WASHINGTON—Americans for Tax Reform and other conservative leaning groups have told the Federal Communications Commission that the agency should not implement additional regulations governing the relationships between the big four broadcast networks and their affiliates.
The letter argued that private commercial negotiations are best left to market forces and warned that government intervention could "distort" media markets.
It also raised fears that future administration might use these precedents to investigate deals that are "politically inconvenient."
In a letter from 21 groups, the organizations applauded the FCC’s push to “reduce government regulation and interference in America’s thriving communications sector. From media and broadband to the space economy, your deregulatory agenda continues to remove barriers to investment, innovation, and competition.”
“It is in that spirit that we respectfully urge the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to avoid intervening, either directly or indirectly, in affiliation agreements freely negotiated between broadcast networks and local television station owners,” the groups explained, adding that the relationship between affiliates and broadcasters is best left to market dynamics.
“As many of our organizations have previously emphasized,” the letter noted, “broadcasters are perfectly capable of deciding whether and when to enter into or end an affiliation agreement with a network. The FCC should not substitute its own judgment for that of the market participants themselves.”
“We are therefore concerned by suggestions that affiliation changes could trigger heightened scrutiny for license renewals or lead to other regulatory consequences,” the organizations continued. “License renewal should not become a newfound tool for influencing lawful private negotiations or pressuring market participants to reach outcomes preferred by the government.”
That could, the groups, said would “influence negotiations and distort the market. Companies may reasonably feel compelled to avoid transactions that are lawful and economically sound because they fear inviting regulatory scrutiny.”
The letter also warned that “a precedent allowing the FCC to intervene in affiliation negotiations because it disagrees with the resulting market structure will not remain confined to the present Commission or the present set of companies. A future FCC under a different administration could use that same theory to investigate affiliation changes benefiting broadcasters whose content with which it disagrees, pressure networks to reconsider relationships with disfavored station groups, or threaten license consequences when private negotiations produce politically inconvenient results.”
