Payola and Preemption
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer accused the FCC of a “substantial evisceration” of his ongoing Payola investigation. The FCC has begun negotiations with suspect radio companies and, as Spitzer alleges, is offering more lenient settlement terms than Spitzer would.
Spitzer also said that he “asked [the FCC] several times to participate and they have not only not done that, but they are now furtively going out there negotiating behind our backs.” To this, FCC spokesman David Fiske responded, “The commission has always taken its responsibilities to enforce the laws seriously. For many months we have been actively pursuing allegations of payola on the part of radio broadcasters. We appreciate cooperation with the New York Attorney General’s office and look forward to working with the New York attorney general in the future.”
The question is not only who leads and who follows. As the AP’s Devlin Barrett notes, “Even if the radio companies strike their own arrangements with the FCC, such deals would not prevent Spitzer’s office from continuing to press his cases.” That is, the radio companies may be fighting a two-front battle, regardless of what federal regulators say.
The answer to this preemption question, and many more, will have to wait until at least April 27th and 28th, 2006, when The Federalism Project holds a two-day conference on federal preemption (to which you, loyal reader, are cordially invited). For more information, and to register, please follow the link.