The commercial community has received some encouraging news relative to anti-runaway production bills on both the national and state level. A proposed federal wage tax credit—originally thought to cover features and TV/cable programs—would also apply to certain spots (see lead story, p. 1) if passed into law in its current form. And a California bill that would provide a 10 percent state tax rebate on qualified labor costs has been expanded to again include commercials (see separate story, p. 1).
The two developments underscore a growing awareness of the spotmaking industry’s economic importance. And support for the pair of measures seems to be building. Lobbying vigorously for the federal wage tax credit is the National Entertainment Coalition, a newly formed group consisting of organizations representing different segments of the filmmaking community, including the Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP); the Association of Imaging Technology and Sound; the Screen Actors Guild; the Directors Guild of America; the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences; the Producers Guild of America; the Production Equipment Rental Association; and the American Film Marketing Association.
Indeed, there’s industry firepower behind the push for legislative relief. Several members of Congress have emerged as allies in the fight against runaway production. And the spot biz can feel good about gaining recognition from D.C. and Sacramento.
But counting solely on a legislative solution would be an ill-advised strategy, as recent history attests. A few months ago, commercials were dropped from the aforementioned California bill in an eleventh hour attempt to make the tax break less costly and more appealing to legislators on the fence, as well as to Gov. Gray Davis. Who’s to say spots won’t again become the first concession in a compromise bid to gain passage?
Also, the runaway problem requires immediate response. Look how long it’s taken for political wheels to turn regarding federal legislation governing filming on public lands, specifically within the National Parks and National Wildlife Refuge Systems. While the prospects for the proposed film industry-backed law are still good, they’ve seemingly been that way for several years. An earlier version of the parks filming measure passed both houses of Congress in ’98. But subsequently in the Senate, the bill got packaged with other proposals, including legislation calling for the establishment of a water project in South Dakota. The package of bills was then sent back to the House of Representatives, where it was defeated (SHOOT, 10/30/98, p. 1).
In ’99, the public lands location lensing bill was submitted to the House of Representatives too late for consideration during that session of Congress. At press time, the process was about to resume as Congress reconvenes.
While worthy of serious pursuit, legislative remedies can prove elusive, meaning that it makes the most sense to follow a piece of oft-cited financial advice: Diversify your portfolio.
As earlier reported (SHOOT, 7/23/99, p. 1), the AICP is not putting all its anti-runaway eggs in the legislative basket. In an open letter to the industry last summer, the organization called on its members and different segments of the industry to see what they could do in order to encourage filming in the U.S. The letter suggested several options, including exploring labor costs, affording producers more flexibility in certain rules and regulations, and developing ways to promote film-friendly attitudes in local communities.
Perhaps in working closely together, the member organizations in the National Entertainment Coalition will find other means—in addition to legislative—to address the runaway issue.
