Protecting Conservative Voices in a Changing Media Landscape: CPAC at the FCC in 2025

Earlier this week, the Center for Regulatory Freedom (CRF) at the CPAC Foundation submitted a new set of comments to the Federal Communications Commission as part of the agency’s long-delayed Quadrennial Review of its broadcast ownership rules. These filings continue a year-long effort by CPAC to remind the FCC of a simple but essential truth: broadcast regulation exists not to manage markets or referee private negotiations, but to preserve localism, protect free speech, and ensure that the American people hear the widest possible range of voices in the marketplace of ideas.

The Quadrennial Review requires the FCC to examine whether its broadcast ownership rules remain “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.” That statutory command matters. Ownership rules are not ends in themselves. They are structural guardrails designed to prevent excessive concentration of editorial power and to ensure that local broadcasters—who operate using public spectrum—retain the independence needed to serve their communities.

CRF’s comments filed this week urge the Commission to take that obligation seriously. They emphasize that local radio and television ownership rules, along with the Commission’s long-standing localism principles, remain central to preserving viewpoint diversity in an era of rapid consolidation, vertical integration, and platform convergence. But these comments are not isolated. They are part of a coherent body of work CRF has submitted throughout 2025, all grounded in the same core principles.

Localism as the Foundation of Broadcast Regulation

Across every FCC filing this year related to ownership and localism, CRF has returned to first principles. Broadcast television and radio are regulated differently from cable, streaming, and online platforms for a reason. Local broadcast stations are licensed to use public spectrum, and in exchange, they accept enforceable obligations to serve the needs and interests of their local communities. This principle of localism has anchored federal broadcast policy for nearly a century.

In its Quadrennial Review comments, CRF reiterates that localism remains the only legitimate justification for broadcast-specific regulation. The FCC’s role is not to equalize bargaining power between sophisticated market actors or to supervise private contracts. It is to ensure that licensees retain sufficient control over programming and operations to provide local news, emergency information, political coverage, and community-specific programming.

That same principle underpinned CRF’s earlier 2025 comments responding to the FCC’s inquiry into market dynamics between national broadcast programmers and their local affiliates. In those filings, CRF supported the Commission’s decision to gather facts, but cautioned against confusing commercial friction with public-interest harm. Shifts in bargaining leverage are a natural feature of competitive markets. They become a regulatory concern only when they prevent licensees from fulfilling their non-delegable public-interest obligations.

Ownership Rules and the Marketplace of Ideas

CRF’s work in 2025 has also focused on the critical relationship between ownership rules and free speech. Ownership limits are not about punishing success or freezing markets in time. They aim to prevent excessive consolidation of editorial control that would narrow the range of viewpoints available to the public.

In its comments earlier this year on the National Television Multiple Ownership Rule, CRF warned that the FCC must respect clear statutory limits set by Congress, particularly with respect to the 39 percent national audience reach cap. Congress deliberately removed that cap from the Commission’s periodic review authority, and any attempt to modify it without congressional authorization risks serious legal and constitutional concerns.

But CRF’s argument went beyond statutory authority. The comments emphasized that ownership concentration has real consequences for viewpoint diversity, especially for small and independent broadcasters. When regulatory frameworks fail to account for the realities faced by smaller stations, they risk entrenching dominant players and reducing the number of independent voices able to reach audiences.

The same concern animates CRF’s Quadrennial Review comments this week. Local ownership limits, when properly calibrated, help ensure that broadcasters serve communities with genuine local ties and editorial independence. In an era when national platforms increasingly dominate content distribution, preserving locally owned and operated stations is one of the most effective ways to protect diversity of thought and expression.

Market Change Does Not Eliminate Public-Interest Obligations

A recurring theme across CRF’s 2025 filings is that technological change, while profound, does not eliminate the FCC’s responsibility to enforce the public-interest obligations attached to broadcast licenses. Streaming services, social media platforms, and vertically integrated media companies have transformed how Americans consume content. But those platforms operate without licenses, without geographic service obligations, and without enforceable duties to specific communities.

Local broadcasters, by contrast, remain uniquely positioned to provide trusted local news, emergency alerts, and community-focused programming. CRF has consistently argued that regulatory policy should reinforce—not undermine—that role. Overly prescriptive rules or expansive FCC intervention into private contracts risk chilling investment, discouraging innovation, and paradoxically accelerating consolidation by imposing burdens that only the largest players can absorb.

At the same time, CRF has cautioned against regulatory neglect. Allowing contractual arrangements or ownership structures to hollow out licensee control would erode the very rationale for broadcast regulation. The Commission must walk a careful line: exercising restraint while maintaining clear guardrails that preserve local editorial autonomy.

Free Speech Requires Structural Protections

CRF’s 2025 comments underscore a broader point that often gets lost in technical regulatory debates: free speech is not protected solely by content-neutral rhetoric or First Amendment slogans. It also depends on structural protections that prevent the concentration of communicative power.

When too much editorial authority is centralized—whether through ownership consolidation, vertically integrated platforms, or contractual arrangements that strip local discretion—the result is fewer independent decision-makers and fewer distinct voices. That is not a hypothetical concern. History shows that concentrated media environments tend to narrow debate and marginalize dissenting perspectives.

By urging the FCC to modernize its rules carefully and lawfully, CRF is advocating for a regulatory framework that maximizes the number of speakers, not the power of gatekeepers. Local ownership rules, properly enforced, help ensure that communities are not merely passive recipients of nationally curated content, but active participants in civic life.

Regulatory Humility and Evidence-Based Policymaking

Another throughline in CRF’s 2025 work is the call for regulatory humility. In its Quadrennial Review comments, as in earlier filings, CRF urges the Commission to ground any action in evidence, not assumptions or anecdotes. Not every complaint signals a systemic problem. Not every market shift demands a regulatory fix.

Before expanding rules or asserting new authority, the FCC should assess whether existing safeguards are sufficient, whether clarification or guidance would address concerns, and whether targeted enforcement is preferable to sweeping mandates. This approach respects statutory limits, reduces unintended consequences, and preserves flexibility in a rapidly evolving media ecosystem.

A Consistent Message to the FCC

CRF’s 2025 comments deliver a consistent message to the FCC: protect localism, respect congressional boundaries, and remember why broadcast regulation exists in the first place. The goal is not to freeze the media landscape in time or to shield any industry from competition. It is to ensure that Americans continue to benefit from a diverse, competitive, and locally responsive media environment.

As the Quadrennial Review proceeds, CRF will continue to press the Commission to uphold these principles. In a time of unprecedented media consolidation and cultural polarization, the need for independent local voices has never been greater. Protecting the structural conditions that allow those voices to flourish is not just good regulatory policy—it is essential to preserving free speech and democratic accountability in the marketplace of ideas.