FCC Reports, Second Series, Volume 104, Number 2, Pages 375 to 719, August 1986 Page: 450
ix, 375-719 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Reports
material respect in the management of the subject media.
However, upon reconsideration, 58 RR 2d 604, 613-20 (1985), the
Commission declared those safeguards inadequate and added a
number of additional strictures on the content of limited partner-
ship agreements and the conduct of limited partners. Neverthe-
less, at the same time the Commisison specifically held that
although previously the media interests of one spouse were
presumptively attributed to the other, "we will henceforth permit
this presumption to be rebutted, on a case-by-case basis, in
appropriate circumstances [where the new limited partnership
strictures are met]." Id. at 620 (emphasis added). And in
comparative broadcast adjudications, the Commission recently
upheld the Board's searching scrutiny of a suspect partnership
agreement (although it disagreed with our legal conclusions),
KIST Corp., 102 FCC 2d 288, 58 RR 2d 1483 (1985), and
announced the prospective application of the reconsidered Attribu-
tion of Ownership Interests limited partnership standards in
media diversification comparative analyses, Daytona Broadcasting
Co., Inc., FCC 86-182, released April 18, 1986, at n. 6.
Under these circumstances, I am reluctant to conclude without
an explicit statement by the Commission that Absolutely Great
was intended to automatically veto augmented integration credit
for limited partnership integration proposals involving spouses.
The preceding history indicates that this augmented credit flows
from the voting power and control of the general partner, not
from his or her marital status. Thus, an adjudication such as
Absolutely Great, which is expressly devoted to "spousal attribu-
tion" questions only, and never once mentions the phrase "limited
partnership," should not be read to control, sub silentio, a
completely distinct line of legal precedent. While it cannot be
gainsaid that the Commission clearly does not wish the vagaries
of spousal joint tenancies to be litigated in the future, see
Absolutely Great, supra, it has shown increasing interest and
sustained patience with limited partnership adjudications as
recently as April 18, 1986 (Daytona Broadcasting Co., supra). The
Absolutely Great decision will probably be adequate to stifle joint
tenancy as a viable broadcast ownership integration mode hence-
forth, but, given the current popularity and versatility of limited
partnerships for media ownership arrangements, more precision,
depth of analysis, and notoriety can be expected from the
Commisison before I could even "tentatively" conclude that
AbsoluLely Great was intended to automatically discredit spousal
limited partnerships for ownership integration purposes.104 F.C.C. 2d
450
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Reports, Second Series, Volume 104, Number 2, Pages 375 to 719, August 1986, report, 1986-08~; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc306573/m1/88/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.