It’s always a little creepy when media outlets use their megaphones for naked self-interest. Think MPR’s Bill Kling pronouncements on light-rail transit. Or the Strib on anything involving MPR.

Those are almost soft sells compared to the incessant campaign some local radio stations such as KSTP-AM are waging against “the Radio Performance Tax.” Here's a transcription of the ad, voiced with the sort of menace you usually only hear during political campaigns:

“So here’s a new idea. What this country needs right now, is a new bailout. Right? Let’s put a new tax on something and then send money to people who don’t really need it. That’ll work. This time, they want to put a new tax on every song played on the radio. And who gets a pile of money? Hundreds of millions of dollars? Giant record companies. Most of which are in foreign countries. We’ll pay all the money, and they’ll keep gobs of it. Great. It’s a bad idea. It could bankrupt local radio stations. But like a lot of bad ideas, it will happen unless we tell our members of Congress to stop it.”

You have to admire the Tea Party-era hot buttons: bailout, tax, foreign, bankrupt. But that hard sell should tip listeners that they aren’t getting the full story.

Not a tax
For a counterweight, I talked to Ken Abdo, co-chair of the Entertainment Law division at Minneapolis-based Lommen Abdo. He represents local artists such as Owatonna’s Owl City (“Fireflies”) and Jonny Lang, war horses like Hall and Oates, and up-and-comers including Anna Nalick (“Breathe, 2 A.M.”).

Abdo’s clients stand to benefit from the “tax,” which, he explains isn’t really a tax at all. None of it is paid to the government; it goes directly to the holders of the so-called “performance right” (music companies and artists).

“It’s a royalty,” Abdo says. “It’s like calling the payment of anything to anyone a tax.”

And, rather than being a “new tax,” the House and Senate bills remove an old exemption — one Congress granted the radio industry 38 years ago, and artists like Frank Sinatra have fought ever since. Every medium — including Internet, satellite and cable radio — pays the musical composition copyright holder. But only “terrestrial” broadcasters (AM/FM) can spurn performance-right owners, whose claim is based on the song performance copyright.

Why do radio stations get around paying for others’ property? The age-old argument is that airplay produced record sales, and that’s how record companies and artists got paid.

But it’s pretty clear that model is breaking down in the digital age, where fewer people buy albums, per-song sales don’t come close to making up lost revenue, and piracy remains. That dynamic is why touring and merchandise have become much more important to bands these days.

Radio's fading publicity payoff means performance rights holders want checks just like other copyright holders, Abdo says — especially when radio’s satellite, web and cable competitors already pony up.

How much would artists really make?
Abdo acknowledges that foreign companies (Sony, Sony BMG, Universal and Capitol/EMI) own 80-85 percent of all recorded material distributed conventionally. And it’s fair to wonder whether any record company’s creative accountants will let artists realize a new performance-royalty windfall.

Abdo says the performance right holders have proposed this split: 50 percent to the rights owner (usually record companies, but including artists who own the sound recording) and the rest to featured performers and non-featured performers. The featured performers would receive more, but the non-featured performers (think back-up singers) would receive no less than 5 percent.

[Update: A recording industry spokesperson says this split is in law, and the royalties paid directly to the rights owners; be they artists or record companies. Artists can get 100 percent if they own the rights to the masters, or 50 percent if they don't.]

“Most music artists may have a hit, or a semi-hit, or played on a song with a hit. These artists do not make a lot of money,” Abdo says. “If people don’t get paid, the creative culture suffers. You have to pay to keep people in the creative business or you have crappy art. I don’t think those dots get connected.”

Abdo estimates that an artist like Owl City could make “tens of thousands of dollars” if radio pays performance royalties.

In part, that’s because “Fireflies” has crossed over internationally. Because U.S. radio stations don’t pay anyone performance royalties, foreign stations don’t pay U.S. artists. It also affects another Abdo client; he represents the makers of "Funkytown," which after 30 years remains in global rotation.

How much would broadcasters really pay?
There’s no doubt that more money to performance-right owners means less to radio stations. Radio — like the record industry — is in rough shape with bloated debt loads piled up in the cheap-money days, and declining ad sales like other media. It is reasonable to conclude some local radio employees could lose their jobs as some local artists make more.

However, Abdo notes that both the House and Senate bills contain provisions insulating small and nonprofit stations; stations grossing less than $1.25 million a year would pay no more than $5,000; stations grossing less than $100,000 would pay $100 to $500.

The legislation does not set the rate for larger stations; Abdo says broadcasters won’t truly deal until legislation is certain to pass. 

In May, the House Judiciary Committee approved a performance-royalty bill. On Oct. 15, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which includes Minnesota Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, approved on a voice vote sending its bill to the Senate floor. 

Thus, the strident and sometimes incessant ad campaign.

What Minnesota’s Congressfolk think
The issue is complex enough that D.C.’s partisan lines have been scrambled. It may come as little surprise that Nashville’s two Republican senators co-sponsor that body’s bill.

Within the Minnesota delegation, only Democrats are split. The radio industry’s “No Performance Tax” site lists Minnesota’s three Congressional Republicans — Michele Bachmann, John Kline and Eric Paulsen — as supporting a rival “Local Radio Freedom Act.” Democrats Jim Oberstar and Tim Walz are also listed.

It makes sense that the word “tax” — no matter how misused — would inflame Minnesota Republicans, while any peril for smaller non-metro stations would grab the attention of outstate Dems.

But the Congressional delegation’s biggest Democratic taxophobe, Blue Dog Collin Peterson, not only supports paying performance royalties, he’s a House co-sponsor. It probably doesn’t hurt that he plays country music.

Says Peterson, who also represents a sprawling outstate district, “I think most Minnesotans would agree that people should get compensated for their work, and that’s what this bill is all about. I certainly don’t want small radio stations to be unfairly burdened by this and that’s why the bill has provisions to make this easier for them to handle.

"As it is, over-the-air radio is the only media that uses a musician’s work without paying them directly and that’s simply not right. The bottom line here is that if you’re going to use something that belongs to someone else you should get their consent and pay them for it if that’s what they want.”

Franken agrees, and a spokesman notes that he added the $100 flat fee for stations grossing less than $50K. Klobuchar’s communications director did not return a call for comment.

As you might expect, the recording industry has a rival site, “MusicFirst,” which you can check out here.

[Note: Shortly after this post went up, I received an email rebuttal from a local radio pro who asked not to be named. You can read that here.]