Broadcast VOICES Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 10, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to increase diversity of ownership in the broadcasting industry by re-establishing a tax incentive program and creating a new tax credit, alongside enhanced FCC reporting requirements.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to take actions to increase diversity of ownership in the broadcasting industry. It establishes a tax certificate program for sales of broadcast station interests that result in or preserve ownership by socially disadvantaged individuals, allowing sellers to defer capital gains taxes. It also creates a new tax credit for contributions of broadcast stations or interests to charitable organizations that train socially disadvantaged individuals, and mandates biennial FCC reports to Congress on diversity of ownership.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that increasing diversity of ownership in broadcasting is a compelling governmental interest that leads to a greater diversity of viewpoints, which is essential for a robust public discourse. They would point to the historical success of the previous tax certificate program (1978-1995) in increasing minority ownership as evidence of its effectiveness.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that tax incentives distort the market, create loopholes, or could be subject to abuse. Some might question the effectiveness of such programs or whether the government should be involved in promoting specific ownership demographics in private industry. Others might argue that the definition of 'socially disadvantaged individuals' is too broad or too narrow.
The bill is relatively short and its core provisions are understandable, making it accessible for a reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the "Broadcast Varied Ownership Incentives for Community Expanded Service Act" or the "Broadcast VOICES Act." This name is used for easy reference and identification of the legislation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and descriptive short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, making the bill's purpose immediately recognizable.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short title provisions as they are standard legislative practice.
Tradeoffs
None.
Section 2
Key Definitions
This section defines critical terms used throughout the Act, such as "broadcast station," "Commission" (referring to the FCC), and "owned by socially disadvantaged individuals." The definition of "owned by socially disadvantaged individuals" is crucial as it refers to a new section 346(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, which is added by this bill.
Section 3
Congressional Findings on Diversity
This section outlines Congress's findings, stating that ensuring diversity of ownership and viewpoints in broadcasting is a compelling governmental interest. It cites 2021 data on low minority and women ownership in commercial broadcast stations and notes the historical impact of a previous minority tax certificate program (1978-1995).
Section 4
Biennial FCC Reports to Congress on Diversity
This section directs the FCC to submit two biennial reports to Congress. The first report, due 180 days after enactment and every two years thereafter, must contain recommendations to increase the number and value of broadcast stations owned by socially disadvantaged individuals. The second report, also biennial, must identify the total number of such stations based on FCC Form 323 data.
Section 5(a) and 5(b)
Broadcast Station Tax Certificate Program and Nonrecognition of Gain
This is the core of the bill. It amends the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a new Section 346, creating a tax certificate program. The FCC will issue certificates for sales of broadcast station interests that result in or preserve ownership by socially disadvantaged individuals, or for sales by investors in such stations. These certificates enable sellers to elect nonrecognition of gain or loss for tax purposes under a new Section 1071 of the Internal Revenue Code, treating the sale as an involuntary conversion. The FCC must adopt rules for this program, including a limit on sale value (not greater than $50 million), a minimum holding period (2-3 years), and requirements for participation in station management by socially disadvantaged individuals. The program sunsets after 16 years.
Section 6
Tax Credit for Contributions of Broadcast Stations for Training
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a new Section 45BB, creating a "broadcast station contribution credit" as part of the general business credit. This credit is equal to the fair market value of a broadcast station or interest contributed to an entity described in section 170(c)(2) (charitable organizations) that has a charitable purpose of training socially disadvantaged individuals in broadcast station management and operation, provided the recipient holds the station for at least 2 years. No deduction under section 170 is allowed for contributions receiving this credit.
Defines "owned by socially disadvantaged individuals" as a station where more than 50% (or other FCC-determined percentage) is owned by one or more socially disadvantaged individuals, and management and daily operations are controlled by them. For publicly traded stations, it refers to securities ownership.
Section 2(3) and Section 5(a)(1) adding new 346(a)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining terms that are part of a new statutory section, allowing for a more detailed and specific definition within the relevant legal framework.
Case for: Supporters argue that this precise definition is necessary to ensure that the tax certificate program genuinely benefits entities controlled by socially disadvantaged individuals and prevents circumvention or token ownership.
Case against: Critics might argue that the "more than 50 percent" threshold could be too high or too low, potentially excluding legitimate diverse ownership structures or allowing token ownership without true control. The FCC's ability to determine "some other percentage" adds flexibility but also potential for future changes.
Estimated impact: Directly impacts eligibility for the tax certificate program, potentially affecting billions in transaction value over the program's lifespan by determining who qualifies for the benefits.
Directs the FCC to adopt rules for the tax certificate program, including a limit on sale value (not greater than $50 million), a minimum holding period (2-3 years), a cumulative limit on the number or value of sales per year, and requirements for participation in station management by socially disadvantaged individuals. It also mandates certification of compliance every 180 days and reporting failures to the IRS.
Section 5(a)(1) adding new 346(d)
Why it matters:This is standard practice for complex regulatory programs, allowing the expert agency (FCC) to develop detailed operational rules that can adapt to market conditions and specific industry nuances.
Case for: Proponents argue that delegating rulemaking to the FCC allows for flexibility and expertise in designing the program's specifics, adapting to market conditions, and ensuring effective implementation and compliance.
Case against: Critics might express concern that key program parameters are left to agency discretion, potentially leading to uncertainty or future changes that could alter the program's intent or impact. The $50 million cap, while a limit, is still substantial and could be seen as too high or too low.
Estimated impact: These rules will define the practical scope and effectiveness of the tax certificate program, influencing the number and value of transactions, potentially billions over the program's lifespan.
States that the amendments made by Section 5 (the tax certificate program and nonrecognition of gain) shall not apply to sales of interests in broadcast stations after the date that is 16 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 5(d)
Why it matters:Sunset clauses are often placed at the end of sections or acts, sometimes to facilitate passage by limiting the long-term fiscal impact or allowing for future re-evaluation and potential reauthorization.
Case for: Proponents might argue that a sunset clause allows Congress to review the program's effectiveness and make adjustments after a significant period, ensuring it remains relevant and efficient. It can also help manage long-term fiscal projections.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 16-year sunset creates uncertainty for long-term investments and planning, potentially reducing the program's effectiveness by making it a temporary measure rather than a stable, enduring policy.
Estimated impact: Limits the duration of the tax benefits, capping the total fiscal impact and the period during which diverse ownership is actively incentivized through this mechanism.