service. In April, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the FCC, stating that they did not have the regulatory authority to stop Comcast from blocking or slowing certain users of their broadband service.

Broadband providers have largely opposed the implementation of net neutrality rules, while Internet companies have largely backed them.

The committees are scheduled to hold another talk this Friday. The list of organizations and their representatives, provided by Tech Daily Dose, can be found below:

AT&T, Tim McKone Amazon, Emmett O'Keefe CDT, David Sohn Cisco, Jeff Campbell CompTel, Jerry James Consumers Union (CU), Joel Kelsey CTIA, Jot Carpenter CWA, Debbie Goldman Dish, David Goodfriend Free Press, Derek Turner Free State Foundation, Randolph May Google, Johanna Shelton ITI, Dean Garfield ITIF, Rob Atkinson Level 3, John Ryan MAP, Andy Schwartzman Microsoft, Paula Boyd NARUC, Brian O'Hara NASUCA, Brenda Pennington NCTA, James Assey NTCA, Tom Wacker OIC, Markham Erickson PFF, Dan Horowitz Phoenix Center, Larry Spiwak Public Knowledge, Ernesto Falcon Qwest, Melissa Newman RCA, Tim Donovan Sprint, Bill Barloon TIA, Grant Seiffert US Telecom, Walter McCormick Verizon, Peter Davidson