WASHINGTON—FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez has issued a strongly worded statement blasting Media Bureau guidance on political advertising rules that she says unlawfully expands the political entities and groups that qualify for discounted broadcast advertising rates.
She contended that the Media Bureau is now allowing joint fundraising committees and party committees to purchase airtime at the same steep discount, just weeks before voting starts in the fall general midterm election. The discount window opens September 4, 2026.
The issue is an important one for the ad revenue broadcasters can expect in the last half of 2026.
While broadcasters are increasingly reliant on political advertising during election years, the requirement that they provide inventory at discounted rates to an expended group of buyers could hurt revenue and make it difficult for stations to serve their tradition advertising clients.
At the end of March, the Media Bureau issued a Public Notice with guidance on who is entitled to the discounted advertising rates under the “FCC’s lowest unit charge (LUC) requirements. As discussed below, the LUC requirements are applicable to (1) authorized committees, including authorized committees that engage in joint fundraising with legally qualified candidates for federal office, and (2) advertisements that qualify as coordinated expenditures of political parties and legally qualified candidates for federal office.”
This was challenged by the Television Bureau of Advertising, which is funded by broadcasters and on August 13, the Media Bureau rejected the TVB’s petition asking the agency to reconsider its ruling, arguing that the agency hadn’t actually changed any of its rules.
Gomez rejected those arguments in a statement saying that “In the final stretch of a national election, this FCC is unleashing a flood of coordinated campaign money into broadcast advertising, just as the Supreme Court has cleared the way for unlimited coordinated spending between parties and candidates, This unprecedented, last-minute decision gives the biggest political spenders an even bigger advantage over everyone else by expanding the candidate-only discount established by law to joint fundraising and party committees, an advantage that will make it hard for anyone else to catch up before Election Day.”
“Broadcasters are being directed to slash prices and sell their most valuable inventory during their busiest and most lucrative season, even as this same FCC has spent months arguing broadcasters need economic and regulatory relief to compete with Big Tech and streaming,” she added. “You cannot claim broadcasters are struggling to survive and then force them into a fire sale on the one thing that could actually help them compete and increase revenue.
Gomez also argued that the move was illegal.
“Even more concerning, this decision was made behind closed doors by agency staff, not by the full Commission, and it contradicts what this administration itself told the Supreme Court less than a year ago about who qualifies for this discount,” she noted. “In direct conflict with the administration’s position, the FCC relies on alleged staff-level guidance that was never provided in writing and that nobody could find, and adopted it with no opportunity for the public to weigh in. The American people should not have sweeping election-year rule changes forced on them in the dark, on the eve of an election, without an opportunity for public input. It is past time this Commission listens to them, not to the billionaires seeking to empty their pockets into dark money groups to try to influence the outcome of this upcoming election.”
In its August 13 dismissal of the TVB's challenge the Media Bureau noted that the “TVB argues that the Bureau’s Public Notice broke new substantive ground, and their Petition thus seeks reconsideration of what they contend is a new and final agency action.”
The FCC’s Media Bureau rejected that argument by contending that “the Public Notice merely reminds the public, going into an election season, of the agency’s longstanding and previous decisions regarding the scope of LUC obligations. It simply collects in one place prior FCC orders and other relevant authority so that a wide range of stakeholders can be aware of existing law. Such a reminder is not a decision or action that can be challenged through a petition for reconsideration.”
In addition, the Media Bureau argued that “insofar as TVB’s Petition takes issue with prior agency guidance, the time for challenging that prior guidance has passed” and “ there is nothing in the Public Notice that reopened those issues or underlying guidance sufficient to provide TVB with a right to challenge them through a petition for reconsideration of the Public Notice.”
The Media Bureau also argued that “the FCC’s existing interpretations of the LUC requirements...further confirms that the Public Notice broke no new ground; it did not change the status quo. As always, if there are particular instances in which a party wishes to challenge a station’s application of the LUC in a specific case, the agency can adjudicate those disputes on a case-by-case basis consistent with FCC precedent.”
The full copy of the Media Bureau’s rejection of the TVB petition is available here.
