Robert Morlino stories from The Center for Public Integrity

Two hundred channels and nothing on – literally

2012-08-07T14:04:05-04:00

In 1982, the Federal Communications Commission created a new broadcast television service designed to provide local and niche programming to rural Americans and urbanites whose special-interest needs were not being met by existing broadcasters.

Since then low-power television service (LPTV) has grown to include 2,034 stations across the nation, and according to the FCC and the trade association that represents the industry it has been a tremendous success.

But an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity shows that the second-largest holder of LPTV licenses has not built even a single operational station. Mark Silberman, president of the Los Angeles-based MS Communications, LLC, told the Center he has never broadcast anything more than a test pattern, despite holding permits to operate 203 low-power TV stations. The State of Alaska tops the list with 220 low-power stations.

According to Silberman, he originally intended to build "wireless cable" networks in areas underserved by big broadcasters. But regulatory changes and other factors, he said, left him unable to get his business off the ground.

Silberman acquired most of his station permits since 2000, and actually began assembling his anticipated empire as early as 1992. FCC rules require an applicant to begin broadcasting within three years of receiving a license, but the commission, which does not specifically monitor programming, was unaware that MS Communications is not broadcasting in a single market.

It appears that MS Communications has kept its licenses active by successfully filing repeated requests with the FCC for extensions or modifications of those permits. The Center also identified 60 of Silberman's licenses that have expired.

As a result of inquiries from the Center, the FCC wrote Silberman to ascertain whether his stations are in fact broadcasting. While there is no indication that Silberman or his company have done anything illegal, the original 1982 FCC order authorizing the creation of low-power TV service makes clear that the government sought to avoid issuing highly coveted slices of broadcast spectrum to potential broadcasters, only to have those resources lie dormant year after year.

As for the 72-year-old Silberman, he is hoping the impending conversion to digital broadcasting brings new and potentially lucrative business opportunities for LPTV licensees such as himself.

Home-grown television

The FCC officially approved the creation of the LPTV system as a way of delivering broadcast signals to rural areas beyond the reach of existing full-power stations and to urban enclaves in need of minority or non-English-language programming.

The intent was to grant licensees permission to build and operate low-power television stations to serve the interests of their respective communities, allowing them to secure the rights to a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. In return, licensees agreed to begin broadcasting within a set timeframe.

But for all their advantages, including relatively low start-up and operating costs (tens of thousands of dollars, compared to the millions required for a full-power station), LPTV stations have second-class status in the television world. For example, a low-power station may only use a fraction of the wattage of a conventional television transmitter (hence the name) and is limited in range to about 15 miles, compared to an average of about 50 miles for a full-power station.

When the FCC first began accepting LPTV license applications, it was inundated with as many as 40,000, according to one report. Applicants ranged from individuals new to the industry to major networks NBC and ABC. The sheer volume forced the agency to declare a freeze on additional applications. It also instituted a lottery system in an effort to more quickly process applications already received.

The LPTV application process begins with a request to construct a station in a specific area. After the license is granted, the station is constructed and another application is submitted for a "license to cover." At this point, the station begins broadcasting—or is at least supposed to.

As of Dec. 31, 2004, there were 4,385 television stations in the United States authorized to broadcast programming, according to the FCC. (This does not include translators and boosters, which simulcast live transmissions of licensed stations.) Of this total, 1,366 are full-power commercial stations, while 2,034 are classified as low power. Rounding out the total are educational stations and "Class A" stations, which are also low power, but have more protection againsts signal interference than regular LPTV stations. Low-power television has no ownership limits for individuals or corporate entities, but those LPTV stations owned and operated by independent broadcasters with just one channel seem to best represent the purpose originally envisioned by the FCC. WWCI-TV10, for example, provides the only local news programming in Indian River County, on central Florida's Atlantic Coast. When that area was hammered by two successive hurricanes last September, TV10 aired a daily commercial-free call-in program for more than a month so that residents could get information about emergency aid and rebuilding.

An unlikely media mogul

Silberman told the Center he saw significant potential in LPTV technology. Specifically, he envisioned wireless cable networks in small towns.

"I was looking for little cities where they had one or two channels," he said. "I thought it would be a good idea to offer the people 10, 13 channels....The service would have been subscription based—if you lived in a town, you'd get 13 channels for $20. That was the business."

Silberman said he initially acted as a go-between for acquaintances willing to invest in low-power television. Beginning in the early 1990s, he said, these acquaintances amassed hundreds of station licenses in markets across the nation, primarily in several areas of the Midwest. For example, 52 of the proposed stations are located in northern Michigan.

Wireless cable networks never took off as a viable service, however, and direct broadcast satellite television all but killed the original idea. In addition, the FCC announced the transition to digital television, which promised to affect all television broadcasters in the U.S., including LPTV owners. Their stations, already at a competitive disadvantage, faced an uncertain future.

Question marks notwithstanding, Silberman offered to buy the construction permits from the initial group he assembled in the hope of finding a profitable use for the channels. FCC records analyzed by the Center show that 183 low-power television station licenses were transferred to MS Communications, LLC, from 2000 to 2003, with three-quarters of those transactions taking place in 2000. Altogether, Silberman said, more than 200 of the original channels were sold to his company. Since that time, the entrepreneur has filed with the FCC modifications to the construction permits along with applications to move his channels. But nothing has ever been broadcast on his channels, he said, save for test patterns briefly generated in Petoskey, Mich., and in other markets.

Ghost TV

Nevertheless, the FCC has allowed Silberman's company to maintain stewardship of those channels. When the Center queried the commission about MS Communications, an agency spokesperson replied in a written statement: "We can confirm that MS Communications is currently broadcasting over 201 LPTV licensed stations." In fact, Silberman is not broadcasting programming on any of those stations.

In Meridian, Miss., for instance, where MS Communications holds licenses for 12 low-power stations, the Center confirmed that nothing is currently being broadcast over any of the assigned channels. When asked about this, the FCC spokesperson replied that, as a matter of practice: "We trust that the licensee has indicated through filings that they are broadcasting and if they go off the air…they have to apply for the authority to [do so]. The responsibility is in the licensee's hands to notify the FCC when they are no longer broadcasting and the reasons for doing so."

Yet FCC filings show that MS Communications has managed to keep its licenses active by producing paperwork in lieu of programming. This does not appear to violate agency regulations, although it's clear that the FCC's original intent in creating low-power television broadcasting—to bring programming to underserved areas—is not being served in this case. What's more, the spectrum to which Silberman has rights may potentially have tremendous value for other uses, such as cellular telephone service and data transmission.

According to Greg Herman, president of the Community Broadcasters Association, a trade group that represents LPTV broadcasters, "It is atypical of our industry to see people not build stations." Herman describes Silberman as a nice guy with good intentions who got caught up in regulatory changes, rather than a so-called "spectrum speculator" squatting on potentially lucrative public airwaves.

"He did not intend to be a guy with 200 channels with nothing on them," Herman told the Center.

A digital payoff?

Since the first television broadcasts in the 1940s, the nation's publicly owned airwaves have become more and more crowded. In addition to television and radio stations, cellular telephone companies—with more than 160 million customers—are all fighting for limited space on the nation's airwaves.

The old technology for broadcasting is known as "analog." Dramatic advances have made it possible to instead broadcast digitally, thereby making it possible to utilize the limited spectrum in a far more efficient way. The FCC is requiring full-power, commercial television broadcasters to relinquish their existing spectrum and move to new digital channels by the end of 2006, although that timetable depends on a critical mass of U.S. households with television sets able to receive those digital signals.

The FCC has decided, for now, that low-power stations will follow a transition to digital similar to that of full-power television stations, although they may lag by a few years. Existing LPTV license holders will be allowed to apply for a second, digital channel, and begin using it before relinquishing their original analog channels. Because digital technology is a far more efficient use of spectrum, a licensee could broadcast a television signal on a small part of its frequency, and then lease the rest to a cellular phone carrier, for example.

In short, reallocation of the spectrum and the transition to digital could provide significant financial windfalls for MS Communications and others that control portions of the spectrum. But for an LPTV operator to lease its space, it must broadcast at least one channel of programming. Silberman estimates he invested more than $3 million in the business initially, and he further spent thousands of dollars more each year on permit filing and maintenance fees. And he's not done yet: according to the FCC, Silberman's company currently has eight new construction permits, "none of which have gone over the three-year deadline" that requires those awarded permits to begin broadcasting or risk losing their licenses.

To finally make his licenses profitable he'll need a financial angel, possibly in the guise of a cellular telephone company. "Hopefully," he said, "there's going to be someone who needs my channels."

John Dunbar, Mike Baxter and Katie Mills contributed to this report.

Sinclair flap proves exception to the rule

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. — 2011-09-16T12:41:13-04:00

A Center for Public Integrity examination of contributions by broadcasters and their chief lobbying organization, the National Association of Broadcasters, reveals that when it comes to politics, the industry does not play favorites: since 1998, records show, broadcasters have donated $13,528,000 to Democratic candidates and party organizations and $13,391,000 to Republicans.

A glaring exception to this evenhanded approach can be found at Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which recently endured a firestorm of negative publicity for ordering its 62 television stations to air a documentary—just days before the election—critical of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

A little more than 95 percent of Sinclair's $334,000 in contributions have gone to Republicans—a lopsided record of giving unmatched by any other major television broadcaster, the Center found. News Corp., for example, whose Fox cable-news operation is often criticized for its perceived right wing bias, has actually given 64 percent of its contributions to Democrats since 1998 and 36 percent to Republicans. (Contributions by longtime Democratic fundraiser Haim Saban, who owned half of Fox Family Worldwide, are excluded from that ratio; when included, News Corp. contributions skew in favor of Democrats by 81 percent to 19 percent.) And Clear Channel Communications Inc., whose board of directors includes the businessman who bought the Texas Rangers baseball team from President George W. Bush, only favors Republicans by about 63 percent to 37 percent.

Reporters, editors and news executives insist that their employers' campaign contributions have no bearing on how the news is reported. But recent events involving Sinclair and other large broadcasters, such as Viacom Inc., coupled with an escalating lobbying effort to remove government controls, raise questions about whether the broadcast industry's corporate goals may be affecting news coverage.

Breakdown of Political Contributions by Top 10 Broadcasters

Broadcaster	Republican	Democratic	Total Contribtions
1. News Corporation Limited.* (Fox Entertainment Group Inc.)	35.57%	63.88%	$840,106
2. CBS Television Network (Viacom Inc.)	31.19%	68.56%	$4,022,089
3. NBC Universal Inc. (General Electric Co.)	57.50%	42.10%	$6,664,859
4. Tribune Co.	54.43%	45.04%	$188,395
5. ABC Inc. (Walt Disney Co.)	48.87%	50.78%	$3,516,037
6. Gannett Company, Inc.	46.79%	50.66%	$40,075
7. Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc. (Hearst Corp.)	49.68%	47.18%	$159,304
8. Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc.	95.56%	4.44%	$334,425
9. Belo Corp.	49.90%	50.10%	$24,150
10. Cox Enterprises Inc.	32.00%	68.00%	$651,016
*Totals for News Corp. exclude contributions by Haim Saban, once half-owner of Fox Family Worldwide. Saban and News Corp. sold that property to the Walt Disney Co. in 2001.

Bad business

The controversy involving Sinclair was kindled when management ordered the company's television stations, several of which are in so-called swing states, to pre-empt regular primetime programming for an unflattering documentary about Kerry's Vietnam service, Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal.

But if Sinclair's goal was to help itself by helping President Bush, whose administration has consistently supported deregulation of major media corporations, the move clearly backfired. By ordering the airing of an overtly political broadcast so close to the election, the company managed to cast a negative light on the media ownership issue in general, and a harsh spotlight on itself in particular.

"This is an abuse of the public trust," FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said of the Sinclair flap in a prepared statement. "And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology—whether liberal or conservative."

It wasn't the first time Sinclair became the subject of a newscast, as opposed to the producer of one. Six months earlier, for example, the company earned an unwelcome spotlight for instructing its ABC affiliates to pre-empt a "Nightline" program devoted entirely to the reading of a list of American soldiers who had died in the Iraq war. In explaining its decision, Sinclair claimed that "Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show, ABC appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq." Two months earlier, Sinclair had dispatched news crews to Iraq to cover the "good news" that it believed the rest of the media had missed.

Sinclair was founded by Julian Sinclair Smith in 1971 with a single Baltimore television station that is now the company flagship. Led by Smith's son, David, Sinclair grew into the nation's largest owner of television stations—a collection of mostly small-market broadcasters that reach nearly 25 percent of all households.

The company has made no secret of its conservative leanings. In 2002, it created its "News Central" production to centrally manage news operations for all of its stations. Daily broadcasts include commentaries by Mark Hyman, the company's vice president for corporate relations, whose minute-long segments have often included questionable claims. In one segment, for instance, Hyman said that Kerry enlisted in the Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army.

Overall, however, Sinclair has shown its partisan colors with impunity—at least until now.

When news surfaced of the company's plans to air Stolen Honor, advertisers threatened to boycott, Wall Street analysts criticized the company and the stock dropped to a 52-week low. Shareholders threatened lawsuits over the broadcast of the anti-Kerry documentary, prompting Sinclair to issue a statement saying it would not air the film in its entirety, but rather broadcast segments from it as part of a news program.

But as bad as it was for Sinclair, the controversy is worse for the broadcast industry as a whole by raising concerns about one company controlling too large a portion of the airwaves.

"Sinclair has replaced Clear Channel as the new poster child for the ills of media consolidation," Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy in Washington, told the Center for Public Integrity.

Top priority

Lobbying expenditures by the broadcast industry have gone from $20 million* in 1998 to at least $37 million* in 2003. It was during that last year of record lobbying that the FCC proposed significant relaxation of the ownership rules, which would have allowed corporations to own more media outlets than ever before and reach a greater percentage of the national audience.

Media deregulation is a top priority for broadcasters. And FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who was appointed by Bush, shares their views.

That was made clear during Powell's first public appearance as chairman-designate. At a meeting of the Association of Local Television Stations on January 22, 2001, the commissioner agreed with fellow Republican FCC Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth that the agency had in effect become a needless third federal antitrust regulator, given its restrictions over media ownership.

Gradually, the impending deregulation found its way into the national discourse. By June 2003, the FCC had received more than 700,000 public comments about the issue, with 99 percent opposed to any further deregulation. They constituted the largest public response in the agency's history.

"There's a gut reaction," said Chester, noting that these complaints came despite the fact that "you've never gotten a single report from any of the major news broadcasts or newspapers about what the owners are lobbying about." Despite not being well-informed by major news organizations about the agendas of their parent companies, "the public," he said, "understands that things are out of whack."

Nevertheless, on June 2, 2003, Powell led the other Republican commissioners in voting to increase the national broadcast television audience cap to 45 percent (up from 35 percent) and eliminate the so-called duopoly rule (a prohibition against owning two TV stations in the same market) and the media cross-ownership rules.

Perhaps convinced by the public outcry, though, the Senate commerce committee quickly called on the FCC to defend the new rules and, at the same time, crafted a bill that would override the attempt to set the national audience cap at 45 percent. Ultimately, the White House stepped in and the 45 percent cap was reduced to 39 percent. Some of the nation's largest broadcasters, including Fox and Viacom, are all bumping against or exceeding that limit.

Since then, a federal appeals court sent the new rules, other than the audience cap, back to the FCC for re-justification, forcing the agency to re-submit the proposed changes with new supporting research. Eventually, the agency will do just that, and the ultimate decision as to whether the rules will be loosened further will rest with the federal government.

Battle not over

It is disturbing to many to think of media companies as politically active. But it would be naïve not to. Big broadcasters are required to consider both the public interest and the interest of their shareholders, but too often the shareholders' interest wins at the expense of the public's.

"The standards and practices are determined within the corporate environment," said Danny Schechter, executive editor of Mediachannel.org, a Web site that tracks media issues.

Schechter was at one time news director and principal newscaster at WBCN-FM in Boston. He said that news staffers would take "ascertainment" trips into the community to determine issues of importance, then run documentaries on them. Over a number of years, however, WBCN went from being owned by a small company with a few radio stations to one of 183 owned by Viacom, and that same period saw significant decline in the quality of news production.

"The bottom line is much more important than the public interest," he told the Center. "Yes, government policy has favored [deregulation], but corporations have run with it beyond what they've envisioned."

All good journalists follow the money. And in the media consolidation debate, the money has been flying out of the bank for lobbying.

Major broadcasters sharply increased the amount of money they spent lobbying during 2003, the peak of the consolidation debate. In addition to the impact on national audience caps, the decisions also affected so-called cross-ownership—how many different kinds of media outlets, such as newspapers and television stations—a company may own in one market.

Belo Corp., owner of television stations and newspapers, had consistently spent $200,000 a year from 1998 through 2002. In 2003, however, the company ramped that up to $300,000.* Clear Channel Communications Inc., the largest radio station owner in the country, went from an average yearly lobbying total of $76,000 for 1998-2002 to more than $1.8 million* in 2003. Both the National Association of Broadcasters and the Washington Post Co., which also owns television stations, saw significant increases.

The most obvious sign of this shift comes not from hard-core Republicans like David Smith and his three brothers, who control Sinclair, but from the 81-year-old self-described "liberal Democrat" who controls Viacom Inc., owner of CBS, and one of the largest media conglomerates in the world.

Sumner Redstone tacitly endorsed George Bush for re-election in late September, at a meeting of CEOs in Hong Kong. The election of a Republican administration, Redstone told his audience, "is a better deal" in Viacom's view, "because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on."

Newsweek reported that Redstone's remarks were viewed by many as a breach of an understood code of silence regarding political endorsements that most media conglomerates respect. Several other executives from the top broadcasters were asked to comment, and most repudiated any notion of political favor, while a public interest lobbyist pointed to the remarks as evidence of "what we have known all along"—a comfortable relationship between the industry and its government regulators.

When asked to comment on Redstone's endorsement of Bush, a News Corp. spokesman told Newsweek, "We run these businesses not to promote an ideology or political agenda, but to make them successful."

Note to readers: This story has been reposted. Since the report was originally released, the Center for Public Integrity has changed the way it calculates lobbying expenditures to reflect a more stringent methodology for determining the total amounts. The change was made to correct the potential overstatement of totals. Figures or relevant text that have been changed are indicated with asterisks. (2/28/2006)

Broadcast lobbying tops $186 million

2011-09-16T12:48:11-04:00

A new investigation by the Center for Public Integrity has found that the broadcast industry spent more than $186 million* lobbying the federal government from 1998 through June 2004—a period of increasingly intense battles over ownership rules.

In addition, television and radio companies contributed more than $26.5 million to federal candidates and lawmakers during the same period. The companies and their principal representative organization—the National Association of Broadcasters—also sponsored 84 trips for lawmakers and regulators at a cost of $165,474, bringing total spending to affect policy and elections by the industry to at least $210 million.*

The volatile political climate also saw 24 individuals with close ties to both the industry and its regulatory overseers make lucrative moves back and forth between the two.

Since 1998, lobbying expenditures by the broadcast industry grown*, from more than $20 million* to a high of more than $37 million* during 2003. It was during that last year of record lobbying that the FCC proposed significant relaxation of the ownership rules, which would have allowed corporations to own more media outlets than ever before and reach a greater percentage of the national audience.

The top spenders:

General Electric Co., which owns 80 percent of NBC Universal in addition to a number of cable networks, topped the lobby spending list for broadcasters at more than $85 million.* The total includes all lobbying. The giant conglomerate draws only a portion of its revenue from broadcast operations, but broadcast-related lobbying numbers are not reported separately.
Second in broadcast lobbying is the National Association of Broadcasters, an influential trade group that represents the interests of free, over-the-air radio and television broadcasters. The NAB spent more than $39 million* lobbying, according to records.
Walt Disney Co., owner of the ABC television network, is third at more than $22 million.*

The steady rise in lobbying dollars followed the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which stipulated that both caps on station ownership and the percentage of the national audience a broadcast company may reach directly be reviewed every two years. Since 1998, the industry has responded by steadily increasing spending on lobbying.

As for contributions, in the three election cycles between 1998 and 2004, broadcasters contributed more than $26.5 million to federal candidates and sitting officials.

President George W. Bush and his Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry, rank first and second, with donations of $523,000 and $386,000, respectively. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the freshman from New York and former first lady, ranks third with $347,000.

The current cycle's Democratic primaries and subsequent presidential campaign have been a boon to both Bush and Kerry, who raked in unprecedented amounts of contributions.

Broadcasters gave nearly identical amounts to Republicans and Democrats during the period analyzed. Of all contributions, 50.1 percent went to Republicans and 49.6 percent went to Democrats.

Almost half of the contributions went to the national party committees—$6.4 million to Democrats and $5.7 million to Republicans—which then redistributed the money to affect local elections. Contributions made directly to individual candidates, such as Kerry and Clinton, made up the roughly $2 million difference between the two parties.

Once again, the industry's top donors of federal campaign dollars were major broadcast owners, with General Electric leading the way ($6.7 million), followed by Viacom Inc. ($4.0 million) and Disney ($3.5 million).

Broadcasters have also sponsored $165,474 in trips and junkets for members, family and staff of the Senate Committee on Science, Commerce and Transportation and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

First on the list by a large margin is Rep. Billy Tauzin and his staff, who accepted 18 trips valued at $25,006, according to records. The Louisiana Republican is the former chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The NAB has been by far the greatest sponsor of such outings, having paid for 43 of the 84 industry-sponsored trips over the past six years. During that time, the trade association accounted for two-thirds of all broadcast-industry junket and trip spending. News Corp. and Disney followed the NAB with 15 and 13 trips, respectively.

As lobbying has increased and campaign contributions and industry trips have continued at a steady clip, some two dozen individuals have moved through the lucrative "revolving door"—that is, between the broadcast industry and the government offices and agencies that regulate it.

Marsha MacBride, currently the NAB's executive vice president for legal and regulatory affairs, has ping-ponged at a dizzying clip over the last 13 years: she went from the industry to the FCC, back to the industry, and then back to the FCC before landing—at least for now—at the NAB.
Clear Channel Communications Inc., which had virtually no Washington lobbying presence for years, got into the influence business in a big way when it hired Andrew Levin. Levin was Minority Counsel for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where virtually all broadcast legislation is heard, before moving on to become senior vice president of government relations for the radio giant.
Finally, David Goodfriend, interim executive vice president and general counsel for liberal radio network Air America, was at one time deputy staff secretary at the White House under President Bill Clinton, director of legal and business affairs at satellite television broadcaster EchoStar, legal advisor to Commissioner Susan Ness and a telecommunications lawyer with Willkie Farr & Gallagher.

The report is part of the Center's ongoing examination of the companies that control the nation's airwaves, telephone and cable lines and the hundreds of millions of dollars they spend to influence policies that affect how electronic communications are regulated in the United States. The survey took roughly eight months and involved the work of as many as a dozen researchers.

Networks of influence

2012-08-07T14:04:05-04:00

Editor's Note and Correction
In the series of reports released on Oct. 28, 2004, regarding political influence by the communications industry, a total of 18 industry-funded trips worth $31,891 were incorrectly assigned to the office of U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin. While House forms show Tauzin's signature approving the travel, but the staffers did not work in his office. The reports have been amended to reflect the change.

A new Center for Public Integrity investigation of campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures and other spending shows that the communications industry has spent at least $900 million* since 1998 to affect election outcomes and influence legislation before Congress and the White House.

The report focuses on the three primary communications industry sectors that control the information pipelines in the United States – broadcasting, cable television and telecommunications. Researchers also examined lobbying and contribution activity of other companies regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, including satellite television and radio companies.

In addition to corporate spending on lobbying and campaign contributions, the total includes industry-funded trips for members of the House and Senate committees that oversee the FCC. Center researchers also undertook an unprecedented study of former key FCC and congressional officials who left their government jobs for positions in the communications field.

A breakdown shows:

Total lobbying expenditures from 1998 through mid-2004 by the industry were more than $764 million.* In comparison, the oil and gas industry less than $400 million over the same period, the Center has found.
Campaign contributions from 1998 through September 2004 were $145.6 million. The total includes both hard and soft money donations from industry employees, labor unions representing employees in the communications industry and political action committees.
The Center identified 450 industry-funded trips valued at $704,229 from 2000 through March of 2004.

The study is part of the Center's ongoing examination of the companies that control the nation's airwaves, telephone and cable lines and the hundreds of millions of dollars they spend to influence policies that affect how electronic communications are regulated in the United States. The survey took roughly eight months and involved the work of as many as a dozen researchers.

The influence of these industries is particularly important given that they control the information that helps all Americans formulate their views on everything from who to elect for president to what movie they want to see this weekend.

In addition to studying political spending, researchers were able to identify 311 former top congressional aides and FCC officials who have left government service and gone to work in the communications industry.

In an effort to help both journalists and citizens better understand the staggering influence the industry has on government, the Center has created "Influence Tracker," a searchable database that includes information on contributions, lobbying, frequent flyers and employees who have stepped through the revolving door between government and industry.

The database used for this report contains 105,991 records, including 74,302 contribution records and information from roughly 9,000 lobbyist disclosure reports.

Of the three sectors, traditional telecommunications companies spend far more on contributions and lobbying than broadcasters or cable companies. A sector breakdown shows:

Telephone companies like Verizon Communications Inc. and AT&T Corp. spent $398 million* on lobbying, $60.5 million on campaign contributions and $276,000 on trips for an overall total of at least $455 million.* (See information on telecommunications spending)
Broadcasters spent more than $186 million* on lobbying and $26.5 million on campaign contributions and $165,000 on trips for a total of at least $210 million.* (See information on broadcast spending)
Cable television providers spent more than $88 million* lobbying, $20.5 million on contributions and $226,000 on trips for a total of more than $100 million.* (See information on cable television spending)

Lobbying

While contributions to politicians are a major expense for communications companies, it pales in comparison to the amount that is spent on making sure the legal and regulatory climate remains favorable.

The money* spent by the industry affected legislation ranging from local telephone competition to media consolidation to the deregulation of the cable television industry. The survey shows that spending on lobbying by communications companies rose from more than $118 million* in 1998 to more than $126 million* in 2003.*

Among the top spenders on lobbying:

General Electric Co., which owns 80 percent of NBC Universal in addition to a number of cable networks, topped the lobby spending list at more than $85 million.* (The total includes all lobbying by the giant conglomerate, even though it draws only a portion of its revenue from broadcast operations. Federal disclosure rules do not require companies to separate lobbying expenditures by subject.)
Second by a small margin was Verizon Communications Inc., the nation's largest phone company. The former regional Bell operating company spent more than $77 million* from 1998 through mid 2004. Verizon has key financial interests in local and long-distance phone regulation, spectrum allocation for its wireless division and a multitude of other issues.
Third* on the list of top lobby spenders was SBC Communications Inc. at more than $56 million.*

SBC is followed by competitors AT&T Corp. (more than $48 million*) and Sprint Corp. (more than $46 million*).

The Center also looked at the top communications industry lobbying shops in Washington.

Number one on the list in billings was Patton Boggs at $10.9 million; second was Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld at $9.6 million; third was PodestaMattoon at $9.3 million. Fourth was Piper Rudnick at $8.8 million and rounding out the top five was Hill & Knowlton at $8.4 million.

Contributions

The partisan preference of the communications industry as a whole has leaned toward the Democratic Party. Total contributions were split 56.2 percent for Democratic candidates and party organizations and 43.2 percent for Republicans. That does not extend to the two current candidates for the White House: President Bush leads Sen. John Kerry by a wide margin, $1.8 million to $1.1 million.

The two largest contributors over the study period were both labor unions.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers spent $12.5 million since 1998.
Second was the Communication Workers of America at $12.1 million.
Third on the list of top contributors was Verizon Communications at $10.7 million.

Verizon is followed by another former Bell, SBC Communications Inc., at $10.5 million. Media conglomerate Time Warner Inc., with holdings in publishing, film production, the Internet and cable television, was fifth at $8.2 million.

A significant portion of the union total (24 percent from the IBEW, 43 percent from the CWA) came from unregulated "soft money" contributions. Such contributions are now banned by the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act which went into effect late in 2002.

Bush's top communications patron is SBC Communications Inc., the San Antonio-based former Bell operating company that has waged a long battle with the government over the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was supposed to create competition in local phone service. SBC has donated $178,000 since 1998. Bush's second biggest booster from the communications business is Time Warner ($167,000) and third is General Electric ($151,000).

Kerry's top communications patron is Time Warner, which has donated $242,000 over the same period. Second is broadcast giant and owner of CBS, Viacom Inc., at $118,000. Verizon is third at $116,000.

Behind Bush and Kerry on the list of recipients of the most communications dollars is Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who received $951,000. He is followed by Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) at $940,000. New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, despite her status as a freshman legislator, was next on the list, having collected an impressive $920,000. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, came in fifth at $905,000.

Then there were the bundlers. At least 10 figures in the communications industry raised $100,000 or more for President Bush's reelection, including the top executives at the largest and second largest telephone companies in the nation.

On the list of "Pioneers" were Salem Communications CEO Edward Atsinger; IDT Corp. CEO James Courter; lobbyist Ronald Kauffman, senior managing partner of the Dutko Group; Liggett Communications CEO Robert Liggett; lobbyist and former member of Congress Bill Paxon of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld; Univision Communications CEO Jerry Perenchio; Edge Wireless CEO Wayne Perry and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg. SBC Communications CEO Edward Whitacre was named a "Ranger" for hitting the $200,000 mark.

Trips

Closely related to lobbying was the much criticized Washington practice of "fact-finding trips" by lawmakers and staff, which are also referred to more derisively as "junkets."

Since 2000, the communications industry has sponsored 450 trips for members, family and staff of the Senate Committee on Science, Commerce and Transportation and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The top sponsor marks the first entry of the cable industry into a top five category of influence in the Center survey of communications companies.

The National Cable and Telecommunications Association funded 102 trips since 2000 worth $198,727. Second was another lobbying group, the United States Telecom Association, with 62 trips at $106,689. Third was SBC Communications Inc. with 47 trips valued at $76,327. Fourth was the National Association of Broadcasters with 43 trips at $99,084 and fifth was the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association with 41 trips valued at $57,044.

Last year, the Center did a survey on members of the FCC and staff who accepted free travel from industry. Over the eight-year period covered in the survey, businesses paid for $2.8 million in free travel for FCC staff. Since the publication of that report, the practice has largely ceased.

The frequent flyer award among members of Congress was no contest. The top recipient was retiring Louisiana Rep. Billy Tauzin, former chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Tauzin and members of his office staff went on 69 trips valued at $107,424. Tauzin's office was top traveler in every communications sector examined by the Center.

A distant second is Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) at 31 trips valued at $41,529 and in third place is Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) with 14 trips worth $27,398.

Revolvers

The Center also examined the practice of government officials leaving their jobs to work for the industries they used to regulate. It is a common practice in Washington and has been the subject of recent reports on the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense.

The practice raises concern for a number of reasons, the most serious being that a federal employee may be tempted to show a regulated company favorable treatment in hopes of getting a job at the end of his government service.

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics has rules on post-employment activity by former federal workers, but they are narrowly drawn and easily sidestepped.

While the Center study did not find any former FCC or congressional employee who appeared to violate those rules, researchers found that an extraordinary number of them—398, in fact—have gone to work for companies they used to regulate.

For example, all eight previous chairmen of the FCC have either worked for or represented corporations that are regulated by the agency. Two are registered lobbyists.

Among some of the others:

Republican Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, once worked for Baby Bell USWEST (now part of Qwest). She is on at least her second time through the revolving door between the FCC and the phone companies. In the 1990s, she was a lobbyist for private companies with business before the FCC after having served in senior staff roles to the FCC and two FCC commissioners.
Lyndon K. Boozer, BellSouth's vice president of federal relations, is an FCC alumnus who worked as a special assistant in the agency's Office of Legislation and Intergovernmental Affairs before leaving for his lucrative job at BellSouth.
Peter Davidson, Verizon's senior vice president of federal government relations, has passed twice through the revolving door between government and industry. After serving as policy director to then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), he worked for Qwest, then worked under the U.S. Trade Representative in the Bush administration until taking his position with Verizon last year.
Marsha MacBride, currently the executive vice president for legal and regulatory affairs with the National Association of Broadcasters, has gone from the industry to the FCC, back to the industry, back to the FCC again and then once more into the industry. Over the course of 13 years, she has occupied positions at the uppermost echelons of both media corporations and organizations and the government agency that regulates them.

The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization that conducts investigative research and reporting on public policy issues in the United States and around the world.

This project was made possible thanks to funding from the Ford Foundation and partial funding from the Open Society Institute.