Broadcast Law Blog

According to press reports, the Obama campaign is contemplating an ad schedule during the upcoming Summer Olympics.  This raises the question of what political broadcasting rules would apply to such a buy.  The Olympics run from August 8 through 24, before the lowest unit rate window for political candidates.  Thus, the Obama campaign is not entitled to lowest unit rates.  Instead, the candidate would only be entitled to a "comparable rate" to what a commercial advertiser in a similar situation would receive.  The campaign would not get frequency discounts that a big Olympics sponsor might get, unless the campaign bought in the same frequency, or other discounts that may apply to larger advertisers.  But the reasonable access provisions of the rules do apply once you have a legally qualified candidate, so it would seem as if at least some political ads would have to be placed in the Olympic programming.  In various political seminars held throughout the country, when this question has been raised, the FCC representatives have consistently said that, given the fact that the Olympics run for such a long period, at least some access must be made available to Federal candidates who are willing to pay the price that the airtime commands.

During the Super Bowl, the Obama campaign bought time, but it was purchased on local stations, not on the network itself (see our post here).  Affiliates of NBC would also have reasonable access issues of their own, were the Obama campaign to approach them directly, or were some local Federal candidate to request time on their stations.  As these stations have less inventory during the Olympics than does the network, the amount of time that would have to be provided would be less (and a candidate need not be given access to the exact time spot that they might request - not everyone can get the coveted spots in certain high profile event's finals - as long as the access that they are given is reasonable under the circumstances).  But the access rules would apply -so at least some access would have to be given.  Note that in a few states with late primaries for Congress and the Senate, it is possible that there would be Federal candidates entitled to lowest unit rates, even during the Olympics.  State and local candidates, however, have no right of access, so stations would not have to sell them time in the Olympics.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

At a meeting held this week, the Radio Advertising Bureau (RAB) adopted Guidelines promoting the use of "posting" or audience delivery guarantees for the radio industry.  While these guidelines are voluntary, and no doubt some broadcasters will not adopt the practice, those who do should be aware of the political broadcasting implications.  For years, at political broadcasting seminars that I have conducted around the country, the question of how posting affects the political broadcasting obligations of television broadcasters has been much discussed. In its 1991 policy statement on Political Broadcasting, which essentially established the rules that broadcasters have followed in the years since, the Commission's entire discussion of how audience underdelivery make good spots affected a station's political broadcasting obligations was essentially addressed in two sentences - essentially saying that such guarantees must be made available to candidates in the same manner as commercial advertisers.  Thus, stations must offer audience delivery guarantees to political advertisers if they offer such guarantees to commercial advertisers.  The 1992 reconsideration added a few more sentences, making clear that any make-good spots provided to meet any delivery guaranty would not need to be considered in determining the lowest unit charge of the time periods in which the make good runs.  What the Commission leaves to the broadcaster, however, is to fashion a way to compensate the candidate for underdelivery when the underdelivery may not be discovered for months (when the next ratings book is released), which will usually be after the election for which the candidate purchased the spots. 

In the television industry, where posting has been common for years, stations deal with the political implications in many different ways.  First, not all purchased spots will have delivery guarantees. Under Commission rules, spots that have different rights can be considered to be spots of a different class, and each class of spots will have its own lowest unit rate.  Thus, spots with audience delivery guarantees will likely have a higher price than those that do not have the guarantees.  As the make good spots for any underdelivery of audience will be of little value if they are not available until after an election, the candidates will usually opt for the lower priced spots without the guarantees.  Alternatively, stations can offer candidates a discount off of their lowest unit rates for spots with guarantees in exchange for the candidates agreeing to waive any underdelivery make-good spots.  In a few cases, candidates agree to take any make-good spots to which they may be entitled, and use them after the election to thank their supporters or to convey policy positions to their constituents.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The FCC today provided two more examples of its policy that virtually any sort of interview program is going to be deemed a "bona fide news interview program" exempt from any claim of equal opportunities (or "equal time" as it is commonly referred to) if the program features an appearance by a political candidate. In the decisions released today, the FCC declared that the 700 Club produced by the Christian Broadcasting Network (decision here) and TMZ produced by Telepictures Productions (decision here), both syndicated across the country, were analogous to programs like Entertainment Tonight, which the FCC had previously found to be an exempt program.  While these programs may focus on some unique aspect of the news or current affairs, the fact that they cover the candidates with their own particular slant (entertainment news, music news or whatever) does not prevent them from being considered bona fide news interview programs.  Where the coverage of the candidate is done based on good faith determinations of what is newsworthy rather than to politically favor the candidate, and where the programming remains under the control of the program producers and not the candidate, the programming is considered exempt from equal opportunities.  This is fully consistent with past Commission policy which we have written about many times before (see, for instance, our post on the evolution of this exemption in the context of political debates, here, and our posts on the candidacies of Fred Thompson and Stephen Colbert).  Thus, while these decisions are not controversial, they do raise some questions that broadcasters and candidates should ponder.

The first interesting question is raised by a paragraph included in both of the decisions released today.  The paragraph warns licensees that, if they are carrying syndicated programming that contains an appearance by a political candidate, and that program is relying on  the news interview exception, the licensee must itself make a determination that the program is newsworthy.  I think that this ties in with another line in the decisions stating that there is no evidence that the decisions by the program producers that the appearances by the candidates are newsworthy were not bona fide journalistic decisions.  In other words, if the program producer was to include candidate appearances in a blatantly political way (e.g. by totally excluding the candidates of one party and promoting the candidates of the other), then the Commission could conclude that the decisions were not "bona fide,"  and that equal opportunities did apply.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

In the last few weeks, I've received several calls from broadcasters about on-air employees who have decided to run for local political office, and the equal time obligations that these decisions can create.  Initially, it is important to remember that equal opportunities apply to state and local candidates, as well as Federal candidates.  And the rules apply as soon as the candidate is legally qualified, even if the spot airs outside the "political windows" used for lowest unit rate purposes (45 days before a primary and 60 days before the general election).  For more information about how the rules apply, see our Political Broadcasting Guide.  In one very recent example of the application of these rules, a situation in Columbia, Missouri has been reported in local newspaper stories concerning a radio station morning show host who decided to run for the local elective hospital board.  To avoid having to give equal time to the host's political opponents, the station decided to take the employee off the air.  This was but one option open to the station, as set forth in the article, quoting the head of the Missouri Broadcasters Association, who accurately set out several other choices that the station could have taken. 

These choices for the station faced with an on-air host who runs for office include:

• Obtain waivers from the opponents of the station employee allowing the employee to continue to do his job, perhaps with conditions such as forbidding any discussions of the political race.
• Allow the candidate to continue to broadcast in exchange for a negotiated amount of air time for the opponents
• Provide equal time to the opposing candidates equal to the amount of time that the host's voice was heard on the air (if the opponents request it within 7 days of the host being on the air)
• Take the host off the air during the election

Other situations have also arisen concerning non-employees, running for office, who may work for another local station, for ad agencies, or for advertisers, but whose voice or picture appears on spots that run on a station.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

In the hotly contested Democratic Presidential nominating contest, the delegates from Michigan and Florida, which already held Presidential primaries which were labeled as meaningless by the Democratic Party, may become crucial in deciding a winner in the race.  Thus, there have been discussions, particularly in Michigan, of holding another Presidential primary or caucus to award the delegates, probably in early June.  Broadcasters have asked whether they would need to provide lowest unit rates yet again if such a primary is held, given that they have already had one lowest unit rate window for the Presidential primaries already this year.  It seems to me that the answer is yes, a new lowest unit rate window would again open for any rescheduled primary.

While some might contend that a second window for the same election is somehow unfair, it is not at all unprecedented.  In a number of states, such as Louisiana, candidates in some elections must receive a majority of the votes (50% plus one) to be declared the winner.  Thus, in an election, it is not uncommon for there to be no "winner" in the November election, with a run-off having to be held a month or two later.  In those cases, lowest unit rates apply to the run-off, just as they did to the initial election.  Of course, the window is only available to the candidates competing in the election at issue, so if Michigan were to reschedule a primary in June, only the Democratic presidential candidates would be entitled to the rate - while Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, could be required to pay full rates for any ads that he might choose to run in this same period.  For more information about political broadcasting issues, see our Political Broadcasting Guide, which can be found here.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

In the last few days before the Super Tuesday series of presidential primaries, efforts are being made across the political spectrum to convince voters to vote for or against the remaining candidates.  With Obama buying Super Bowl ads in many markets, Clinton planning a one-hour program on the Hallmark Channel the night before the primaries, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio host attacking McCain, and third-party interest groups and unions running ads supporting or attacking various candidates, a casual observer, looking at this media blitz, may wonder how all these efforts work under the rules and laws governing the FCC and political broadcasting.

For instance, sitting here watching the Super Bowl, I just watched a half-time ad for Barack Obama.  Did the  Obama campaign spring for one of those million dollar Super Bowl ads that we all read about?  Probably not.  It appears, according to press reports, that instead of buying a national ad in the Fox network coverage, the campaign purchased local ads in certain media markets.  And with reasonable access requirements under the Communications Act and FCC rules, he could insist that his commercial get access to the program as all Federal candidates have a right of reasoanble access to all classes and dayparts of station programming.  Moreover, the spot would have to be sold at lowest unit rates.  While those rates are not the rates that an advertiser would pay for a spot on a typical early Sunday evening on a Fox program, they still would be as low as any other advertiser would pay for a similar ad aired during the game.  In this case, by buying on local stations, at lowest unit rates, his campaign apparently made the calculation that it could afford the cost, and that the exposure made it not a bad deal.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Here we are, almost a full month into the new year, and a number of important dates for broadcasters are already upon us.  As we wrote here, for instance, the payment of a minimum fee to SoundExchange by radio stations streaming their signals on the Internet is due today.  Lowest unit rates are in effect in many states for upcoming Presidential and even some Congressional primaries (see our post announcing the beginning of the LUR period for Super Tuesday).  FCC filing deadlines for Annual Ownership Reports for a number of states are due on February 1, as are EEO Public File Reports for several states.  And, on February 18, full power television stations must file with the FCC a Form 387 Status Report detailing where they are in their transition to digital television in time for the February 2009 transition deadline.  How is a broadcaster to keep all these dates straight?  Check out our advisory on the Important Dates for Broadcasters in 2008, available here, which tracks many of the deadlines that will occur this year - including the dates of routine FCC filings, lowest unit rate windows for political broadcasting purposes, and digital television transition milestones.

And a reminder about February 1 deadlines.  Radio stations in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and New York, and television stations in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma must prepare and file electronically an FCC Form 323 Biennial Ownership Report with the FCC.  Our Advisory on completing and filing the Ownership Report can be found, here.  And radio and television Station Employment Units in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma must place in their Public Inspection File and post on their website, if they have a website, their FCC Annual EEO Public File Report.   In addition, radio stations in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi with eleven or more full-time employees must also prepare and file electronically with the Commission an FCC Form 397 Mid-Term EEO Report.  Our Advisory on these filing requirements can be found here.  Stay on top of all these deadlines with our advisory on Important Dates for Broadcasters for 2008.

Posted By David Oxenford In Digital Television , EEO Compliance , FCC Fees , General FCC , Internet Radio , Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The FCC has now joined the Nevada Courts (see our post here) in denying Dennis Kucinich entry into the Presidential debates.  In a decision released this week, the FCC found that they could not force CNN to include Kucinich in its Democratic Presidential Debate, as such an action would violate the First Amendment.  The FCC only has the jurisdiction to determine if Kucinich was entitled to equal opportunities for not being included, and the Commission rejected that claim as well, finding that the carriage of the debate was on-the-spot coverage of a news event, exempt from equal opportunities. 

This decision is what we predicted in our post when the court's denied Kucinich access to the Nevada Presidential debate.  As we set out in that post, to encourage political debates, the FCC has determined that debates are on-the-spot coverage of news events as long as more than one candidate is included, and the decision as to which candidates to invite is made based on some rational criteria that is not exercised in some discriminatory, partisan fashion.  In this case, the Commission found that CNN's criteria - that a candidate had to have finished in the top 4 in a previous primary and be polling over 5% in an established national Presidential preference poll were not standards that were being applied arbitrarily for partisan reasons. The Commission concluded that the mere fact that Kucinich was receiving Federal funds and had unique positions on the issues was not enough to conclude that CNN was required to either include him in the debate or provide him equal time.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

In a wild series of legal decisions preceding the Democratic Presidential debate in Nevada, a Nevada judge ruled that MSNBC had to include Congressman Dennis Kucinich in its debate, only to be overruled by a decision of the Nevada Supreme Court released less than a hour before the debate was to begin.  Notably, the initial decision was not based on FCC rules, but instead on a breach of contract theory, as FCC precedent seems relatively clear that a Presidential debate sponsor need not include all candidates in a debate for the coverage of that debate by a broadcaster or cable operator to be exempt from the equal opportunities rules enforced by the FCC. 

 The FCC has long recognized that, to promote the coverage of debates on broadcast media, the sponsors need to be able to limit participation in those debates for them to have any meaning.  In some races where there are minimal requirements for being placed on a ballot, there can be dozens of candidates for a particular office.  If all needed to be included in a broadcast debate, the debate would never be broadcast, and the public would not receive the benefit that on-air coverage would provide.  The issue first arose when the equal opportunities rule was adopted, as broadcasters feared that, unless every candidate for a particular office was included in the debate, any broadcaster or cable company carrying the debate would have to give free "equal time" to any candidate that did not participate in the debate. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

As the dates for the first Presidential primaries draw near, more and more stories appear in the press about attack ads growing in importance.  These ads are coming both from the candidates themselves trying to draw distinctions with their opponents, and from third party, supposedly independent, groups either attacking or supporting one of the candidates.  See, for instance, the recent story in the Washington Post on the increase in third party ads.  These ads have raised political issues on the campaign trail as to whether negative campaigns work, and as to how independent of the candidates the third party expenditures really are.  They also raise legal issues for broadcasters.  Whenever there are attack ads that are run on a broadcast station, there are complaints from the candidate being attacked about how unfair the criticism is.  Broadcasters have to deal with these complaints, and the sponsor of the ads makes a huge difference in the broadcaster's responsibilities to check the truth of the statements made.    As we explain in our Political Broadcasting Guide, broadcasters may not censor the content of a candidate ad, and thus are exempt from any liability for the content of that ad.  But attacks contained in third party ads may require the broadcaster to do some investigation into the claims being made to make sure that they avoid legal liabilities.

For ads run by a candidate or his or her authorized committee, the Communications Act forbids a broadcaster (or cable company that chooses to sell time to political candidates) from censoring the candidate's message.    Because of the no censorship rule, the Courts have ruled that broadcasters are immune from any sort of liability for defamation that may arise from the content of the ad.  Thus, broadcasters cannot reject a candidate's message based on its content (with the possible exception of cases where that content would violate a criminal law, as opposed to just creating some civil liability), and need not take any action in response to a complaint by an opposing candidate that the ad contains incorrect or distorted information.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

December 22 - just as broadcast stations are running their last-minute ads for Christmas shopping - is the first day of the Lowest Unit Rate period for the Presidential primaries and caucuses to be held on February 5.  According to the list of Presidential primary dates available on the website of the Federal Election Commission, here, states holding their Presidential primary or caucus on February 5 are: New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and (for Democratic candidates only) Idaho and Kansas.  But, as we explain in our Political Broadcasting Guide, available here, the fact that the Lowest Unit Rate period begins now does not mean that stations need to charge Presidential candidates running ads this weekend the same amount that they charge these same candidates for spots that will run in mid-January, when inventory demands from commercial advertisers will be much less. 

As we explain in our Political Broadcasting Guide:

 What commercial spots do you look at in determining the lowest unit rate for a given class of time?

You look at the spots of that class running at the same time as the candidate’s spots. You need not look any further than those spots running (or being offered on a rate card) during the 45 days before a primary or the 60 days before a general election. But even within the 45 and 60 day periods, the rates can change. If, for instance, a long term package sets your lowest unit rate for a particular class of time, and the last spot from that package is run midway through the political window, after the last spot from the package runs, the rates for that class of time can go up for the rest of the political window. Similarly, if spots are sold on a demand basis, the lowest unit rate can change on an almost daily basis. If there are “fire sales” of spots during particular periods within a window, the lowest unit charge for the fire sale does not set the rates for periods outside of the fire sale period.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The FCC's political broadcasting rules can seem impenetrable and ever-changing, yet the same basic rules have been in place for well over a decade, with only minimal changes in the sponsorship identification and public file requirements mandated by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. With a little attention, memorization, and a guide to the rules, the basics of the political rules can be deciphered.  We have put together a Guide to the Political Broadcasting Rules, to help explain these basics.  Our Guide presents information in a Question and Answer format, in Sections explaining various topics involved in the political broadcasting area.  These Sections are:

• The Basics—Speak the Language
• Preparing for an Election—What to Worry About in Pre-election Periods
• Reasonable Access—Deciding Which Candidates Can Buy Time
• Equal Opportunities—Treating Competing Candidates Alike
• No Censorship and Third-Party Ads—What Responsibility Do Stations Have for Content
• Lowest Unit Charges—How Much Money Can You Charge for Political Spots
• Sponsorship Identification and BCRA Requirements
• Public File and Disclosure Statements
• Conclusion—Questions and Resources

The rules essentially require broadcasters to sell rock-bottom priced spots to transient advertisers, who are often the least familiar with broadcast sales practices, yet demand the most time and attention from station sales representatives. Consequently, broadcasters end up getting the least money for spots that take the most time to sell.   And these spots often cause the most heartache, since there is always the threat of FCC enforcement action or  worries about the cost of attorneys to help avoid getting the rules wrong.   Our guide is meant to provide some basic guidelines to help broadcasters identify the most common issues that arise during the election season.  For the complete guide, click here.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

The Federal Election Commission last week adopted new rules, implementing a relaxation in its rules defining what is considered a prohibited "electioneering communication" by a union or corporation.  This change may allow more political spending by these organizations during the upcoming election campaigns  The rule changes were adopted in response to a Supreme Court case which threw out the FEC's old rules (see our post on that decision, here).  The old rules had prohibited in the 30 days before a Federal primary or 60 days before a general election the purchase of ads by unions or corporations if they mentioned a candidate in that election.  The Supreme Court found that restriction unconstitutional, where the ad addressed an issue without mentioning the election.  Because of that Supreme Court decision, the FEC was forced to rewrite its rules.

The new rules allow corporate and union expenditures on ads on issues, even if the ads mention a candidate, unless the ad is "susceptible of no other interpretation" other than as urging a vote for or against a particular candidate.  The new rules (Section 114.15) provide a "safe harbor" which allows a union or corporation to conclude that their ad is not prohibited.  If the ad does not mention the upcoming election (or the candidacy of an office holder, or the political party of the candidate or the fact that the public will soon be voting) and does address an issue, where the mention of the candidate comes in connection with a suggestion that the public urge the candidate to support a position on the issue, then the ad will fall within that safe harbor.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Joining Fred Thompson and Stephen Colbert (see our stories here and here), Presidential candidate Barack Obama appeared briefly on Saturday Night Live last night and delivered that iconic line - "Live From New York, It's Saturday Night!"  But does his appearance trigger equal opportunities for television stations that aired the program and, if so, would any candidate actually request that time?  Unlike the Thompson and Colbert appearances, Obama was on broadcast television, not cable, so the question of whether equal opportunities applies to cable networks was not implicated.  And, unlike the appearances that candidates have made on talk shows (see our discussion of the broad exemption from equal opportunities given to news interview programs, here), it would be difficult to argue that the Obama appearance was in the context of a news interview program. 

But, would any candidate request the equal opportunities to get 10 or 20 seconds of equal time?  What kind of message could an opposing candidate get out in that limited amount of time (and I must admit that I didn't have my stopwatch working, so it could have been even less time) - and how much more publicity would such a request give to Obama (and Saturday Night Live)?  And such a request could raise the issue of who is a legally qualified candidate - as no registration papers for the Presidential primaries have been filed yet in most states - though the standard for legally qualified candidates for President are not as black and white as they are for other political candidates (see our discussion of this issue in our entry on the short-lived Colbert candidacy).  So, in this case, we can really stayed tuned - at 11:30 eastern time on Saturday night - to see what comes next.....

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

2007 - the year of the television actor who decides to become a Presidential candidate.  We've already written about the issues under the FCC's political broadcasting rules, particularly the equal opportunity doctrine, with the candidacy of Law and Order's Fred Thompson, resulting in NBC replacing him on as the on-air District Attorney of New York City.  Now, Comedy Central television host Stephen Colbert has announced his candidacy for the nomination for President - albeit only as a native son in his home state of South Carolina.  While some cynical observers might conclude that the Colbert action is only a bid to get publicity and press for his new book (just think of all the publicity that he's getting from this blog entry - Stephen, we want our commission on all the books you sell because of the promotion you get here), his candidacy does present a useful illustration of a number of issues that arise for broadcasters and other FCC regulatees subject to the political broadcasting rules - particularly issues that arise when a station on-air employee runs for political office.  Questions that are raised include when a employee becomes a legally qualified candidate, does the candidate's appearance on a bona fide news interview program exempt the station from equal opportunities obligations, and the amount and kind of time that is due to opposing candidates should they request equal time.

First, the question of a "legally qualified candidate."  This is important as the on-air appearance of a planned candidate does not give rise to equal time until that individual becomes a "legally qualified candidate."  For most elections, the candidate becomes legally qualified when they file the necessary papers to qualify for a place on the ballot for the election in which they plan to run, or if they actively pursue an write-in candidacy for an office for which they are eligible.  Until they are legally qualified, no matter how much they say they are running, their appearances do not give rise to equal opportunities.  One example of this occurred years ago, when Howard Stern was campaigning for Governor of New York on his morning radio program in New York City.  No equal opportunity issues arose as Stern never filed the required papers to qualify for a place on the ballot with the New York Secretary of State.

However, in Presidential elections, in addition to the usual manner of qualification, a candidate who is qualified in 10 states is deemed qualified in all states.  In addition, a Presidential candidate can become "legally qualified" for purposes of the FCC rules merely by making a substantial showing of a bona fide candidacy (e.g. having a campaign headquarters, making speeches, distributing campaign literature,  and issuing press releases).  So, if Mr. Colbert is out in South Carolina holding campaign rallies and distributing literature in support of his candidacy, he could be deemed a legally qualified candidate before filing the necessary papers (though his recent statement on NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me that his road to the Presidency ends in South Carolina may undercut the bona fides of his campaign.  Perhaps that admission will be retracted when he appears on Meet the Press tomorrow).  But, for the other Presidential candidates who are running in all states, participating in debates and engaging in other campaign activities, they are probably legally qualified throughout the entire country now, even though the filing of the papers for a place on the New Hampshire ballot, the first primary, are not due until early November.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The FCC has taken the unusual step of issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability, i.e. an announcement that it has fined a broadcaster, against two TV station owners for failing to provide a sponsorship identification for political material sponsored by another Federal agency--the Department of Education ("DOE").  The proposed fines for these two broadcasters totaled over $70,000.  In connection with the same broadcasts, the Commission also issued a citation against the producer of the programs for failing to include a disclosure of the sponsor of the programs, warning that company that it would be fined if it were to engage in such activity in the future, even though the entity was not an FCC licensee.  These actions demonstrate the concern of the Commission over programs that attempt to influence the public, particularly those dealing with controversial issues of public importance, where those who have paid to do the convincing are not evident to the public.

These cases all stem from programs associated with conservative political commentator Armstrong Williams, who was paid by DOE to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act ("NCLBA") supported by the current administration.  He did so on two television programs:  his own show, titled "The Right Side with Armstrong Williams" and on "America's Black Forum," where he appeared as a guest.  These shows were aired by various television stations without any sponsorship identification to indicate that Williams was paid by DOE to promote NCLBA on the air.

In one case, the television broadcaster received $100 per broadcast for airing Right Side, but failed to reveal that it had received any consideration.  The broadcaster claimed that the consideration received was "nominal," which is generally an exception to the sponsorship ID requirement.  However, the FCC noted that the exception for "nominal" consideration applies only to "service or property" and not to "money," holding that receipt of any money, even if only a small sum, triggers the requirement for sponsorship identification.

Posted By David Silverman In Advertising Issues , Payola and Sponsorship Identification , Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

With the shifting dates for the upcoming Presidential primaries, questions have arisen as to when broadcast stations must start to give Lowest Unit rates to candidates for these elections.  As it appears that, in some states, the primaries or caucuses for the Republicans and the Democrats may be held on different dates, the Lowest Unit rate periods in those states will be different for each party.  For instance, this week's decision by the Iowa Republican party to move its caucuses up to January 3 will move the beginning of the 45 day period for Lowest Unit Charges for Republican presidential candidates in Iowa to November 19. If the Democrats continue to hold to their planned January 14 caucus date, the Lowest Unit Charge period for Democratic Presidential candidates in Iowa will not start until November 30. Remember, Lowest Unit rates are in effect only for 45 days before a primary (or an open Presidential caucus such as that in Iowa) and the 60 days before a general election. They apply on a race by race basis. Just because you are within the LUC period before one election or primary does not mean that Lowest Unit rates apply to any other race.

This often comes up in Presidential election years when the Presidential caucus or primary in a given state is held early in the year, while the primary for the Congressional, state and local elections are held later in the year.  Even though there are declared candidates for those Congressional, state and local elections, Lowest Unit Charges will not apply to these candidates during the early Presidential primary window, but instead will apply only during the 45 days before their own primary elections (and, during those periods in the late spring or summer after the Presidential primaries and more than 60 days before the general elections, the Lowest Unit rates would not apply to the Presidential candidates).  Broadcasters need to remain alert as these dates are bound to keep shifting - perhaps right up to election day.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 2 Comments | Email entry

Fred Thompson's formal announcement of his candidacy on the Tonight Show on Wednesday has focused more attention on the FCC's Equal Opportunities doctrine.  We wrote about the issue, here, highlighting the fact that evolving FCC policy has found that more and more broadcast programming is exempt from the Equal Time rules, as it is considered to be bona fide news interview programming.  The Hearst Argyle television stations around the country last night ran a segment in their news programming on that issue - a segment in which I was interviewed.  That segment can be viewed, here - a genuine bona fide news interview if ever there was one.

The television segment is also interesting in that it asked the question whether the FCC's rules will ever be expanded to the new media.  While the rules do apply to some new media (like satellite radio), extending them to the Internet seems unlikely.  How could such rules ever be applied to the hundreds of thousands of individualized web sites spread across the Internet.  The Federal Election Commission has been struggling with issues of whether it should extend its campaign spending and contribution limits to the Internet, most recently in announcing a decision that favorable comments about candidates made in blogs are not campaign contributions subject to FEC rules.  The FEC took the position that blogs are media outlets exempt from FEC regulation - much like the FCC's decisions expanding the scope of the news interview exception from the Equal Opportunities doctrine.  People get their news and opinion from more and more diverse sources, and the government seems to be correctly moving in the right direction of allowing this diverse political discussion to flourish free from the hand of regulation.

Posted By David Oxenford In On Line Media , Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Every day, on almost every television channel, it seems as if you can find a presidential candidate making an appearance - and it's not just on the Sunday morning political interview programs.  Last week, it was Hillary Clinton on the David Letterman Show (where her husband is scheduled to appear this week).  In the last two weeks, both Barack Obama and John McCain have made the pilgrimage to talk with John Stewart on the Daily Show.  Mike Huckabee seems to be a fixture on the Colbert Report.  And at the end of last week, TNT reportedly stated that, candidacy or not, it would continue to run episodes of Law and Order featuring Fred Thompson.  With all of these appearances of candidates on television, one might wonder if the FCC's Equal Opportunities (a/k/a the "Equal Time") rules FCC have been repealed.  In fact, it appears that all of these appearances are within exemptions to, or are otherwise not covered by, the Equal Opportunities Doctrine of the FCC. 

That doctrine requires a broadcaster or, in some instances, a cable system, to provide equal opportunities to competing candidates to appear on the air.  In the most common situation, if one candidate buys commercial time on a broadcast station, the station must treat other candidates in the same race equally, and allow them to buy equal amounts of time on the station at equivalent rates to those paid by the first candidate.  In a candidate is given free time, all his or her opponents are entitled to the same amount of free time, if they request it within seven days of the first candidate's appearance.  However, the statute provides many exemptions, and all of these recent appearances appear to fall within these exemptions. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 2 Comments | Email entry

The FCC today issued a Public Notice soliciting comments on the impact of Internet ad sales on the lowest unit rate prescribed by the FCC's Political Advertising Rules.  The Commission's inquiry picks up on an issue we raised in a blog entry last year and responds to a recent Request for Declaratory Ruling filed by a group of state broadcasters associations seeking guidance on the effect that ad sales made via the Internet could have on the rates charged to political candidates.  With the advent of Internet sites, such as Google’s dMarc service, that take remnant advertising inventory from broadcasters and market that inventory on-line, it is possible that a station could sell left-over spot time at prices less than a local advertiser would pay for similar time on the same radio station.  The informal guidance given previously by the FCC's staff has been that if a commercial advertiser can buy a particular spot on a particular station using an on-line service, and that spot carries with it the same rights that a spot purchased directly from the station has (e.g. it runs in the same time period, has the same protections against pre-emption, it carries similar make-good rights), then the spot must be considered in the station’s lowest unit rate analysis for spots of the same class.

With a formal request for clarification now before it, the FCC seeks input to assist it in resolving the issue of whether such ad time sold via these Internet sales must be taken into consideration when determining the station's lowest unit rate for purposes of the political advertising rules.  Among other things, the Commission seeks information regarding the design and operation of these Internet ad sales services.  A copy of the Commission's Public Notice can be found here.  The proceeding has been assigned Docket  MB No. 07-137.  Comments are due by August 6, 2007, and Reply Comments are due by August 21, 2007, and can be filed with the Commission either electronically via ECFS, or on paper. 

Posted By Brendan Holland In Advertising Issues , Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

In May, we advised you that House Committee and Energy Chairman John Dingell was considering a return of the Fairness Doctrine that the FCC had eliminated nearly 20 years ago.  This was the FCC policy that both required broadcasters to cover "controversial issues of public importance" and to present contrasting views on those issues.  When the FCC eliminated this policy, it did so on the basis that it believed the Fairness Doctrine to be an unconstitutional restraint on free speech under the First Amendment.  Although the FCC's action was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals here in DC, the court found only that the FCC was within its discretion to abolish the doctrine and did not address the ultimate issue of whether the doctrine was constitutional.  In view of recent discussions about the potential reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, Indiana Representative and former talk show host Mike Spence sponsored an amendment to the 2008 fiscal year appropriations legislation(which in part provides for the FCC budget) that would prohibit the FCC from reinstating it.  That amendment was approved by a wide (310-115) margin by the House of Representatives this week.  While this was trumpeted as ensuring that the Fairness Doctrine was dead - at least for this year - those discussions may have been a bit overstated.

First, this bill was passed only in the House of Representatives.  While there has been a companion piece introduced in the Senate in the last few days, there also has been much talk there of bringing back the Doctrine - both by Democrats and even some Republicans.  So the fight there may not be so easy.

Posted By David Silverman In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

As we wrote in January, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to revisit the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA"), insofar as that law prohibited any corporate expenditure on issue ads mentioning the names of candidates during the period 30 days before a Federal primary and 60 days before a Federal general election.  In a fractured opinion released this week, the Court upheld a U.S. District Court opinion finding that prohibition unconstitutional as applied to a Wisconsin Right to Life group that had aired ads in 2004 urging voters to contact Wisconsin Senators Feingold and Kohl to oppose a Senate filibuster.  The ads did not specifically support or oppose the election of Senator Feingold, who was up for reelection that year, though the FEC had found that any ad mentioning a candidate in the pre-election period was prohibited by BCRA.  The decision in the case, Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., will no doubt lead to more issue advertising airing on broadcast stations during the 2008 election.

The only thing that a majority of Supreme Court Justices agreed on was that it had jurisdiction to hear this appeal.  Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justice Alito, followed the District Court opinion in opining that BCRA was unconstitutional as applied to pure issue ads that happen to mention federal candidates who are up for election.  In other words, where it was not clear that the ad was intended to be about the election (as the ad never mentioned the election, only urging voters to complain to Senator Feingold about his position on an issue), the First Amendment rights of the group sponsoring the ads should outweigh any interests that the Federal government has in reducing corporate campaign contributions. 

Posted By David Silverman In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Last week’s announcement of the partnership between eBay and Bid4Spots and the impending full launch of Google’s service to sell online radio spots beg for FCC action to clarify how these services will be treated for lowest unit rate purposes. We have written about this issue before (see our note here), and the increasing number of online sales tools for broadcast advertising inventory highlights the issue. If advertisers can buy spots using these online systems on a single station, or if stations offer their spots to a particular advertiser at a set price for a specific class of spot, it would seem that these spots could have an effect on the station’s lowest unit rate if the spots sold through the online systems run during lowest unit rate periods (45 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.). For the peace of mind for all broadcasters, it would be worth the FCC clarifying the status of these services as we hurtle toward what will probably be the busiest political year ever.

In looking at some of these systems, it appears that some of these systems are premised on specific stations offering spots to advertisers on a cost-per-point basis, for specific dayparts as designated by the advertiser and agreed to by the station.  For instance Bid4Spots system advertises that it holds an auction to sell the spots on Thursday for the following week.  And it appears that spots must be sold by a station in specific dayparts on a non-preemeptible basis. For the week in which the spots are offered, the sale of such spots would appear to set a lowest unit rate for non-preemptible spots that run in the same time period. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

This past week, former Senator Fred Thompson created a committee to explore a run for the Presidency.  In every article written about the former Senator, like one recently run in the Washington Post, mention is made of his current broadcasting career - his role on Law and Order and as a guest host on Paul Harvey's radio program.  And all the articles assume that the campaign will result in the termination of these roles, and also present issues about the broadcast and cablecast of reruns of Law and Order episodes and old movies in which he appeared.  In some cases, that is true.  In others, it remains to be seen.  But the potential candidacy does offer a good opportunity for a review of the equal time obligations of broadcasters under FCC rules.

"Equal time" or "equal opportunities" require that broadcast stations give treat candidates for the same political race in an even-handed fashion.  If they sell time to one candidate, they have to give the other candidate equal opportunities to buy the same amount of time in programs reaching roughly the same size audience.  If time is provided to a candidate without charge, and the candidate's on-air appearance is outside of a news or news interview programs and is not part of on-the-spot coverage of a news event, then the broadcaster must make equal time available to the opposing candidate, if that candidate requests it within 7 days of the use by the first candidate.

However, none of these obligations arise until a candidate is legally qualified - essentially when he or she has filed the necessary papers to obtain a place on the ballot in accordance with the governing law of the jurisdiction in which the election will be held.  In Thompson's case, as he has not even officially announced that he is running, he is not yet a legally qualified candidate, so for the time being, there is no issue with the continued airing of the programs in which he appears. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 3 Comments | Email entry

The FCC today issued the long-awaited text of its decision on Digital Audio radio - the so-called IBOC system.  As we have written, while adopted at its March meeting, the text of the decision has been missing in action.  With the release of the decision, which is available here, the effective date of the new rules can be set in the near future - 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.  With the Order, the Commission also released its Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, addressing a host of new issues - some not confined to digital radio, but instead affecting the obligations of all radio operations.

The text provides the details for many of the actions that were announced at the March meeting, including authorizing the operation of AM stations in a digital mode at night, and the elimination of the requirements that stations ask permission for experimental operations before commencing multicast operations.  The Order also permits the use of dual antennas - one to be used solely for digital use - upon notification to the FCC.  In addition, the order addresses several other matters not discussed at the meeting, as set forth below. 

Posted By David Oxenford In AM Radio , Digital Radio , Emergency Communications , FM Radio , Multiple Ownership Rules , Noncommercial Broadcasting , Payola and Sponsorship Identification , Political Broadcasting , Programming Regulations , Public Interest Obligations/Localism | Permalink | 2 Comments | Email entry

Last week, House Commerce and Energy Committee Chairman John Dingell reportedly stated that he favored the return of the Fairness Doctrine, and couldn't see why broadcasters would be opposed.  We've suggested reasons, here and here.  But the reports are that Congressman Dingell may try to move legislation to accomplish the return of the Doctrine later this year.

But, in good news for broadcasters, Congressman Dingell said that he didn't foresee any action on violence regulation this year - absent some triggering event - presumably something like the Janet Jackson incident which galvanized Congress into action to raise indecency penalties.  Perhaps one less concern for broadcasters, but the Fairness Doctrine appears to be a real concern to watch.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting , Programming Regulations | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

The Presidential election in 2008 seemingly has a record number of candidates who will apparently have a record amount of money to spend on political advertising.  One would think that broadcasters would be celebrating their likely share of this spending.  While broadcasters will no doubt be the recipients of much political spending, the timing of this election's early primaries may also present problems - as political advertising will be running during the broadcasters' busiest advertising season - the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas.  Many of the largest states are now planning a primary in early February, meaning that the lowest unit rate window for political advertising, which begins 45 days before a primary or caucus, will become effective the weekend before Christmas.  And for those states with earlier contests (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina), the lowest unit rate period will be in effect for much of December.

Of potentially more concern will be the fact that candidates will be entitled to reasonable access to the airwaves even before the lowest unit rate periods begin.  Under FCC rules and policies, once a candidate is legally qualified to be on a ballot in a state (or for President, once he or she is qualified in ten states, the candidate is qualified in every state), the candidate is entitled to reasonable access to all "classes and dayparts" of advertising time offered by a station.  While the determination of how much time is reasonable is in the discretion of a station, that discretion is not absolute.  Stations must provide at least some time in all dayparts to all qualified candidates for President who request such time, so this may put a strain on commercial inventory in the pre-Christmas period in many states with hotly contested Presidential primaries or caucuses.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

I've received several calls in the last week asking if the political broadcasting rules apply to municipal elections - such as elections for mayor, city council, or school board.  Even though this is an "off year" for Federal elections, many communities around the country have local elections, and in some of those elections, candidates have sought to purchase advertising time on broadcast stations.  Many stations don't seem to remember that the lowest unit rate rules do apply to local races.  The rules on rates, as well as the public file requirements, equal opportunities, and the no censorship rule all apply to state and local races, as well as to Federal candidates.

Only the reasonable access provisions of the FCC's political broadcasting rules do not apply to state and local candidates.  In other words, stations need not sell commercial time to candidates for any local political contest, or the station can set upfront limits on how much time will be sold in the race,  but, once the station decides to sell time, if the spots are to run in the 45 days before the primary or the 60 days before the general election, Lowest Unit Rates do apply.  And all candidates for the same office must be treated alike.  The rules are mandatory - if you sell ads to candidates for public office within the window, the sales must be at lowest unit rates.  So make sure that these rules are applied. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Today's New York Times carried an article announcing that the Mitt Romney campaign is planning to run advertising spots for his Presidential campaign in five states - at least 10 months before the first contest for delegates to the Republican presidential nominating convention.  With this first purchase of political time in what promises to be a very active political advertising cycle, broadcasters need to be ready to meet the requirements of the FCC's political broadcasting rules.

While the lowest unit rate provisions of the rules do not kick in until 45 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election, most of the other political rules apply as soon as you have a legally qualified candidate.  A candidate for President is legally qualified in every state for FCC purposes once he or she is qualified in 10 states.  So that may very well be soon, as some states have minimal requirements for qualification on the primary ballots.

Once a candidate is qualified, equal opportunities, reasonable access (for Federal candidates), no censorship, and public file obligations are applicable to all spots purchased by that client.  Disclosure requirements as to price and other terms for spot sales also are required, so stations should be getting their political disclosure statements dusted off, updated and ready for presentation when a political candidate's campaign committee comes calling for spots.  It seems early to start thinking of political obligations for next year - but the time is already here.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Last week, we wrote about the potential return of the Fairness Doctrine, reminding broadcasters what the doctrine had really meant - free commercials to groups that wanted to respond to purchased ads addressing controversial issues of public importance, and few if any editorials or controversial programming that took a position on issues, as that would also have meant giving free time to those with competing views on an issue.  As we suggested, the doctrine was a restraint on the First Amendment freedoms of broadcasters which would never have been tolerated in a print medium.

This week, Broadcasting & Cable magazine editorialized against the return of the policy, citing how the Doctrine led to meaningless editorials on nothing but fluff, and stating that, no matter how bad programming on a broadcast station might be, it was better than restricting broadcaster freedoms.  Nat Hentoff in the Washington Times provides a much more detailed and compelling argument against the Fairness Doctrine, recalling days from a broadcast newsroom where controversy was forbidden, and the failure to provide fairness would result in the onslaught of armies of lawyers to answer complaints. 

We will see if Congress is reading these comments. 

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

The new Congress has started its oversight of the FCC, and one of the first topics to be brought up is the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. Presidential candidate and head of the House of Representatives Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee, Dennis Kucinich, was the first to call for hearings about the reintroduction of the doctrine.  Others have joined in that cry, including it in a bill introduced in the House and Senate to reform the media ownership rules. But do these perhaps well-intentioned Congressmen really remember what the Fairness Doctrine meant? Basically, bland broadcasting.

The Fairness Doctrine was, for the most part, declared unconstitutional by the FCC in the late 1980s (though some limited aspects of the policy have persisted until very recently). The Commission decision finding the Doctrine to be unconstitutional made sense, as its application clearly abridged the free speech rights of broadcasters. Basically, the Fairness Doctrine required fair and balanced coverage of all controversial issues of public importance. While that may sound like a good goal (one good enough to be adopted by Fox News), in fact it resulted in bland programming. 

Posted By David Oxenford In General FCC , Multiple Ownership Rules , Political Broadcasting , Programming Regulations | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA") adopted in 2002 prohibits the purchase of broadcast commercials by labor unions and corporations using their general funds during the 30 days before a Federal primary and the 60 days prior to a Federal general election. The Act prohibited these "electioneering communications," and essentially defined an electioneering communication as any mention of a Federal candidate. The Supreme Court this past week decided to hear the appeal of a US District Court decision which found the prohibition unconstitutional as applied to a Wisconsin Right to Life group, organized as a corporation, which had purchased ads mentioning a candidate in the 60 days prior to an election. If the Supreme Court upholds this decision, we may see more corporate and union money spent on advertising prior to the 2008 elections.

The District Court decision is not so broad so as to allow unlimited political advertising by these groups. Instead, the Court only held that advertising that was directed at specific issues (in this case Senate filibusters of judicial nominees) was not prohibited if the message was not directed at the election. In this case, the ads asked that residents call their Senators and tell them to stop delaying the judicial nominations, naming Senator Feingold, who was up for reelection. Perhaps not so coincidentally, Senator Feingold was one of the principal authors of BCRA (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act). The ads did not specifically tie this issue to the election, or mention Senator Feingold's candidacy at all. More on the case can be found in an article in Saturday's Washington Post.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 1 Comments | Email entry

Today's news in the broadcast business seems to be that Google, which has been announcing for months that it was going to start selling broadcast advertising time - may actually now be selling that advertising.  Stories this week, like those in CNet or in the Washington Post, focused on the test marketing of radio ads by Google in a few radio markets.  While many in radio debate the business wisdom of an on-line auction of broadcast advertising time, the arrival of the electronic marketplace seems to arrived.  But is the FCC ready for this development?

We've written before about the impact of on-line sales on political broadcasting rules, and our take on how these ads should be treated, but the FCC has not yet given any definitive guidance on their treatment for lowest unit rate purposes.  Does the fact that an on-line advertiser does not know the identity of the specific station on which he is buying advertising mean that the ad should not be counted when the station tries to figure its lowest unit rate?  Or does the ad need to be packaged with ads on other stations to qualify  as a "network spot" exempt from lowest unit rate considerations on individual stations?  Or will the FCC give all on-line ad purchases a pass from such consideration?  Perhaps by the time that political spots for the 2008 election start running (probably in less than a year for some Presidential candidates), these issues will be resolved.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

Entering the last full week before the mid-term elections, broadcasters need to beware of the political broadcasting issues that can arise in the tail end of the campaign season.  With the media expecting political ads to get even dirtier in these final days (see, for instance, the Washington Post's article yesterday - The Year of Playing Dirtier), potential liability looms for broadcasters if they run unfounded third-party attack ads (see our October 18 posting on Dealing With Issue Ads).  But there are other issues of concern.

In this hot political season, in states with closely contested races, equal opportunities requirements can cause advertising inventory concerns during these last days.  When writing new orders for candidate advertising time in these last days, be sure to factor in buys by political opponents who will be entitled to demand equal opportunities - to be provided before the election.  Remember that reasonable access does not demand unlimited access, only what is reasonable under the circumstances.  In determining what is reasonable, a station can look at inventory concerns, as well as the potential for equal opportunities demands from other candidates.  So remember to save room for those equal opportunities requests.

Posted By David Oxenford In Political Broadcasting | Permalink | 0 Comments | Email entry

As we predicted in our entry of October 14, the FCC yesterday ruled that the Tonight Show