Broadcasting (Jan - Mar 1950)

SADOWSKI RADIO Bill Six to Eight Week Hearings Predicted I By JOHN OSBON iEXTEXSiVE enlargement of the pIcFarland FCC bill and far-reaching hearings on many controversial j radio-television issues — lasting ; from six to eight weeks and slated to get undeiway next month — were prescribed last week by House Interstate & Foreign Com; raerce Committee leadership. ! After consultation with Rep. Robert Grosser (R-Ohio), committee chairman. Rep. George Sadowski (D-Mich."), head of the radio subcommittee, told Broadcast, ING he plans to introduce his own j bill, now being prepared, which would incorporate certain features of the McFarland measure (S 1973) and a host of "more substantive" matters. : The Sadowski version will be ready in "about two or three weeks," and will serve as the basis for hearings on a host of communications problems besetting not only FCC but other government branches. Rep. Sadowski wants to elicit views of broadcasters, Jus ■ tice Dept. and other branches, in addition to those of the Commission. 1 Rep. Sadowski said "we may not press for legislation but we do i want to get all the information we can," during the proposed hearings, on these subjects : # Allocation and assignment of , frequencies as bet«-een those al] lotted through FCC for private [ users, and those through the Presi ■ dent for government utilization. # Cancellation of licenses by FCC — the only penalty under present regulations. % Immunity of licensees from slander voiced by political candidates— the question of FCC regulations which conflict with state laws. 0 Radio fraud provisions, currentlv embodied in the McFarland bill. ' 9 FCC's network regulations. ^ Television and particularly color TV with respect to present allocation of channels in some areas and lack of provision for others. % Monopoly and "intervvoven ownerships" involving investigations by the Justice Dept. 'Broader' Hearings Wanted In disclosing his plans for new legislation and hearings, Rep. Sadowski emphasized his subcommittee is "not ignoring" the nonpolicy measure introduced and guided through the Senate by Sen. Ernest W. McFarland (D-Ariz.). But he also stressed that his group wants to hold "broader" hearings than those conducted by the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee last summer [Broadcasting, June 13, 20, 1949]. The MacFarland bill passed the Senate last August after the Commerce Committee reported it out with certain amendments to the original measure, including one imposing a "deadline" on FCC's action on applications [Broadcasting, July 25, 1949], and dropping certain other features. During the hearings, which drew broad approval of the bill, the Commission called for revision or deletion of a number of basic provisions. Sen. McFarland reportedly had the tacit aproval of the Commission, save Comr. Frieda Hennock, before steering his measure unanimously through the Senate. Opposition from FCC and others mounted, however, when the legislation came before the House Commerce committee, which deferred consideration in the last session. Full Exploration Elaborating on his outline for the hearing, Rep. Sadowski said he thought communications should be explored from "top to bottom," starting at the government level with use of frequency space by various agencies and departments, including the State Dept., Commerce Dept., General Services Administration, and Defense Dept. (Army-NavyAir Force), and involving the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee, which metes out spectrum space for government use. This phase of the House plan is apparently borrowed from the Sen. McFarland subcommittee, which is investigating the allocation of frequencies between government and private users, as well as a proposed single system of domestic and international records communications [Broadcasting, Oct. 24, Nov. 28]. Rep. Sadowski reported there had been complaints that cancellation of licenses bj FCC is "too severe a punishment." He said the whole question of sanctions would be explored by the subcommittee. The McFarland bill presently calls for revocation through "show cause" orders, and includes a "cease-and-desist" provision for less serious violations. The whole question of slander by radio — touching on FCC's celebrated decision on political broadcasting— needs a thorough goingover, too. Rep. Sadowski asserted, outlining the dilemma of the broadcaster subject to state laws and FCC rules. Network Question With respect to the Commission's network regulations. Rep. Sadowski said he wanted an answer to this question: "Shall networks be subject to direct FCC regulation?" He said he has received, from time to time, numerous complaints from affiliates dissatisfied with the present network-affiliate structure. In addition, he wants to get the Justice Dept's official word on what it has been doing with respect to charges that networks are "monopolistic" and violate the anti-trust laws, as charged by Gordon Brown, Vs'SAY Rochester, who has suits pending in court. Mr. Brown paid Rep. Sadowski a visit last week, apprising him of (Continued on page 50) Legislative Stiletto an editorial UNBEKNOWNST even to several members of the FCC, there is about to be perpetrated ' one of the most artful acts of legislative ( sabotage ever foisted upon an unsuspecting , Congress, Commission, art and public. Barring a reversal of tactics, there is to be " introduced in the House a bill bearing the name j of Rep. Sadowski (D-Mich.) to amend the Communications Act of 1934. But we doubt whether I it is Mr. Sadowski's handiwork. It was drafted r. in the rough by the Law Bureau of the FCC I in collaboration with Kurt Borchardt, communij cations specialist of the House Interstate & I Foreign Commerce Committee. I We are convinced that this bill is designed I; to block House approval of the McFarland Bill (S 1973), which unanimously passed the Seni ate last August and which had the support of ! the FCC. The McFarland Bill would reorganize the FCC and strip the lawyers of the power they have accumulated over the years — ^ power that has permitted them effectively to run the Commission. 5 The lawyers do not want the Commission j reorganized. They do not want to meet dead' lines. They do not want the appellate provif sions of the archaic Communications Act ■I changed. ' So, after the last session adjourned, the s lawj'ers set out quietly to change things. : Richard A. Solomon, chief of the Litigation and Legislation Branch, maintained the liaison with Mr. Borchardt. The draft that was to become the Sadowski Bill was cleared through Gen. Counsel Benedict P. Cottone. The masterminding, we believe, was done, as always, by Assistant General Counsel Harry Plotkin, brilliant New Dealer whose credo is that those encounters he hasn't won just aren't finished. The McFarland Bill could have passed the House last session, since there had been exhaustive Senate hearings. It was a stripped, compromise measure in which virtually all differences had been resolved. It would eliminate dilatory tactics by the FCC staff, and place policy responsibility where it belongs — with the Commission, rather than with its self-annointed brain-truster legal lights. But the FCC lawyers got in the licks. If our grapevine is correct, the Sadowski bill would (1) impose penalties short of revocation of licenses through suspensions and fines, and imbue the FCC with power to play fast and loose with licensees, in a manner far more drastic than the "cease and desist" provisions of the McFarland Bill; (2) write into the statute the explosive substance of the Port Huron decision on political broadcasting; (3) subject all frequencies to license, including those allotted to Government for the military; (4) reinstate anti-trust provisions which provoked such a furore when incorporated in the White Bill several years ago; (5) get into the TV-color fracas; and (6) barge into FM. Such a bill would embody such a strange admixture of bitter and sweet as to whet the appetite of many a crusading politico. It also would mean smear-hearings and headline hunting. It could mean a legislative stalemate in this election year. And, if we fathom the strategy of the FCC la^\n,'ers, that is what they're shooting for. It would leave things status quo. It is the divide and conquer thesis. We hope the House Committee won't be taken in. We hope Chairman Grosser will ascertain why the FCC (by letter) supported the McFarland Bill in the Senate and (by letter) opposed the identical bill in the House. We hope he will look into the "lobbying" aspects, since the anti-lobby statutes apply to Government as well as to industry. The McFarland Bill, from radio's standpoint, is not optimum legislation. It is not a bill drafted by broadcasters for broadcasters. The need for improvement in the law is evident. That is what all the shouting has been about. The House should pass the McFarland Bill without hearings, and on the Senate record. Then if the House wants to look into antitrust, political "fairness," licensing of Government frequencies, and other controversial matters, let it hold hearings for further amendment of the law. If the House Committee falls for this smokescreen, FCC's lawj'ers can claim Congressional scalps along with those of the Commission. BROADCASTING • Telecasting January 23, 1950 » Page 17