I'm not much for politics, even less for most politicians. Somewhere in the last twenty years people stopped going to Washington to serve their country, but instead to use their positions for greater leverage into the private sector as lobbyists or well-paying posts at think tanks...a true riches to riches saga.  Many have forgotten it's the people behind that make the person ahead.
 
Noted with a degree of predictability comes House Speaker Pelosi's most recent support for performance fees via the Performance Rights Act. Speaking at the Recording Academy's advocacy event Madame Speaker declared, "The rights of performers are not forgotten. You have an army of advocates by your side."
 
The Speaker's syllogism professes undying royalty...uh make that loyalty...to the downtrodden artists and labels looking for a Hail Mary as a set-off against lost fees from migratory media. Ms. Pelosi's fatuous argument doesn't square with the facts. Thankfully over 250 members of the House and over 25 Senators have signed-off on a non-binding resolution facing-off against a "performance tax" as it's being tagged by the NAB.
 
Let's get this straight: your neighbor asks to for a ride each morning so that he can go to work. You oblige since he makes good company and offers to share fuel expense. This bon accord lasts for years, until one day his lawyer commences action against you in order to retrieve his contributed gas money.
 
If indeed radio is under an obligation to further compensate performers and labels, why not formally introduce a pay-for-play system much like major brands compete for shelf space at Kroger or Wal-Mart? If a new artist seeks incubation on a station with a weekly cume of a million listeners, their fees for exposure would be pegged to the size and conversion of that station's listeners to quarter hours. If a smaller artist or label can't pay the freight, they simply don't get incubation. This would be above board of course and resemble the exchange taking place daily in retail environments. Indeed if the performance tax comes to pass, perhaps every music station in America would only mention the title and artist ifcompensated. If not, listeners would simply need to guess "who sang that song."
 
Without expanding into deeper political waters, any 9th grade civics student can see the country's current direction and the situational ethics taking it there. If one doesn't win the lottery, sue someone. If the company doesn't come across with a raise and promotion, take the company's strategy across the street. For the hunter, the complacent prey is always the best.
 
It comes as no surprise Madame Speaker would support the Performance Act. Introspective questions confuse her. Question such as "How would the Beatles have forged a legacy (much less billions of dollars of royalties), without radio? How would labels like RCA, Columbia, Capitol or Warner Brothers ever have amassed fortunes without KHJ, WABC, or WLS?
 
And what helped boutique labels survive, then thrive in the early years? Motown, Island, Asylum and countless others found their way into the light riding the early FM wave with KVIL, WRIF, or KBCO?
 
Performance tax advocates may answer, "Well that was a long time ago; things have changed." Do you know the definition of "a long time ago?"  Translated: "It didn't affect me." Radio and the music industry have made good partners traversing time together, only to divorce over irreconcilable balance sheets. Understandably, radio executives and owners are bitter to say the least. Alas, bitter people make poor witnesses but perhaps eventually, we'll feel a leveling wind.