ACA Connects, which represents small and midsized cable operators, told the FCC this week it supports a National Association of Broadcasters petition that asks the FCC to "clarify" that state and local political ads not trigger enhanced disclosure just because they may mention an issue of national importance. 

The National Association of Broadcasters joined with Hearst Television, Graham Media Group, Nexstar, Fox, Tegna and Scripps to ask the FCC to narrow its definition of non-candidate ads on “any political matter of national importance" (i.e. "issue" ads) and the disclosure obligations on broadcasters to identify the issues in those ads. 

In reply comments in support of NAB, they told the FCC that in resolving political file complaints, the FCC's interpretation of statute would expand political file obligations for not only TV stations but cable operators also subject to political file requirements. 

Broadcasters and cable operators are required to report political ad buys to the FCC.  

"We share petitioners’ and other parties’ concerns with these interpretations, as well as with the process by which the Commission arrived at them," said ACA. "In particular, by announcing these interpretations in the context of narrow complaint proceedings, the Commission was not able to consider or address the impact of its rulings on cable operators, including the heightened burdens they create for smaller cable operators. ACA Connects thus urges the Commission to reconsider the Political File Orders, and to seek comment on reconsideration on how best to implement the statutory language at issue." 

ACA said that whether or not the FCC grants the broadcaster petition, it should make clear that it will "defer to the good-faith compliance efforts by cable operators and others subject to [the] requirements," particularly in the case of the smaller operators it represents. ACA said that is because the FCC has created "novel and highly context-sensitive disclosure obligations." 

A Senate version of the For the People Act, backed by the Democrats, has been introduced, and whether it perishes from the Hill is up to the Republican majority.

The sweeping election and campaign spending reform bill, which passed the Democratic-controlled House March 8 on a party line vote of 234 to 193, is not expected to make it through that Republican-controlled Senate.

But if the bill did pass, it would require enhanced campaign ad disclosures on TV and radio, as well as the Internet, which is being added as a full-fledged campaign speech outlet in need of such enhanced disclosure.

The bill incorporates the Honest Ads Act (H.R. 4077) provisions that require digital platforms to maintain a public database of political ads purchase requests of more than $500 and prevents foreign nationals from purchasing such ads directly or indirectly, though the latter could be challenging.

Related: FEC Proposes New 'Net Political Ad Disclosure Rules

Among many other things, the bill requires minimum lengths for ad disclosures and updates references to "television" to "video format" and "radio to "audio format" so it is tech-neutral.

There are obligations for advertisers as well as Web sites.

"An online platform shall maintain, and make available for online public inspection in machine readable format, a complete record of any request to purchase on such online platform a qualified political advertisement which is made by a person whose aggregate requests to purchase qualified political advertisements on such online platform during the calendar year exceeds $500," the bill says.

Related: Facebook Faces Hill Ire Over Political Transparency Issue

And advertisers are responsible for making sure the platforms have that info. "Any person who requests to purchase a qualified political advertisement on an online platform shall provide the online platform with such information as is necessary for the online platform to comply with the requirements of subparagraph."

"The For the People Act responds to the public's overwhelming demand for fundamental and far-reaching reforms to our corrupt political system," said Public Citizen.

A form e-mail to Multichannel News from the office of former senator and Vice President and likely future presidential candidate Joe Biden signaled the bill's passage was a big issue for him.  

[Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other Republicans in the Senate say it’s dead in the water. That's because they’re betting on the millions of Americans who support this reform not speaking up," he said. "Let’s show them that’s a bad bet to make." 

A pair of Democratic Congressmen who have pushed for greater transparency in political ad disclosures were encouraged by the FCC's new clarification, issued this week in resolving a raft of complaints, but suggested it fell short of what they were looking for.

In a statement, Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) said: “While we are encouraged by this first step toward better transparency in the FCC’s political file rules, it merely highlights that more work needs to be done."

They said for starters that if the new Administration wants to "drain the swamp," it should include strenghtening disclosures so that it was clear that the "true donors" behind issue ads were identified. They also want the FCC's online political file database to be machine readable.

They said they would introduce new legislation to make sure that the public knows who is funding the political ads they see and hear.

The legislators introduced H.R. 2125, the Keeping Our Campaigns Honest Act of 2015, and H.R. 4179, the Fair and Clear Campaign Transparency Act, in the last Congress, but they failed to gain traction.

Luján and Yarmuth pushed for enhanced disclosure as members of the Communications Subcommittee, but both are no longer on the committee per the Dems' selection process for new members Thursday (Jan. 12).

Smaller cable operators will not have to comply with new enhanced transparency reporting rules under the FCC's new Open Internet order for at least another year.

Small cable operators had hoped the FCC would make its temporary waiver permanent, but that could still happen.

In a bureau-level order, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau suggested that it would be premature to either grant the permanent extension or allow the waiver to sunset. It cited the fact that the FCC was still working through the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) impact estimates, saying after that extra year, the full commission would weigh in on what to do next.

The waiver was granted to systems with 100,000 or fewer subs due to the additional impact of such paperwork on systems without big pockets.

The bureau decided to extend the temporary waiver until Dec. 15, 2016, at which time it said the full commission could consider whether and how to further extend it. It confirmed that it thought 100,000 and fewer was the right cut-off for the waiver.

"The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) finds that at this time it cannot fully evaluate the impact of removing the temporary exemption for smaller broadband Internet access service providers from the enhancements to the Open Internet transparency rule previously adopted by the Commission in the 2015 Open Internet Order," the order said.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said the decision "provides a reasonable period to assess the burden associated with the enhancements to the transparency rule, which will not be known until after the Paperwork Reduction Act process is completed. It would be premature to end the temporary exemption until the Bureau has had sufficient time to conduct a data-driven review of the burden through the PRA process.

“At the heart of this issue is the right of broadband customers, including the nearly 7 million customers of these exempt providers, to have access to essential information about their service—while at the same time ensuring the Bureau is able to conduct a thorough fact-based review," he said.

He pointed out that ISPs large and small are still subject to the existing transparency rules--part of the first Open Internet order that the court did not remand. "Next December, I will present to the full Commission for their decision the facts, which are being developed, so they may make an informed decision on the policy issues," he said.

Republican Commissioner Michael O'Rielly crticized both the decision and the way it was made.

"[T]emporarily extending the small broadband provider exemption is a monumental mistake in judgement and a missed opportunity to restore a bit of credibility and rationality," he said in a statement. "We all know that smaller providers never had the imaginary market power envisioned by the Commission, and they shouldn’t have to comply now or in the future with burdensome requirements that divert limited resources from broadband deployment and provide no real value to consumers. I am equally troubled that I was precluded from voting on this item as the majority of the Commission delegated it to the Bureau, reducing its own transparency and accountability."

missioner Mignon Clyburn suggested it was a necessary step toward a final determination of whether or not it should be permanent.

“In voting to approve the Open Internet Order, I advocated to exempt smaller providers from heightened transparency requirements because of my concerns that additional burdens would be placed on these entities," said FCc Commissioner Mignon Clyburn in a statement. "Before we make a final determination on whether this exemption should be permanent, the Commission needs more information and analysis that ought to include the resolution of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) process. The effective date of the increased transparency rules remains pending while the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assesses the burden as part of the PRA. OMB’s decision is a necessary input into the Commission’s analysis, therefore I believe it is appropriate to wait until that process is complete.  Increased transparency is always beneficial and we have a duty to ensure that the benefits outweigh the burdens, particularly for our small businesses.”