Feingold Bill To Face Long Battle

A bill to be introduced this month by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., addressing concerns about media consolidation and relaxed radio-station ownership limits and calling for probes of "new payola" pay-for-play practices and stratospheric concert ticket prices, is creating a buzz in the entertainment industry. But veterans here say that the size of the promised package will surely produce a prolonged battle in Congress.

According to Capitol Hill players and observers, there is virtually no chance that such a bill, if introduced, could be passed this session and little chance that it could even be passed in the next Congress. All agree that the battle will be lengthy and expensive.

On June 13, while announcing on the Senate floor that he planned to introduce legislation this month, Feingold characterized the deregulatory 1996 Telecommunications Act as a bill "bought and paid for by soft money." He added: "Everyone was at the table except for the consumers. In November, we will finally have rid the system of this [soft money] loophole, but we must repair its damage.

"I did not predict that one provision would have caused so much harm to a diverse range of interests," he said. "The elimination of the national radio ownership caps and relaxation of local ownership caps . . . has triggered a wave of consolidation and caused harm to consumers, artists, concert-goers, local radio station owners, and promoters."

One veteran says, "Congress is going out on recess in August, and it has plenty on its plate when it returns, and there's no inclination for Congress to admit they made bad law."

Another says, "It's obviously important, but it will take certainly public outrage to fuel it and a couple of years and maybe even a change in administration to try to wrestle with this one, to keep up a unified front and not let these issues be peeled away."

If there was any doubt that the powerful National Assn. of Broadcasters (NAB) lobby is preparing to squash such a measure, NAB spokesperson Dennis Wharton put it to rest. "We think Congress made the correct decision [in the '96 rewrite] in allowing an element of consolidation in the radio industry that was not there before. We think Sen. Feingold is flat wrong when he claims there is less diversity in program formats. The reality is that there have never been more formats and program diversity." He had no comment on the issues of ticket prices or artists' worries that they would not get airplay unless they appeared at Clear Channel venues (see Venue Views, page 18).

Wharton's description of Clear Channel's diversity does not match those of critics, who carp that decisions—including music choices—are no longer made by local program and music directors. His comments about the independent promotion money echo those of Clear Channel spokeswoman Pam Taylor—who, in response to a letter sent by a coalition to the Federal Communications Commission and members of Congress (Billboard Bulletin, May 24) to look into consolidation, said the practice "was created by the [music] industry; they continue to use [indie promoters]. The day they quit using them is the day the system ends. This is not a radio industry issue, it's a record company issue."

Of the Feingold announcement, Jonathan Potter, president of the Digital Media Assn., agrees that it will take a long-term effort. "But counter-balance that with this: Feingold was told the same thing when he started down the road of campaign finance reform. So don't ever count Russ Feingold out."