Study: Station Groups Spending Millions Lobbying to Abolish Ownership Caps

Why It Matters

Relaxing ownership caps could reshape the broadcast market, intensifying competition with streaming giants and altering ad‑revenue dynamics across the industry.

Key Takeaways

• Nexstar lobbied FCC $3.2 M in 2025
• Sinclair's lobbying rose to $800 k, up from $770 k
• Major deals (Tegna, Scripps) hinge on cap changes
• Jeff Miller hired, paid $510 k for lobbying
• FCC authority vs. congressional action remains contested

Pulse Analysis

The FCC’s television‑ownership caps, limiting a single broadcaster’s reach to 39 % of U.S. TV homes, were introduced in the 1990s to preserve market diversity. Over the past decade, streaming platforms such as Netflix and Amazon have siphoned ad revenue from traditional broadcasters, prompting industry groups to argue that the caps place them at a competitive disadvantage. Larger station groups claim they can achieve economies of scale and negotiate stronger carriage fees, while the National Association of Broadcasters has long lobbied for deregulation. The policy debate intensified after the FCC signaled possible rule revisions in early 2025.

In 2025, Nexstar dramatically increased its lobbying budget to $3.2 million—about ten times its historic spend—while Sinclair raised its contribution to $800 k. The funds targeted FCC officials, congressional staff, and the White House, with Nexstar hiring former Trump inaugural finance chair Jeff Miller through Miller Strategies for $510 k. Tegna also disclosed a $550 k lobbying effort. These expenditures align with a wave of consolidation proposals—Nexstar’s $6.2 billion bid for Tegna and Sinclair’s exploratory purchase of E.W. Scripps—that would exceed current ownership limits, making regulatory change essential for deal completion.

If the FCC or Congress relaxes the caps, the broadcast landscape could consolidate around a few national owners, potentially increasing bargaining power with cable operators and advertisers but also raising concerns about localism and market competition. Pro‑consolidation arguments will focus on whether larger groups can better compete with tech‑driven streaming services or whether reduced ownership diversity harms the public interest. Stakeholders are watching closely, as any rule change could set a precedent for future media mergers and influence the valuation of broadcast assets. The outcome will shape the balance between traditional television and the digital streaming ecosystem for years to come.