August 2, 2007
Jen Howard, Free Press, (202) 265-1490, x22
FCC Stifles Public Debate on Media Ownership
Public given little time to weigh in on media ownership and minority ownership proposals
WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission yesterday asked for public comment on a series of proposals on minority media ownership - after nearly a year of inaction on the issue. In the landmark 2004 Prometheus decision, the FCC was ordered to address minority ownership proposals as part of its review of media ownership rules. But despite requests from civil rights and public interest groups for further review of the proposals, the FCC waited until after the release of 10 massive new ownership studies to seek public comment.
Despite the complexity and seriousness of the proposed rulemaking, the public was given only a narrow two-month window to evaluate and respond to both the studies and the minority ownership proposals. FCC Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps released a statement yesterday criticizing the agency for the inadequate time given for public comment.
Free Press Research Director S. Derek Turner issued the following statement:
"The FCC's decision to rush the process of review and debate on the complex issue of media ownership does a major disservice to the public and this country's long history of democratic discourse.
"The FCC has jammed two extremely important media ownership proceedings into an inexplicably short and overlapping public comment cycle. It took the 10 teams of researchers nearly a year to conduct, and finally deliver - after much delay - the 10 official ownership studies. Yet the FCC expects the public to digest, analyze and comment on this research in just 60 days, and then respond to potentially hundreds of other parties' assessments in little more than two weeks.
"On top of this, the Commission is asking the public to weigh in on the very complex and important issue of minority ownership within the same arbitrarily truncated time period. The FCC has had a year to consider minority media ownership proposals, but has unreasonably chosen to move this issue forward while public focus is dispersed across the 10 official studies.
"The issue of minority media ownership is paramount. The FCC has a well-documented lack of understanding, oversight and action on this fundamental matter. The effort to short-circuit the public comment process is a sign that the Commission remains apathetic about adequately promoting a diverse and representative media."
from on August 2, 2007, 10:30am
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)