Question: The [**British** Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC) is, as far as I know, a fully government-subsidized British TV channel. Does that not make it an arm of the British government? While some may point to its independence, the same is claimed for the US judiciary system. Yet no one claims that its independence makes the US judiciary something other than a branch of the government. The BBC is an entity which was founded by the British government, which is funded by the British government, and which at times (most notably during WWII) was a propaganda arm of the government.

Since the Russian channel [RT (formerly "*Russia Today*")](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)) was recently asked to register as a foreign agent, because it is owned by the Russian government, shouldn't the same be requested of the BBC? Is there any distinction? 

While it may be tempting to point to the fact that Russia is at odds (to put it mildly) with the US and GB is an ally, I don't think that British agents (of other branches of the GB government) are excused from registering as foreign agents. So what's different about BBC?

Answer: 
The BBC is a collection of entities, some of which are funded by the British government, some of which are not.

The BBC's news output which is available outside of the UK is run by BBC Global News, Ltd. This company is not funded in any way by the UK government or by the license fee that is paid by UK residents, but strictly [by advertising and subscription revenues](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-radio-and-tv-12957296). It is because of this lack of funding from the UK government, as well as the editorial independence that you mentioned earlier, that means the BBC would not be covered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

As for the BBC's entertainment programming (such as what you'll find on BBC Americas), while much of the content is part-funded by the UK license fee (because we enjoy it in the UK as well), it's very difficult to argue that there is any political activity involved, so that would also not be covered under FARA.
Because FARA is a vague written law that can be used to target particular individuals/entities that the current US government does not like. 

For example from Wikipedia, [United States v. Franklin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Franklin):

> 
> The 2005 case of United States v. Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman
>  against United States Department of Defense employee Larry Franklin
>  and American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy director Steven
>  Rosen and AIPAC senior Iran analyst Keith Weissman[41][42] raised the
>  possibility that AIPAC would come under greater scrutiny by the
>  Department of Justice. While Franklin pleaded guilty to passing
>  government secrets to Rosen and Weissman, as well as to an Israeli
>  government official,[43][44] the cases against Rosen and Weissman were
>  dismissed and no actions against AIPAC were instituted.[40]
> 
> 
> 

So it is a matter of a poorly written law that makes "everybody" guilty but allows the government to pick when to enforce it.

Unfortunately this is considered "conspiracy" but it is true in multiple areas some of which are not related to Russia. For example recently there was a discussion if Jeff Sessions will start enforcing federal laws regarding Marijuana(Obama administration decided not to enforce a certain law and now Sessions plans to end that practice). In other words law did not change, but different administrations choose to ignore it or not ignore it.