Adam Schiff's Film Credit Push Would Take the Subsidy Fight National

That is the part worth taking seriously, even if one dislikes subsidies. Movies do not shoot in a place because the place has romance. They shoot where budgets can survive. Crew depth matters. Stages matter. Permits, housing, wages, exchange rates, and credits all end up on the same spreadsheet.

Schiff's argument is aimed at that spreadsheet. If federal help lowers the cost of filming in the United States, more states could have a shot at work that now leaves the country. The possible gain is not only for California. It could reach crews and vendors in places without Georgia-size incentive machines.

Photos: James McNellis from Washington, DC, United States · CC BY 2.0 · source; Greg2600 · CC BY-SA 2.0 · source

Georgia Shows Both the Promise and the Trap

Reason gives Georgia as the clearest test case. The state's program began in 2005 and lets a studio that spends at least $500,000 in Georgia claim a tax credit worth up to 30 percent of in-state production expenses.

That helped turn Georgia into one of the most visible production hubs in the country. But Reason argues that the model also created a race among states to offer more public money.

California has joined that fight too. Reason reported, citing Maddaus, that Gov. Gavin Newsom doubled California's program to $750 million in 2025. Maddaus also wrote, according to Reason, that many want the program to grow and to cover above-the-line salaries for actors, writers, and producers.

The hard lesson is that even rich credits may not keep a studio in place. Reason reported that Georgia's program is uncapped, but Marvel Studios still moved production of new Spider-Man and Avengers films to the United Kingdom, where labor and production costs are lower. The Wall Street Journal, as cited by Reason, reported in January that millions of square feet of Georgia production facilities were sitting empty.

That sentence should chill anyone who wants a tax credit to act like a permanent anchor. It may bring a shoot. It may not build loyalty.

Photos: Pamela Price · CC BY-SA 4.0 · source; HollywoodReporter3 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · source

Studies Keep Finding Weak Returns

Reason's case against a federal credit rests on the numbers.

The outlet pointed to a 2016 Variety piece by Maddaus about a study that found little or no film industry job growth in states that adopted production incentives. Reason also cited a 2023 Georgia State University audit that calculated Georgia's fiscal return on investment at 0.19 for fiscal year 2024, which the audit described as an 81 percent loss.

The structure of the credits matters too. Reason reported that studios often have little state tax liability, while Georgia allows unused credits to be sold to other taxpayers. A 2022 Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts report, cited by Reason, found that about 97 percent of credits generated in tax year 2016 were transferred to another taxpayer, while less than 1 percent were used by production companies against their own income tax liability or employee withholding.

Virginia's experience was no stronger in Reason's account. A 2017 report found that the state's tax credit had little effect on location decisions, a small economic benefit, and a weak return on investment.

The job math is rough. Reason cited the 2023 Georgia audit finding that incentives cost the state $160,009 for every net job they created. It also cited a 2015 Massachusetts finding that its credit cost taxpayers $118,000 per job.

A Federal Credit Could Spread Work and Spread Risk

The fairest version of Schiff's argument is easy to understand. If productions are leaving the United States because other countries make the numbers better, a federal credit could give every state a stronger hand. It could help keep shoots domestic without forcing each state to build its own bigger subsidy program.

But Reason's reporting makes the danger just as clear. If state credits already struggle to prove their value, a federal credit could take the same weak bet and make every taxpayer buy in. It might help some productions stay in America. It might also pay studios for decisions they would have made anyway, or fail to beat cheaper labor and production costs abroad.

For movie lovers, the location of production is not trivia. It decides which crews get steady work, which stages stay lit, and whether the American industry is concentrated in a few tax-credit winners or spread across more places. The question is whether a federal credit buys lasting production capacity, or just another temporary discount in a business built to chase the next cheaper shoot.

Every factual claim above is drawn from these. The reading of them is ours.