This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (December 2011)

The Communications Act of 1934 is a United States federal law, enacted as Public Law Number 416, Act of June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, by the 73rd Congress, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, codified as Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The Act replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It also transferred regulation of interstate telephone services from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the FCC.

The stated purposes of the Act are "regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."^[1]

On January 3, 1996, the 104th Congress of the United States amended or repealed sections of the Communications Act of 1934 with the new Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was the first major overhaul of American telecommunications policy in nearly 62 years.

Brief history of the Act[link]

The Act largely combined and reorganized existing provisions of law, including provisions of the Federal Radio Act of 1927 relating to radio licensing, and of the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910 relating to telephone service.

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Daniel C. Roper, Secretary of Commerce, to appoint an interdepartmental committee for studying electronic communications. The Committee reported that "the communications service, as far as congressional action is involved, should be regulated by a single body." A recommendation was made for the establishment of a new agency that would regulate all interstate and foreign communication by wire and radio, telegraphy, telephone and broadcast. On February 26, 1934, the President sent a special message to Congress urging the creation of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The following day Senator C.C. Dill and Representative Sam Rayburn introduced bills to carry out this recommendation. The Senate Bill (S.3285) passed the House on June 1, 1934, and the conference report was adopted by both houses eight days later. The Communications Act was signed by President Roosevelt on June 1934. Particular parts of it became effective July 1, 1934; other parts on July 11, 1934. And thus the FCC was born.^[2]

The Communications Act of 1934 followed the precedents of trial cases set under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), regulating commerce "among the several states". In 1914 the Supreme Court in Houston, East & West Texas Railway Co. v. United States set limits on price discrimination that were effectively interstate commerce. The railway was setting lower prices for intrastate carriers within Texas while charging more for carriers that were going through or out of the state. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ICC, and maximum prices were set to limit the damage that other states could face due to price discrimination.^[3]

Communications technology was determined to be an interstate good. President Franklin Roosevelt, along with lobbyists and state regulators, wanted communications technology, both wired and wireless to be monitored in a similar way and influenced Congress to pass the Communications Act of 1934. The goal was to have telephone and broadcasting regulated with the same jurisdiction in a way similar to that in which the ICC regulates the railways and interstate commerce. The act did not, however, allow for price regulation through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) due to strong lobbying efforts from the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).^[3]

Currently there are some challenges and proposed changes to the Act. The company CellAntenna has sued the FCC claiming that the Homeland Security Act of 2002 did override the Communications Act of 1934.^[4] As the law stands today, the 1934 Communications Act prohibits local and state law enforcement from using jamming devices to thwart criminal and terrorist acts. CellAntenna lost their case, but as a response have supported legislation (The Safe Prisons Communications Act) sponsored by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Representative Kevin Bradley^{[disambiguation needed ]}; the bill attempting to amend the Communications Act of 1934 was left in committee in the House.^[5]

In addition, there is talk about the need for an Internet kill switch, defined in a proposed Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.^[6] This act removes the powers established in the 1934 Act and gives the President the authority to stop the Internet in case of a cyber attack.

Structure[link]

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, consists of seven major sections or "titles":^[7]

• Title I — General provisions
• Title II — Common carriers
• Title III — Provisions related to radio
• Title IV — Procedural and administrative provisions
• Title V — Penal provisions; Forfeitures
• Title VI — Cable communications (added by Cable Communications Act of 1984^[8])
• Title VII — Miscellaneous provisions

Debates[link]

Commercial radio debate[link]

Before the Communications Act of 1934 was enacted as law by the U.S. Congress, there was a debate over commercial versus non-commercial broadcasting: Senators Robert Wagner of New York and Henry Hatfield of West Virginia offered an amendment to the then proposed Communications Act. Educators wanted more of radio to be given to them; they had been termed a "special interest" by the Federal Radio Commission and their stations were forced to share frequencies. The Wagner-Hatfield amendment would have given 25% of all radio broadcasting facilities to non-profit institutions and organizations. It would also have allowed these educational stations to sell advertising in order to become self-sufficient. Senator C.C. Dill, a pro-industry spokesman, opposed this amendment. It would have meant eliminating numerous commercial stations, but that is not what Dill publicly complained about. He expressed horror over the advertising. He said there was too much advertising already. Not all educators supported the advertising clause, so a compromise was struck. The issue was to be given to the new Federal Communications Commission to study and to hold hearings on and to report back to Congress. Hatfield and Wagner stuck to their guns, however, and proposed their amendment anyway. The Hatfield-Wagner amendment died and the Communications Act was passed.

The Federal Communications Commission reported back, saying that commercial stations had ample time for educational and other public service programs. The Commission called for cooperation between commercial and educational interests and other non-profit groups. The educators lost, though commercial broadcasters were forced to air public affairs programs.

Chain (network) case[link]

The United States Supreme Court held in National Broadcasting Co. Inc. et al. v. United States et al., 319 U.S. 190 on May 10, 1943 that the FCC had the right to issue regulations pertaining to associations between broadcasting networks and their affiliated stations. The Opinion of the Supreme Court was not unanimous and it led to a conflict with an earlier decision in Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, on March 25, 1940.

In that case the FCC interpreted Supreme Court decisions concerning broadcasting to mean that potential economic injury to an existing licensee was not grounds for refusing to license a competitor. (This FCC interpretation remained in place from 1940 to 1958.)

The Opinion of the Supreme Court was delivered by Felix Frankfurter. Justices Hugo Black and Wiley Blount Rutledge took no part in the discussion or decision. Justice Frank Murphy offered a dissenting opinion, stating that the Court was effectively giving the FCC a power to regulate networks which had not been given to the FCC by Congress. Murphy stated that

Because the majority of the Court did not agree with Murphy it effectively gave the FCC power to regulate the networks. As a result of this 1943 decision, NBC was forced to sell one of its two networks (its Blue Network) and it was this action which then led to the creation of the American Broadcasting Company

Federal Radio Commission vs. Federal Communication Commission[link]

The FRC regulated radio communication only, but FCC covers any kind of wired and wireless communications. The FCC adopted the FRC's limited authority. The FRC could only regulate national radio communication and radio communication between ships,^[9] but the FCC can control other mediums, both wired and wireless communication including radio, and has more concrete regulations. For example, U.S. congress suspended the act of 1934 section 315, equal time provision, for a TV forum on presidential election in 1960 because every candidate has to have same portion of time to speak.^{[citation needed]}

Effect of Communications Act of 1934[link]

The act established a legal base for regulating wired and wireless communications on a nation-wide and world-wide basis. The Federal Communication Commission founded because of the act; it replaced the Federal Radio Commission. Because of the act, American government could regulate new media technologies such as television and mobile phones. Moreover, the act created a legal basis commercial communication corporations as private TV and radio station. Opponents in the U.S congress argued the act depressed telecommunication industry, such as delaying the development of new technologies for example. U.S. congress produced a report recommending changes title "Proposals for Revision of the Communications Act of 1934: Telecommunications Issues" in 1982.^[10]

The Creation of the FCC[link]

In the early 1900s (decade), the United States Congress was given the responsibility of regulating interstate and foreign commerce, due to the Commerce Clause. Radio transmission became the most efficient way to facilitate communication about commerce and therefore, radio frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum could constitutionally be regulated. The Wireless Ship Act of 1910 called for Congress to modestly regulate the wireless industry and The Radio Act of 1912 was their first attempt to make more legislative oversight to the entire radio industry. This Act required anyone who wanted to transmit over the radio to have government issued permission in form of a license. Along with the help of important legislators, these were the early building blocks that eventually evolved into the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover played a large role regarding regulation because he issued the licenses which allocated the spectrum. Once radio broadcasting became popular, Hoover brought attention to the limited amount of frequency space the spectrum held. This problem made obtaining frequencies and airtime very difficult, as well as making "noise" on existing frequencies. Between 1923 and 1924, Hoover expanded the number of assigned frequencies to reduce the interference, but his quick fix failed which in turned ended self-regulation of spectrum space. Congress then passed the Radio Act of 1927 to create the framework for regulating the rapid growing broadcast industry.

President Coolidge was an important aspect of radio regulation by signing the Radio Act of 1927 which invested regulatory power to the Federal Radio Commission (FRC). Senators Clarence C. and Wallace White also pushed toward passing the 1927 Act. The FRC had a short 6- year term in American history and transferred its responsibility, as the agency for managing the radio spectrum, to the FCC after the Communications Act of 1934. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the bill in 1934. This change in power was needed to develop a better way of determining who got to use what radio bands and for what purposes. There were many factors and individuals that played a role in the creation of the FCC, but in the end, Congress created the agency.^[11][12]

Change from the FRC commissioners to the FCC[link]

The FCC took over regulation in 1934 and changed many of the structural characteristics of the original agency, although its goal of reducing interference remained the same. The original FRC had 5 members who were each responsible for representing one geographical area of the United States. Congress also planned for the 5-member agency to become a quasi-judicial body which would only have to meet when necessary. Their jobs were to alleviate "noise" from the airwaves and they were given the power to license and regulate radio stations. The Federal Radio Commission's lack of regulatory action lead to the more permanent Federal Communication Commission. Much like the FRC, the FCC is made up of five commissioners, who are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Each Commission can only serve for a five-year term, even the one chosen to be the Chairperson. Although there are only five commissioners, there are several offices and departments, made up of hundreds and staff members that carry out different duties. For example, the Mass Media bureau processes license applications and renewals. These divisions of administrative duties differentiate the FRC from the FCC.^[13][14]

Changes and Amendments to the Act[link]

Telecommunications Act of 1996[link]

The Telecommunication Act 1996 and Communications Act of 1934 had two major changes: the new act was less technologically biased and offered less regulation. This act determined the basis of media regulation by its contents, not a technological standard. Title V in Telecommunication Act of 1996,^[15] "Obscenity and Violence", is a good example of this; Title V set the standard for regulating media contents. The Communications Act of 1934 is argued by some to have created monopolies, such as the case of AT&T case. FCC recognized AT&T as a "natural monopoly" during the 1930s in the Communications Act of 1934.^[16] Because of these effects, the FCC designed the Communications Act 1996 “to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition...."^[17] The Telecommunication Act of 1996 also added and changed some rules to account for the emerging internet.

Communication Act as Technologically Biased[link]

Communications Act of 1934 is technologically biased because standards that determine regulation are technological properties:cable and radio, wire and wireless for instance.^[1] It makes discriminations in same content on different medium. Phone lines were regulated to allow for emergency calls to be called whether the phones had service or not and the phone companies had to pay fees allowing their phones to connect to the 9-1-1 system. Many of these issues have been solved by adapting the rules to function with VoIP technologies.^[18]

Being created at a time where there was only telephones and radio the act had very specific rules towards regulation in these markets. The act became biased as newer technologies entered the market with far less regulation.

Amendments Made to the Act[link]

One large amendment to the Communications Act of 1934 was made on September 7, 1999. The FCC ruled "that a broadcast station should not be allowed to refuse a request for political advertising time solely on the ground that the station does not sell or program such lengths of time." Politics have had many effects and changes to the act that are not in the "best interest of the public" thus taking away some of the power given to the FCC from the Act.^[19]

See also[link]

• COPE Act of 2006 (Communications Act of 2006)
• Telecommunications Act of 2005 (Communications Act of 2006)
• Telecommunications Act of 1996
• Comcast Corp. v. FCC

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Paglin, Max D. A Legislative History of the Communications Act of 1934. Oxford University Press, New York. 1989.
• Brinkley Act: Section 325(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 that was written into law in an attempt to halt live broadcasting from radio studios in the United States linked to high-powered "border blaster" transmitters on the Mexican side of the international border, via telephone land lines. This provision was carried through into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by incorporation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended to Section 325(c).
• Kahn, Frank J. (editor). Documents of American Broadcasting. Meridith, 1968. - LoC Number: 68-8961

External links[link]

• Communications Act of 1934, as Amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996
• Telecommunications Act of 1996
• Cybertelecom :: Communications Act of 1934

v t e Telecommunications (general) History Beacons Broadcasting Communications satellites Computer networks Drums Electrical telegraphs Fax Heliographs Hydraulic telegraphs Internet Mass media Mobile phones Optical telegraphy Photophones Radio Radiotelephones Telegraphy Telephones The Telephone Cases Television Undersea telegraph lines Videophones Pioneers Edwin Howard Armstrong John Logie Baird Alexander Graham Bell Tim Berners-Lee Jagadish Chandra Bose Vint Cerf Claude Chappe Lee De Forest Philo Farnsworth Reginald Fessenden Elisha Gray Guglielmo Marconi Alexander Stepanovich Popov Johann Philipp Reis Nikola Tesla Alfred Vail Charles Wheatstone Vladimir K. Zworykin Media Coaxial cable Free-space optical Optical fiber Radio waves Telephone lines Terrestrial microwave Networks ARPANET BITNET Ethernet FidoNet ISDN Internet Local area Mobile NGN Packet switched Public Switched Telephone Radio Television Telex Wide area World Wide Web Wireless Geographic v t e Telecommunications in Africa Sovereign states Algeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Democratic Republic of the Congo Republic of the Congo Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon The Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa South Sudan Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe States with limited recognition Azawad Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Somaliland Dependencies and other territories Canary Islands / Ceuta / Melilla / Plazas de soberanía (Spain) Madeira (Portugal) Mayotte / Réunion (France) Saint Helena / Ascension Island / Tristan da Cunha (United Kingdom) Western Sahara v t e Telecommunications in Asia Sovereign states Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Burma (Myanmar) Cambodia People's Republic of China Cyprus East Timor (Timor-Leste) Egypt Georgia India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kazakhstan North Korea South Korea Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Nepal Oman Pakistan Philippines Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Tajikistan Thailand Turkey Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Vietnam Yemen States with limited recognition Abkhazia Nagorno-Karabakh Northern Cyprus Palestine Republic of China (Taiwan) South Ossetia Dependencies and other territories British Indian Ocean Territory Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Hong Kong Macau v t e Telecommunications in Europe Sovereign states Albania Andorra Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kazakhstan Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malta Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom England Northern Ireland Scotland Wales States with limited recognition Abkhazia Kosovo Nagorno-Karabakh Northern Cyprus South Ossetia Transnistria Dependencies and other territories Åland Faroe Islands Gibraltar Guernsey Jersey Isle of Man Svalbard Other entities European Union v t e Telecommunications in North America Sovereign states Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Belize Canada Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Panama Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago United States Dependencies and other territories Anguilla Aruba Bermuda Bonaire British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Curaçao Greenland Guadeloupe Martinique Montserrat Navassa Island Puerto Rico Saint Barthélemy Saint Martin Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saba Sint Eustatius Sint Maarten Turks and Caicos Islands United States Virgin Islands v t e Telecommunications in Oceania Sovereign states Australia East Timor (Timor-Leste) Fiji Indonesia Kiribati Marshall Islands Federated States of Micronesia Nauru New Zealand Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu Dependencies and other territories American Samoa Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Cook Islands Easter Island French Polynesia Guam Hawaii New Caledonia Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Pitcairn Islands Tokelau Wallis and Futuna v t e Telecommunications in South America Sovereign states Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Guyana Paraguay Peru Suriname Uruguay Venezuela Dependencies and other territories Aruba Bonaire Curaçao Falkland Islands French Guiana South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Richard Pombo
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from California's 11th district
In office 1993–2007
Preceded by	Tom Lantos
Succeeded by	Jerry McNerney
Personal details
Born	(1961-01-08) January 8, 1961 (age 51) Tracy, California
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Annette Cole
Residence	Tracy, California
Alma mater	none (dropped out of Cal Poly, Pomoma)
Occupation	rancher
Religion	Roman Catholic

Richard William Pombo (born January 8, 1961) is a former Republican member of the United States House of Representatives, having represented California's 11th congressional district from 1993 to 2007. Pombo lost a reelection bid to Democratic challenger Jerry McNerney on November 7, 2006.

On January 4, 2010, Pombo announced his candidacy for Congress in California's 19th congressional district to succeed retiring fellow Republican George Radanovich,^[1] although he does not live in the district.^[2] Mr. Pombo came in third in that four-way GOP race, with 20.8 percent of the votes.

Early life and career[link]

Pombo was born in Tracy, California, 18 miles south of Stockton. He attended Cal Poly, Pomona,^[3] for three years before dropping out to work for his family's cattle and dairy business. He is a descendant of Portuguese immigrants.^[4] Pombo is married to the former Annette Cole and has three children. Even after being elected to Congress, he returned to his 500-acre (2 km²) ranch near Tracy every week.^[5] Pombo is a member of the Roman Catholic Church.

From 1990 to 1992, Pombo served on the Tracy City Council.

House of Representatives[link]

1992 election[link]

In 1992, Pombo won the Republican primary by defeating several candidates in a race for an open seat in a district newly created by redistricting. California had added seven seats in the House after the 1990 census. Pombo's strongest opponent in the Republican primary was moderate Republican Sandra Smoley, a Sacramento County Supervisor.

In November, Pombo very narrowly defeated Democrat Patti Garamendi (wife of current California Congressman John Garamendi). Although the district had a Democratic majority and was carried by Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, most of the Democrats in this area are somewhat more conservative than their counterparts closer to San Francisco. In addition, Pombo was assisted in part by his family's name recognition in the Central Valley. His late uncle Ernie Pombo's real estate and land development firm, Pombo Real Estate, made the Pombo family the largest land owner in the 11th district.

1994–2000 elections[link]

Pombo was handily reelected from this district in 1994, 1996, 1998 and 2000. Despite the district's Democratic majority, its residents generally shared Pombo's concerns about property rights and skepticism about environmental issues.

2002–2004 elections[link]

Pombo's district was significantly altered as a result of the 2000 round of redistricting. He lost his share of Sacramento County to the neighboring 3rd District, and also lost most of Stockton to the 18th District. However, his district was pushed westward into the San Francisco Bay Area when it picked up some of the more Republican-leaning portions of the East Bay-based 10th District. This theoretically made Pombo safer, as his new district had a plurality of Republicans. However, Bay Area Republicans tend to be somewhat more moderate than their counterparts in the rest of the state, and this exposed Pombo to a primary challenge from a more moderate Republican. However, such a challenge didn't materialize, and Pombo was easily reelected in 2002 and 2004.

Political positions[link]

Status within the Republican party[link]

Pombo has a conservative track record.^[6] In 1994, during the Republican Revolution, he was one of the signatories of the Contract with America. He was a member of the conservative Republican Study Committee. He was given the nickname "The Marlboro Man" by President George W. Bush.^[2]

Private property rights[link]

Pombo is especially known for his defense of private property rights. This was spurred by the Southern Pacific Railroad's abandonment of the Altamont Pass route through Tracy. Pombo owned land adjacent to the abandoned railroad line. Pombo argued that the abandoned easement should legally revert to the adjacent property owners (such as himself) rather than to the local park district. He argued that as the easement was granted based on a promise that the land would be used for railroad purposes only, that the easements ended entirely when they were abandoned. Pombo's case resulted in Congress passing the Rails to Trails Act.

In a New York Times editorial (October 30, 2005), Pombo was called "an outspoken product of the extreme property rights movement." In 2005, he proposed legislation that would allow mining companies to buy lands on which they have staked claims, even if there is no evidence of valuable minerals on that land. According to the editorial, "This has nothing to do with mining, and everything to do with stealing land that is owned by the American people."

Pombo has written a book with Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily, about private property issues, entitled This Land is Our Land: How to End the War on Private Property. St. Martin's Press, New York, 1996. (ISBN 0-312-14747-3)

Pombo was a co-founder of the San Joaquin County Citizen's Land Alliance, a group of farmers and other landowners who advocate private property rights and oppose government encroachment on these rights.

Iraq[link]

Pombo has expressed support for the Iraq War. In August 2006, anti-Iraq War activists criticized him, citing an estimate that taxpayers in the 11th congressional district paid $974 million for the war by that time.^[7]

Warrantless wiretapping[link]

Pombo said at a May debate that "intelligence agents should obtain surveillance warrants before monitoring phone calls," but "less than five months later, he voted to allow warrantless wiretapping. "He told the Tracy Press that his vote was consistent with his statement.^[8]

Committee and caucuses[link]

Committee assignments[link]

From 2003 to 2007, Pombo was the Chairman of the House Resources Committee.^[9] The committee has oversight and sets policy on matters involving natural resources, Indian Country and Indian gaming. He was also a member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Pombo was also a co-chair of the House Energy Action Team (HEAT). This team's stated goal is to find alternative energy solutions.

Caucuses[link]

Pombo was a member and former Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus. The Western Caucus is made up of Western State members of Congress concerned about Endangered Species Act reform, water rights, private property rights and other issues affecting the western states.

Pombo was co-founder of the Portuguese Caucus, a coalition of Members of Congress who promote positive Portuguese-American relations.^[10] He has hosted prominent visitors of Portugal to the United States. The Portuguese government bestowed Pombo with the Grand Order of Infante D. Henrique, Portugal's highest civilian honor, in recognition of his efforts to improve Portuguese-American relations.

Pombo was an early member of the Congressional Hispanic Conference, a Republican caucus that promotes the interest of Hispanic and Portuguese Americans.

Environmental record[link]

Pombo proposed legislation to sell roughly a quarter of the land managed by the National Park Service. In November 2005, Pombo and Jim Gibbons (R-NV) co-authored an amendment to the Federal Budget Reconciliation Bill easing restrictions of sale of federal lands to mining companies. This amendment was opposed by environmentalists, anti-growth advocates, and even some Republican Senators concerned about the measure's effects on hunting and fishing.^[11] The amendment narrowly passed the House, but was defeated in the Senate. The legislation was later described by his chief of staff as a "bureaucratic exercise" designed to evaluate the costs of not drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Pombo has likewise pushed for oil drilling in the ANWR, despite concerns about the ecosystem and opposition from moderate Republicans.^[12]

In September 2005, Pombo helped write a revision the 1973 Endangered Species Act. The proposed revision "was widely denounced by environmentalists as a disturbing retreat from habitat protection and a paperwork nightmare for agencies seeking to revive the 1,268 threatened and endangered plants and animals in the country, 186 of which are in California."^[13] The bill did not pass.^[14]

By March 2006, Environmental Science & Technology reported that Pombo was coordinating efforts with Pac/West Communications to weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pac/West has created the Save Our Species Alliance, an anti-environmental front group that is campaigning for Pombo's bill to change the ESA.^[15]

The League of Conservation Voters, a nonpartisan PAC, assigned Pombo a lifetime average rating of 7 on a scale of 0 to 100. In 2005, he scored a 6. Subsequently, the organization has named Pombo as one of the "Dirty Dozen" in 2006.^[16] LCV released an ad on October 31, 2006, citing Pombo's acceptance of $120,000 from oil companies and his ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.^[17]

Rolling Stone ranked him one of the worst congressmen and called him "Enemy of the Earth".^[18] While the Sierra Club has called him an "eco-thug".^[2]

As the chairman of the House Resources Committee, Pombo blocked legislation that would have created the Wild Sky Wilderness area in Washington state, despite broad support for the bill.^[19]

His political revival was characterized as giving environmentalists "fits" by the San Jose Mercury News in addition to describing his perception by that community as similar to that of Exxon-Valdez Captain Joseph Hazlewood or the hunter that shot Bambi's mother.^[2]

The League of Conservation Voters added him to their Dirty Dozen list in 2010, even though this list is typically reserved for sitting members of Congress, and Warner Chabor the organization's CEO stated that, "Having Pombo represent a district that includes Yosemite National Park is like electing Godzilla as mayor of Tokyo".^[2]

Controversies and criticisms[link]

In September 2006, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchgroup founded in 2005 by liberal and Democratic Party activists^[20] released a report naming Pombo as one of the 17 most corrupt members of the House of Representatives; he had also been named in the group's prior report in January. The organization said "His ethics issues stem from accepting campaign contributions in return for legislative assistance, keeping family members on his campaign payroll, and misusing official resources."^[21]

Corruption allegations[link]

Pombo and his political action committee RICH PAC^[22] are among a dozen leaders in the House of Representatives reportedly under investigation as part of the corruption and influence-peddling scandal centered around disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and his policy issues including Indian gaming. Pombo has taken more money from Abramoff than any other member of Congress ($500,000). Fundraisers organized by Indian gaming interests and tied to the 2005 MLB All-Star Game are among those activities under scrutiny.^[23]

On January 8, 2006, the Los Angeles Times alleged that Pombo helped one of Abramoff's clients, the Mashpee Indians in Massachusetts, gain official recognition as a tribe. In return, Pombo received campaign contributions from both the tribe and Abramoff.^[24]

In the 2006 cycle, Abramoff was one of the top donors to Pombo's political action committee.^[25] Several of Pombo's top five donors are political influence brokers from Detroit, Michigan who mingled gambling with major league baseball when they hosted several $5,000 per person fundraisers for Pombo in their owners box at Comerica Park during the 2005 MLB All-Star Game. News reports indicated contributions from the two day fundraising event would go to RICH Political Action Committee. However, Federal Election Commission reports filed by RICH PAC show only one such contribution and apparently contributions were diverted to some other entity making it difficult to track who attended and contributed.

As it is, the Ilitch family, owners of the MLB Detroit Tigers and Detroit's MotorCity Casino, are also financial backers of various Indian Tribes including one (Shinnecock Indians) seeking to build an Indian casino in the Hamptons, Long Island, New York. Various issues and tribal disputes involving the Shinnecock were before the House Resources Committee chaired by Pombo just days after the fundraiser.^[23]

On October 11, 2006 it was reported that Pombo "says he never worked with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff in his fourteen years in Congress, but billing records suggest at least two interactions between the two in 1996."^[26]

Freeways that could enhance owned real estate[link]

Various members of the Pombo family individually own more than 1,500 acres (6.1 km²) undeveloped near two proposed freeways. If even one of the proposed freeways is eventually built, the value of the property owned by Pombo's relatives and located near the proposed freeway will be worth far more than its currently assessed value.

Pombo led an effort to build a multilane freeway (State Route 130) through the mostly uninhabited Diablo Range to facilitate Bay Area-bound commuting from the greater Tracy.^[27][28]

Windfarm regulations[link]

Pombo's home town of Tracy is close to a large wind farm on Altamont Pass. In 2004, Pombo's office sent a letter to then-Secretary of the Department of the Interior Gale Norton, urging the suspension of environmental guidelines opposed by the wind power industry. Pombo's parents have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties from wind-powered turbines on their 300-acre (1.2 km²) ranch. Pombo owns an interest in his parents' ranch.^[29]

Payments to family[link]

Between 2000 and 2004, Pombo used his campaign and PAC funds to pay his brother Randall $272,000, and his wife (between 2003 and 2004) $85,000. In that 2003–04 campaign cycle, Pombo paid more to his family members — $217,000 — than his opponent, Jerry McNerney, spent on his entire campaign. The two were paid for duties listed as bookkeeping, fundraising, consulting and other unspecified services.^[30]

After publicity about the payments to his family, Randall is no longer on Pombo's payroll (total payments between January 2005 and mid-2006 were less than $7,000). Pombo's wife continues to be paid at the rate of $3,000 per month.^[31]

Mailings during 2004 campaign[link]

In October 2004, Pombo used the franking privileges afforded members of Congress to mail approximately 175,000 copies of a two-page leaflet that openly praised the House Resources Committee and the Bush administration for overturning Clinton Administration limits on snowmobiling in national parks. The leaflets were sent to snowmobile owners in the swing states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Pombo authorized the expenditure of $68,081 from House Resources Committee funds for the mailing of the leaflets as "official business." House members are required to seek prior approval and obtain advisory opinions before sending out franked mail; no such approval was obtained prior to the October mailing.^[32]

2003 RV trip charged to the federal government[link]

In August 2003, Pombo and his family rented an RV and "spent two weeks on vacation, stopping along the way to enjoy ... our national parks."^[33] The 5,000 miles (8,000 km) trip included stops in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Joshua Tree, Sequoia National Park, Kings Canyon National Park and Mount Rushmore, Badlands National Park, and other parks. The $4,935 cost of the rental was charged to the federal government, but was determined to be a more cost effective alternative to flying, renting a car, and staying in a hotel.

When asked in February 2006 about the trip — rules forbid government-funded travel for personal vacations, but allow lawmakers to bring family members on official trips—Pombo said that he had looked into flying into the parks by commercial air or charters, but found the costs to be excessive. After choosing to travel instead by RV, he invited his family along with him.^[34]

At Yellowstone, Pombo had a lengthy meeting with the park superintendent, which a spokesman charactizered as official. Pombo's visit to the Badlands National Park is in dispute: the secretary to the superintendent said he did not show; a spokesman for Pombo said that Pombo was certain he was there and met with a group of Native American tribal leaders nearby. Reports concerning Pombo's visit to Joshua Tree are also contradictory. The Los Angeles Times was told that Pombo had shown up for his meeting but "they were not there." The Tracy Press was told that Pombo met with the park's acting superintendent.

Officials from Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks did not return calls seeking comment.^[35]

Investigation of Charles Hurwitz[link]

One January 8, 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that Pombo and Representative John Doolittle had joined with then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas to oppose an investigation by federal banking regulators into the affairs of Houston millionaire Charles Hurwitz. The Times reported that "When the FDIC persisted, Doolittle and Pombo — both considered protegés of DeLay — used their power as members of the House Resources Committee to subpoena the agency's confidential records on the case, including details of the evidence FDIC investigators had compiled on Hurwitz." The investigation was ultimately dropped.

According to the Times, "Although Washington politicians frequently try to help important constituents and contributors, it is unusual for members of Congress to take direct steps to stymie an ongoing investigation by an agency such as the FDIC." The article concluded, "in the Hurwitz case, Doolittle and Pombo were in a position to pressure the FDIC and did so."^[24][36]

Corruption at the Interior Department[link]

On September 23, 2006, the Central Valley Record reported that East Bay Representative George Miller and six other House Democrats had requested that Pombo hold "immediate" congressional hearings concerning oil lease payments to the Interior Department. The article noted that "Miller and his allies — including Pombo's challenger, wind power consultant Jerry McNerney — want oil companies such as Chevron to renegotiate contracts they inked with Clinton administration officials that failed to include language requiring the firms to pay taxes when oil prices pass $36 a barrel." Pombo "had a provision written into the House's offshore drilling legislation, which passed earlier this year, that would instead levy a fee on those firms that refuse to renegotiate their contracts."^[37]

Probed oil firm linked to Pombo[link]

An Alaskan oil services company under federal investigation in connection with allegations of influence peddling has contributed nearly $18,000 to Pombo.^[38] The investigation sparked a Washington state candidate for the Senate to return his contributions from Anchorage-based VECO Corporation the day after the FBI raided offices of several Alaskan state legislators.

2006 re-election campaign[link]

Amid these growing scandals, Pombo faced serious primary opposition for the first time since his initial race in 1992. His leading opponent was former congressman Pete McCloskey, a leading moderate Republican. Earlier, McCloskey had led an effort to find a viable primary challenger to Pombo. Despite a spirited contest, Pombo defeated McCloskey with 61 percent of the vote. McCloskey had been endorsed by the Sacramento Bee, the San Jose Mercury News, and the League of Conservation Voters. Seven weeks later, McCloskey endorsed Pombo's Democratic opponent, Jerry McNerney, who had won the Democratic primary over Steve Filson and Steve Thomas. McNerney received just over half of the Democratic vote and faced Pombo in the 2006 general election in November.^[39] McNerney had been Pombo's opponent in 2004.

On October 3, 2006, a Democratic-commissioned poll was released with McNerney leading Pombo 48 percent to 46 percent.^[40] There were two polls commissioned by the NRCC, but results weren't released. Based on these events, in early October, Congressional Quarterly changed their rating of this race from Republican Favored to Leans Republican.^[41] This was a significant development; Pombo had soundly defeated McNerney in 2004, taking 61 percent of the vote.

On November 7, 2006, Pombo was defeated by McNerney.^[42] McNerney got 53.1 percent of the vote to Pombo's 46.9 percent. Apart from prevailing national Democratic trends and the corruption allegations dogging him, Pombo was also the number one national target of environmental groups. Washington, D.C.-based Defenders of Wildlife spent more than $1 million on the race and commissioned the first poll in 2005 that showed Pombo to be vulnerable in his re-election bid. The Sierra Club sent over 300 volunteers and organizers to work for McNerney in the final weeks of the campaign. The group, allied with the League of Conservation Voters, also aired issue ads attacking Pombo. Pombo and Heather Wilson were the two Representatives targeted by the Humane Society, which spent over $100,000 in Pombo's district, including organizers.^[43][44]

In a letter dated November 29, 2006 from PAC/West Communications, Pombo states, "I have accepted a position as Senior Partner at Pac/West, a full service political public relations firm with offices from California to Washington, D.C."

2010 congressional campaign[link]

On January 4, 2010, Pombo announced his candidacy for Congress in California's 19th congressional district after Congressman George Radanovich, a fellow Republican, announced he wouldn't run for reelection.^[1] The 19th neighbors Pombo's former 11th district and leans more Republican than the 11th. Pombo said he "didn't think [he] would ever run again, but when George Radanovich announced he wasn't running, my phone rang off the hook." Pombo faced Radanovich-backed state Senator Jeff Denham and former Fresno mayor Jim Patterson in the primary,^[45] which Jeff Denham won.

Pombo followed up his candidacy for Congress announcement by signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform on January 5, 2010. This marks the second time that Pombo signed the Pledge. He previously signed it as Representative of California's 11th congressional district. According to ATR, Pombo has a lifetime rating of 91% from their annual Congressional Scorecards.^[46]

Jeff Denham has stated that Pombo is a liability to the Republican Party and has "given them a lot of material over the years", a reference to his various scandals and notoriety among environmentalists.^[2]

Electoral history[link]

References[link]

External links[link]

Find more about Richard Pombo on Wikipedia's sister projects:
	Definitions and translations from Wiktionary
	Images and media from Commons
	Learning resources from Wikiversity
	News stories from Wikinews
	Quotations from Wikiquote
	Source texts from Wikisource
	Textbooks from Wikibooks

Official[link]

• Richard Pombo at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
• Richard Pombo for Congress official 2010 campaign site

Profiles/voting records[link]

• Profile in San Diego Union Tribune
• Voting record maintained by the Washington Post
• League of Conservation Voters gives Pombo a lifetime score of 7 on a scale of 0 to 100
• PoliticalFriendster — originally a Stanford University student project

Criticism[link]

• Complaint against Pombo's franked mail
• Tribe's backers are Pombo's Donors by Indianz.com

News articles[link]

• Pombo's position as public enemy number 1 for environmental groups from Wall Street Journal article
• Congressman's donors tied to tribal dispute ABC News
• "Will the Real Mr. Pombo Please Stand Up?", profile of Pombo by High Country News
• Probed oil firm linked to Pombo. The Record September 7, 2006