Tribal Broadband and Indian Preference

On June 28, President Obama signed an executive memorandum which commits the government to expand the amount of broadband spectrum available for wireless communications. This follows on the release of the National Broadband Plan by the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Commerce earlier this spring. The Plan will serve as the basis for the continued development and expansion of wireless communications. The F.C.C. issued action items within the National Broadband Plan which calls for the availability of 500 MHz of spectrum for broadband use within the next ten years. Approximately 300 MHz of the 500 MHz is in the high value spectrum between 225 MHz and 3.7 GHz where mobile use is prevalent. The time frame for making the high value spectrum available for commercial use is within the next five years.

Tribal economies are becoming increasingly dependent upon access to wireless communications such as cellular phones and wireless internet connectionsfor daily business operations. Greater access to broadband spectrum will be essential in providing more avenues for business transactions and economic growth. Wireless communication and internet service providers profit from broadband spectrum as it determines the rates which they can impose upon customers.

Currently, the National Broadband Plan allows for the creation of a Native Nations Broadband Task Force, Office of Native American Affairs, and an increase in mobile communication opportunities within tribal communities. Both this Plan and the Communications Act lack a clear and defined strategy to develop broadband capabilities within tribal communities. One way for tribal entities to increase their bidding power is by utilizing the Tribal Lands Bidding Credits available to them. This tool grants significant discounts to companies bidding on radio spectrum who will be providing improved telecommunications. Without more credits, however, the level of broadband penetration within tribal communities will likely fall by the wayside similar to the manner in which telephone service failed to reach a majority of Native American people. Tribal governments and tribal entrepreneurs have an opportunity here to persuade Congress to adopt tribal prerogatives when it comes to the development and expansion of broadband. The Plan will inevitably be considered by Congress in the near future and tribal broadband advocates should be in a position to influence future legislation. It may be advantageous for tribal governments and tribal entrepreneurs to advance the position that the F.C.C. should make certain spectrum available for sole source bidding by tribal governments and small and disadvantaged business concerns. This position would be similar to preferences in contracting awarded under the Section 8a program.

While consultation with the F.C.C. regarding the Plan is an aspirational goal, the compressed time frame for the auctioning of high value spectrum will force tribal governments and tribal entrepreneurs to bid on spectrum without the F.C.C. having had ample time to develop a clear and defined policy under the Plan for Native Americans. When it comes to the regulation of broadband and net neutrality, tribes should be wary of the F.C.C. overreaching its regulatory authority. In the Comcast v. F.C.C. decision, the court of appeals held that the F.C.C. lacked the ancillary jurisdiction to regulate and impose punitive measures upon an internet service provider when it engages in network management over internet communications. Therefore, logic dictates that tribal governments and tribal entrepreneurs are the most informed and best suited advocates for the use of broadband spectrum within tribal communities.
 

Ctizens United and November 2010 Washington Senate Election

Washington Senate campaign launches a Dash for Cash. With the entrance of Dino Rossi as the Republican candidate into Washington state’s Senate race against incumbent Democratic Senator Patty Murray on May 26, the ground has been set for the ensuing battle which will be influenced on a national level. The Democrats and Republicans both view the Washington Senate campaign as a skirmish where the balance of power may shift away from the Democratic majority in Congress. Both parties have observed that the mood of this year’s electorate is shaped by mounting budget deficits, lackadaisical employment numbers and an administration which is struggling to cobble together a unified strategy to address the Gulf Coast oil debacle. Campaign contributions will also flavor the tone, pace and results of this fall’s elections because of the decision reached by the Supreme Court when its verdict was announced in the Citizens United v. FEC case. In the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court overruled the ban which prevented corporations from using funds from their general treasury to make independent expenditures and electioneering communications in federal elections.

The Supreme Court determined that a ban based upon the identity of the speaker was impermissible because it sought to restrain political speech without a justifiably compelling interest, particularly when it involved a prohibition directly levied on corporate political speech. After the decision, the Federal Election Commission stated that it would not enforce statutory provisions or its regulations that had prohibited corporations or labor organizations from making independent expenditures and electioneering communications. The Court’s decision and the FEC’s position together mean that corporations and labor organizations are free to pay for political tools essential for candidates reaching and persuading the electorate via media communications. This freedom to pay for communications may prove to be the difference between the electorate choosing Dino Rossi or Patty Murray to represent Washington in the U.S. Senate for the next six years.

In a recent statement, it was declared that the Rossi campaign had raised $600,000 from individual donors in the wake of his entrance into the race on May 26. The figure quoted by the Rossi campaign is dwarfed by the $5.47 million on hand for the Murray campaign as of the last report filed with the FEC at the end of March 2010. Both the Rossi and the Murray campaigns will likely experience a surge in donations from individuals, corporations and labor organizations as the end of the race gets closer, the rhetoric gets deeper, and the price of political ads gets steeper. The price tag for the 2010 election cycle in Washington State just went up and it will likely be influenced by out-of-state donors as the share of in-state donors reaches contribution limits. The voice that interested parties will exercise in the electoral process is directly attributable to the impact that the funding of independent expenditures and electioneering communications have upon a candidate’s cause.