Broadcast VOICES Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 18, 2025
Bottom line
The Broadcast VOICES Act aims to increase diversity of ownership in the broadcasting industry through targeted tax incentives and enhanced data collection, building on a past FCC program.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to re-establish a tax certificate program to incentivize sales of broadcast stations to socially disadvantaged individuals and to provide a tax credit for contributions of broadcast stations to entities that train such individuals. It also mandates biennial FCC reports to Congress on broadcast ownership diversity and recommendations for increasing it.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill addresses a critical lack of diversity in broadcast ownership, which in turn limits the diversity of viewpoints available to the public. They point to historical data showing the effectiveness of a similar tax certificate program in increasing minority ownership and the persistently low percentages of women and minority-owned stations today.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that tax incentives could lead to market distortions, create an uneven playing field, or that the definition of 'socially disadvantaged individuals' could be overly broad or lead to unintended consequences. Some may also question the direct causal link between ownership diversity and viewpoint diversity.
The bill is concise, allowing for a thorough review within a reasonable timeframe for an informed reader.
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 reflects the bill's intent to promote diverse ownership in broadcasting and enhance community service.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a clear and descriptive short title helps communicate the bill's purpose and intent to the public and stakeholders, fostering understanding and engagement with the legislation.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against short titles, as they are primarily for identification and do not carry substantive policy implications.
Tradeoffs
None significant, as this provision is purely for identification.
Section 2
Definitions
This section defines key terms used throughout the Act, including 'broadcast station,' 'Commission' (referring to the Federal Communications Commission), and 'owned by socially disadvantaged individuals.' The definition of 'owned by socially disadvantaged individuals' is particularly crucial, as it refers to a new section 346(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, which is added by this bill and specifies ownership and control criteria.
Section 4
Biennial FCC Reports to Congress on Broadcast Station Ownership 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, will contain recommendations for how to increase the total number and value of broadcast stations owned by socially disadvantaged individuals. The second report, also biennial, will identify the total number of such stations based on data reported to the FCC on Form 323.
Section 5(a) (adding Section 346 to the Communications Act)
FCC Tax Certificate Program for Diversity in Broadcast Ownership
This section establishes a program at the FCC to issue tax certificates for certain sales of broadcast stations. These certificates are for sales that either result in or preserve ownership and control by socially disadvantaged individuals, or sales by investors in such stations. The FCC is directed to adopt rules for this program, including limits on the value of a qualifying sale (not greater than $50,000,000), minimum holding periods (2-3 years) for continued ownership by socially disadvantaged individuals, cumulative limits on certificates issued per person, and requirements for participation in station management by socially disadvantaged individuals.
Section 5(b) (adding Section 1071 to the Internal Revenue Code)
Tax Treatment of Certified Broadcast Station Sales
This section amends the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to allow taxpayers who receive an FCC tax certificate for a broadcast station sale to elect nonrecognition of gain or loss. Such sales are treated as an involuntary conversion of property under IRC Section 1033, allowing deferral of capital gains if the proceeds are reinvested in similar property. Any remaining gain not covered by Section 1033 can also be used to reduce the basis of other depreciable property. This nonrecognition is contingent on the taxpayer fulfilling FCC holding period and management requirements.
Section 6 (adding Section 45BB to the Internal Revenue Code)
Tax Credit for Contributions of Broadcast Stations to Training Entities
This section establishes a new general business credit, the 'broadcast station contribution credit,' equal to the fair market value of a broadcast station or an interest therein, which is contributed to a qualified charitable entity. A 'qualified contribution' is defined as a gift to a 501(c)(2) entity whose charitable purpose includes training socially disadvantaged individuals in broadcast management and operation, as certified by the FCC. The recipient must hold the station or interest for at least 2 years. No deduction under Section 170 (charitable contributions) is allowed for contributions for which this credit is claimed.
The definition of 'owned by socially disadvantaged individuals' includes a clause allowing the FCC to determine an ownership percentage 'other than 50 percent' for a broadcast station to qualify, and for publicly traded stations, 'more than 50 percent (or some other percentage determined by the Commission) of the securities'.
Section 2(3) and Section 5(a)(1) (adding Section 346(a)(1) to the Communications Act)
Why it matters:Granting regulatory agencies discretion in setting specific thresholds is common legislative practice to allow for flexibility and adaptation to market conditions or unforeseen circumstances without requiring new legislation.
Case for: Supporters argue that granting the FCC flexibility to adjust the ownership percentage allows the program to adapt to evolving market realities, prevent circumvention of the rules, and ensure the spirit of the law is maintained in dynamic industry conditions.
Case against: Critics might argue that this flexibility introduces uncertainty for potential participants and could lead to arbitrary changes in eligibility criteria, making long-term planning and investment difficult for those seeking to utilize the program.
Estimated impact: Directly impacts the eligibility criteria for the tax certificate program, potentially broadening or narrowing the pool of qualifying transactions and beneficiaries based on FCC rulemaking.
The amendments made by Section 5 (establishing the tax certificate program and related tax code changes) shall not apply with respect 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 commonly used in tax legislation to limit the duration of tax expenditures, manage long-term fiscal impact, and ensure that programs are periodically reviewed and reauthorized by Congress based on their effectiveness.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a sunset clause ensures the program is reviewed periodically, allowing Congress to assess its effectiveness, cost-benefit ratio, and make necessary adjustments or extensions based on real-world data and market conditions, promoting fiscal responsibility.
Case against: Opponents might argue that a sunset clause creates uncertainty for long-term investments and planning in the broadcasting industry, potentially reducing the program's overall effectiveness by making it a temporary measure that discourages sustained commitment.
Estimated impact: Limits the duration of the tax expenditure and the program's influence on broadcast ownership diversity to 16 years, after which the program will expire unless reauthorized by Congress.
Directs the FCC to initiate an examination within 60 days of enactment to determine whether there is a nexus between diversity of ownership or control of broadcast stations (including by minority groups or women) and diversity of the viewpoints expressed in broadcast matter. A report on the findings, including supporting data, is due to Congress within 2 years.
Section 5(a)(4)
Why it matters:This is a data-gathering and analytical mandate, often placed within a relevant section even if it doesn't directly implement a program, as it supports the underlying policy rationale.
Case for: Supporters argue that this examination is crucial for providing empirical evidence to justify the underlying premise of the bill – that ownership diversity leads to viewpoint diversity – and to inform future policy decisions and legislative efforts in media regulation.
Case against: Critics might argue that establishing a definitive causal link between ownership demographics and viewpoint content is inherently complex and potentially subjective, and the study might not yield conclusive results, or could be used to justify further interventions based on potentially inconclusive findings.
Estimated impact: Informational for Congress and policymakers, potentially influencing future legislation and regulatory approaches to media diversity by providing data on a fundamental policy question.