Staff Reports
Gene Simmons didn’t tiptoe into the debate over radio pay. He stomped onstage, told Congress that the system is “un‑American,” and demanded lawmakers pass the American Music Fairness Act so artists get paid when their songs play on AM/FM radio. Love him or roll your eyes at the theatrics, Simmons has pointed light at a real problem: performers earn nothing from big‑money radio airplay while radio sells ads by the billions.
Simmons, SoundExchange and the artists making the case for AMFA
Gene Simmons testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and published an opinion piece calling the status quo “un‑American.” He wasn’t alone on the witness stand. Michael Huppe, President and CEO of SoundExchange, backed the push. Supporters point out that U.S. terrestrial radio pulls in large ad revenue — figures cited by witnesses put that near $14 billion — while recording artists get no performance pay for those broadcasts. A coalition of more than 300 artists and groups such as musicFIRST and SoundExchange have pressed Congress with polling showing roughly 70–73% of respondents think the system is unfair. That kind of public support is getting lawmakers’ attention.
What the American Music Fairness Act would change
The American Music Fairness Act (S.326 in the Senate, H.R.861 in the House) would create a performance right for sound recordings when they air on AM/FM radio. In plain English: artists and performers would receive a royalty for terrestrial radio plays, the same basic concept used already for digital and satellite radio. The bill’s drafts include protections for very small or noncommercial stations — nominal fees or special tiers to limit harm — so the law would try to balance artist pay with local radio realities. The measure has bipartisan sponsors, including Senator Alex Padilla, and has earned hearings, but it has not yet become law.
Broadcasters push back — and yes, they have a case to make
The National Association of Broadcasters, led by Curtis LeGeyt, argues that imposing a new performance royalty on AM/FM radio would hurt local stations, increase costs, and threaten community service programming and emergency alerts. That’s the predictable line from an industry worried about margins. It’s also fair to note there are a lot of mom‑and‑pop stations that serve towns and do public service. But lumping all radio into one victim narrative ignores reality: national broadcasters and big conglomerates profit handsomely from ads while performers get nothing for recorded plays. The bill tries to thread that needle with exemptions; Congress must weigh both sides honestly.
A conservative case for paying performers — property rights and free markets
Here’s the conservative cut: property and contracts matter. If an artist’s recorded performance is used to generate revenue, the artist should share in that revenue. Letting one private industry sell advertising around another’s product without compensation doesn’t pass a fairness test — and it undermines incentives for creative work. Conservatives should favor a solution that protects small local stations while holding large broadcasters accountable. Gene Simmons’ loudmouth style isn’t the point; the point is simple and practical: close the radio loophole, respect creators, and craft sensible rules so local radio survives too. Congress can do both, if it has the will.
