Tonight, millions of Americans will tune into the final Presidential debate between Donald Trump and…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
In Tonight's Debate, Voters Deserve to Hear More About Economic, Tax Policies

Tonight, millions of Americans will tune into the final Presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  Among the central topics should be the economy, which recent polling shows remains voters' foremost concern.

Unfortunately, voters haven't heard enough from either candidate on that topic during the first two debates.

Which is tragic, because this election itself has taken a toll on the economy.  According to a recent poll of economists, rhetoric from both campaigns has had a negative impact on economic growth over the past few months.  Accordingly, rather than continuing to argue about personal issues and mutual animosities, both candidates must do a better job of improving economic optimism and confidence by advocating pro-growth policies that will help us proper…[more]

October 19, 2016 • 03:55 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Home Press Room CFIF Joins Coalition Reiterating Opposition to Dubiously Named "Internet Radio Fairness Act"
CFIF Joins Coalition Reiterating Opposition to Dubiously Named "Internet Radio Fairness Act" Print
Thursday, August 01 2013

August 1, 2013

Dear Representative:

The undersigned organizations wish to reiterate our opposition to the so-called “Internet Radio Fairness Act,” which would require the government to grant subsidized, below-market rates to Internet radio companies for their input costs. This approach moves in the wrong direction by rejecting free-market based rates and involving the government more subjectively in the compensation paid to property owners.

While consumers have more choices than ever before in how, where and when they listen to music services, many of which are licensed in the free marketplace, artists and recording companies are still subject to government compulsory licensing with respect to digital radio services that compete with the market services, with rates set by the government. In other words, digital radio services get special favored treatment compared with their competitors. Currently, Internet radio companies at least must pay a government rate that is based on the rate paid by their competitors in the marketplace. The “Internet Radio Fairness Act” would instead have the government subjectively set a rate that would protect entrenched incumbent services. The proposed standard, created in the 1970s, is intended to prevent disruption of established services, according to supporters of the legislation. Therefore, the bill would deliberately keep new, young, innovative services from replacing current industry leaders.

As long as the government is involved in setting rates, a truly free market cannot exist in compensating music owners and creators for their work. The best way to achieve parity among music distributors is to get the government out of the rate-setting business, rather than to further involve government by granting below-market rates to favored entities. Competitive companies can flourish under a rate set by a true free market because successful on-demand music services such as iTunes, Spotify, Rhapsody, and Rdio already pay rates set by the marketplace. At the very least, the current system of setting rates based on market indicators is certainly better than government-forced below-market prices to benefit a particular company or service type.

There is nothing fair about government picking winners and losers in the music industry or any other marketplace. Therefore, we urge you to oppose the “Internet Radio Fairness Act.”


Al Cardenas
American Conservative Union

Duane Parde
National Taxpayers Union

Tom Schatz
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Phil Kerpen
American Commitment

Jeff Mazzella
Center for Individual Freedom

David Williams
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
How many viewers watched the first-ever televised presidential debate?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
"So Debate No. 3 had one clearcut winner: Fox News' Chris Wallace. ...On Wednesday night, Wallace put on a clinic on how to run a debate, He focused heavily on questions of substance. He largely stayed away from the distractions. And he moved quickly and forcibly to keep the debate on track, cutting off interruptions and off-subject interjections. Not perfectly, but pretty darn well."…[more]
—Rem Rieder, USA TODAY
— Rem Rieder, USA TODAY
Liberty Poll   

Regardless of which candidate wins the presidency, do you think Republican representation in the U.S. House and Senate will be strengthened, weakened or stay approximately the same as it is now?