• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

NPR, PBS members see record donations after Congress cuts funding

Presidents "threaten" Congress all the time, over all sorts of different issues. It's how the system works.
A President is the de-facto leader of his party and thus has great influence over how much support a member of
Congress will receive when they run for re-election. Presidents put pressure on Congress and Congress cuts
deals with the President.

Any restored funding for CPB would have to be done by overriding Trump's veto, a very unlikely scenario.
Or he'd have to agree to go along with it, which is even more unlikely.
 
FreddyE1977 said:
Any restored funding for CPB would have to be done by overriding Trump's veto, a very unlikely scenario.
Or he'd have to agree to go along with it, which is even more unlikely.
Click to expand...

He approved CPB funding in March because it was in a continuing resolution, which he also doesn't like.

That's most likely how this would happen. As long as it has no money for NPR and PBS, he won't care.

If he doesn't like it, he can do another rescission.
 
The debate over 2026 funding continues in congress. There still is support to return some funding, but they're not there yet.

www.insideradio.com

Fight To Save CPB Funding Reignites In Congress.

A new push is underway in Congress to restore federal funding for public media in the 2026 budget after lawmakers rescinded $1.1 billion for CPB. Senators warn rural stations face
www.insideradio.com www.insideradio.com

The fact is they don't have the votes to pass the 2026 budget, and this may be one of the issues that will hold it up.
 
umfan said:
Since donors are stepping up to provide funding for the actual stations, the middleman function that CPB provided is not needed.
Click to expand...
You're sure that includes every public station? The biggies will mostly be fone, but there are the smaller WDVXs (Knoxville) of this world, that play Americana and blues on weaker signals
 
It's great people are stepping up to support some of these stations, but humans have limited budgets and memories. Sustainability is still going to be a huge issue.

The opponents of CPB funding should have been open to an adjustment of the formula instead of the "chainsaw" approach. Even if you agree with the end goal, the way it was done was immature and meant to toss red meat to an angry base who didn't understand how the system works. None of this had to happen this way, but it seems we don't have enough adults left in the room to govern a country with any sense of balance or nuance.
 
Congress really can't do anything about this until the lawsuit with the CPB board is settled. If the president replaces the dems on the board with his people, he will be more likely to allow them to get money. That way the money will only go to things he approves. But any judge would be able to see what's going on here. The president is trying to do exactly what the law was meant to prevent.

The president is trying to circumvent the constitution, and control all money from the white house. There's a reason why the founders didn't want that to happen.
 
CPB announces it will cease operations:

www.cbsnews.com

Corporation for Public Broadcasting, funder of NPR and PBS, says it will end operations within months after federal budget cuts

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a nonprofit that provides funds to public radio and TV stations, including NPR and PBS.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

www.nbcnews.com

Corporation for Public Broadcasting says it will shut down after Congress cut money

Currently, the CPB helps support more than 1,500 locally owned NPR and PBS member stations.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com

Which once again brings up the question: Why is the DOJ insisting on removing board members to an agency it defunded?

It seems to be strictly a power grab over an agency with no money or power.
 
Andy Travis said:
It's great people are stepping up to support some of these stations, but humans have limited budgets and memories. Sustainability is still going to be a huge issue.
Click to expand...
The more you "tax the rich," the less they are likely to donate, and vice versa. Many rich people may actually be withholding or downsizing donations because they believe the government is sustaining the operation.
 
wadio said:
That was a general statement. Also please note the words "likely" and "may."
Click to expand...

OK, then you won't object me saying that from my experience, rich people likely pay less of their income (by percentage) in taxes, and therefore may have more expendable income to donate to causes they like. That was the case when public broadcasting was funded, and it's still the case now.

The famous example was Ray Kroc's widow, who donated over $100 million to NPR at a time when it still received taxpayer money.
 
wadio said:
The more you "tax the rich," the less they are likely to donate, and vice versa. Many rich people may actually be withholding or downsizing donations because they believe the government is sustaining the operation.
Click to expand...

This is highly speculative and "trickle down" theory you can't prove. Unless you're wealthy and would like to share your personal decisions regarding giving with the board?

If anything, changes to the tax code by the previous and once again current administration already impacted charitable giving, and that was nothing CPB had anything to do with.
 
Andy Travis said:
This is highly speculative and "trickle down" theory you can't prove. Unless you're wealthy and would like to share your personal decisions regarding giving with the board?
Click to expand...
First, we would need to define the term “wealthy“ and then we would need to see a stratified listing of donors by net worth level.

Personally, I don’t support any “charitable“ organization that is also sustained by a government entity. I prefer to give all my support to those organizations that are “out on their own“ and only survive due to public and corporate support.
 
That's a completely valid personal decision, but I remain skeptical that it's a huge issue in donations to NPR member stations and would need to see research to prove otherwise.

Even the best funded stations, say for example, KUOW in Seattle, have many wealthy donors. CPB funding didn't keep someone from donating a huge amount of their estate to KEXP.

It seems unlikely to me that a service that appeals to educated, upper income adults and has very stringent requirements for receiving CPB funding would have many hesitant donors going "I'd like to support my local station, but they get a (relatively) small amount of seed money from CPB, so I'll refrain.) It doesn't track with the profile of the audience. I believe the majority of them understand that that CPB funding, if they're aware of it, is a starting point and the majority of the operation is sustained by members. If anything, CPB funding is catalyst for service that they then go to the audience to sustain.
 
TheBigA said:
OK, then you won't object me saying that from my experience, rich people likely pay less of their income (by percentage) in taxes, and therefore may have more expendable income to donate to causes they like.
Click to expand...
That may be true for the extraordinarily wealthy class of people with net worth in the hundreds of millions and above. They pay lower total taxes because most of their “worth” is an investments and their annual income is not necessarily in those nine figure ranges

For those who meet whatever the current standard is for being wealthy (some say that is in the 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 net worth range), we pay the highest rates on federal taxes and on state taxes if they exist .

The advantage for people in hire income rates is that any charitable deductions can result in a higher percentage of tax savings. For example, if you are paying a 20% federal income tax rate, your charitable deduction will only save you 20% on your taxes. But if you are in the category over 30% and in a state that has income taxes, your charitable contribution can save you as much as 45% in taxes (based on the value of the deduction not of the whole tax liability. )
 
Andy Travis said:
It seems unlikely to me that a service that appeals to educated, upper income adults and has very stringent requirements for receiving CPB funding would have many hesitant donors going "I'd like to support my local station, but they get a (relatively) small amount of seed money from CPB, so I'll refrain.) It doesn't track with the profile of the audience. I believe the majority of them understand that that CPB funding, if they're aware of it, is a starting point and the majority of the operation is sustained by members. If anything, CPB funding is catalyst for service that they then go to the audience to sustain.
Click to expand...
As I stated in another post, many contributors to nonprofit “charitable“ organizations have a preference for those that do not receive any form of government grants or funding. A few years ago, I attended a seminar about “making a difference with your donations“ sponsored by my investment bank. Among the criteria mentioned was that of making a decision that could make the most difference, thus making each of us feel we had done something of significance. That generally meant looking for organizations that we believed in that did not have strong government or corporate support, and thus, needed our help the most.

This makes me think that a campaign based on “we are on our own now“ might have very significant results for some stations.
 
davideduardo said:
That may be true for the extraordinarily wealthy class of people with net worth in the hundreds of millions and above. They pay lower total taxes because most of their “worth” is an investments and their annual income is not necessarily in those nine figure ranges
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that its bylaws say NPR can't fundraise from listeners. It can only raise from corporations and foundations.

So when talking about rich people, we can start with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It's been a regular funder of NPR for over 10 years.

My other favorites are the Jennifer & Ted Stanley Foundation. There are many more, but you get the idea. Rich people donate to NPR.

The idea that cutting government funding to CPB will encourage the rich to donate is fatuous.

It would be a wonderful thing if the administration promised to give the $1 billion it cut from CPB to taxpayers. But it didn't do that.
 
TheBigA said:
Keep in mind that its bylaws say NPR can't fundraise from listeners. It can only raise from corporations and foundations.
Click to expand...
It should have been obvious that I was talking about the individual stations and not that organization
TheBigA said:
So when talking about rich people, we can start with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It's been a regular funder of NPR for over 10 years.
Click to expand...
And I was talking about the many donors who are not worth billions and who can sustain the local stations and not a national organization
TheBigA said:
My other favorites are the Jennifer & Ted Stanley Foundation. There are many more, but you get the idea. Rich people donate to NPR.
Click to expand...
But that is a moot point today. The real issue is to sustain the local stations and, perhaps, to create a new version of NPR at the station level to provide certain portions of station programming.
 


Back
Top Bottom