Broadcast Law Blog : Broadcast Lawyer & Attorney : Broadcast Law Blog : Seattle, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco, Shanghai

In odd years like 2013, most broadcasting stations don’t think about the FCC’s political broadcasting rules. But they should – both for special elections to fill open seats in Congress, and for state and local political offices. This week, the news has been full of stories about next week’s special election for Congress in South Carolina, pitting former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford against Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the sister of TV host Stephen Colbert. Obviously, for a Federal election like that for the Congressional seat they are competing to fill, broadcast stations serving the district they are seeking to serve need to offer candidates the full panoply of candidate rights – including reasonable access, lowest unit rates, and equal opportunities. But in other parts of the country, as well, there are all sorts of political races taking place in this off year and, as we have written before, most of the political rules apply to these state and local electoral races as well as to the few Federal elections that are taking place to fill open Congressional seats.

Candidates for state and local elections are entitled to virtually all of the political broadcasting rights of Federal candidates – with one exception, the right of reasonable access which is reserved solely for Federal candidates. That means that only Federal candidates have the right to demand access to all classes and dayparts of advertising time that a broadcast station has to sell. As we wrote in our summary of reasonable access, here, that does not mean that candidates can demand as much time as they want, only that stations must sell them a reasonable amount of advertising during the various classes of advertising time sold on the station. For state and local candidates, on the other hand, stations don’t need to sell the candidates any advertising time at all. But, if they do, the other political rules apply. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, the FCC Commissioners appeared before Congress for an "oversight hearing." In such hearings, Congressmen often raise many different issues that may be on their mind – everything from issues about the administration of the FCC to detailed policy issues. In the hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee last week, one issue arose that broadcasters should monitor carefully to see what develops. During the course of the hearing, the FCC Commissioners were asked why the FCC had not taken steps to make sure that the sponsors of political advertisements were disclosed on the air. While the FCC rules already require disclosure of the sponsor of any ad, and enhanced disclosure for political ads or other "issue ads" on matters of public importance, what were the Senators after in this line of inquiry? 

It appears that the Senators were asking the FCC to ask for more information about the source of the money used by political action groups to buy television advertising time on election issues - including the money used by PACs, SuperPACs and the other types of advocacy groups that spent so much money in the last election cycle, and are already beginning to run ads in states that have Senate races that are likely to be hotly contested in 2014. What do the FCC rules currently require?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The six months that the FCC gave to television stations to upload the contents of their paper public files to their new online public file seemed like a long time back in August, when the deadline was announced and the online public file rule became effective. But that deadline is upon us, and the FCC yesterday issued a reminder that television broadcasters (full power and Class A stations) need to have all of their required documents uploaded to their online public file by Monday, February 4.  The 6 month deadline actually falls on the weekend, so the FCC has given stations to the end of the day on Monday to come into compliance. The Commission has even offered to have people at the FCC over the coming weekend to answer questions about the uploading process for all those waiting until the last-minute to comply. 

As made clear in the public notice, no broadcasters need to upload contents of their political files that existed prior to the August 2 effective date of the rules. TV Broadcasters who are affiliates of the Big 4 networks in the Top 50 markets should already be uploading new political file material onto their online files, while other TV broadcasters have until July 1, 2014 before they are subject to the requirement that they upload their new political materials to the online file. In neither case do stations have to upload political file materials that precede the date that the obligation applies to their station. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Every year, about this time, I dust off the crystal ball to offer a look at the year ahead to see what Washington has in store for broadcasters. This year, like many in the recent past, Washington will consider important issues for both radio and TV, as well as issues affecting the growing on-line presence of broadcasters. The FCC, Congress, and other government agencies are never afraid to provide their views on what the industry should be doing but, unlike other members of the broadcasters' audience, they can force broadcasters to pay attention to their views by way of new laws and regulations. And there is never a shortage of ideas from Washington as to how broadcasters should act. Some of the issues discussed below are perennials, coming back over and over again on my yearly list (often without resolution), while others are unique to this coming year.

Last week, we published a calendar of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters.  This article looks ahead, providing a preview of what other changes might be coming for broadcasters this year – but these are delivered with no guarantees that the issues listed will in fact bubble up to the top of the FCC's long list of pending items, or that they will be resolved when we predict. But at least this gives you some warning of what might be coming your way this year. Issues unique to radio and TV, and those that could affect the broadcast industry generally, are addressed below.

General Broadcast Issues

 

There are numerous issues before the FCC that affect both radio and television broadcasters, some of which have been pending for many years and are ripe for resolution, while others are raised in proceedings that are just beginning. These include:

 

Multiple Ownership Rules Review: The FCC is very close to resolving its Quadrennial review of its multiple ownership proceeding, officially begun in 2011 with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The rumors were that the FCC was ready to issue an order at the end of 2012 relaxing the rules against the cross-ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers, as well as the radio-television cross-interest prohibitions, while leaving most other rules in place. TV Joint Sales Agreements were also rumored to be part of the FCC's considerations – perhaps making some or all of these agreements attributable. But even these modest changes in the rules are now on hold, while parties submit comments on the impact of any relaxation of the ownership rules on minority ownership. Still, we would expect that some decision on changes to the ownership rules should be expected at some point this year – probably early in the year. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent article in the Chicago Tribune demonstrates that the FCC's Equal Opportunities requirements, as embodied in Section 315 of the Communications Act, apply to candidates for state and local elective office as well as to those for Federal office. We have written before about this obligation of stations to provide Equal Opportunities (sometimes referred to as "Equal Time") to all competing candidates for the same office, yet many stations seem to be confused about their obligations as they apply to state and local political races - such as a race for mayor. While the reasonable access provisions of the FCC rules (which we summarized here), require that stations must make available time to Federal candidates (and Federal candidates only) if they request advertising time for their campaigns, if stations voluntarily make time available to a state or local candidate, then equal opportunities apply to all of the competing candidates in that same state or local race. In the case written about in the Tribune, a former Chicago Bear, an on-air host of a sports program, was forced off the air when he decided to run for mayor of a Chicago suburb and his opponent indicated that he would seek equal time from the station if the candidate continued to do his program.

This case also demonstrates several other aspects of the political rules. First, the local election is not until April, yet the station recognized that the equal opportunities rule kicks in as soon as you have a legally qualified candidate – one who has filed the necessary paperwork to run for an office. The application of the equal opportunities rule is not limited to the 45 days before a primary or the 60 days before a general election (those windows apply only to the application of the lowest unit charges that have to be made available to candidates – state and local as well as Federal candidates). See our summary of the lowest unit charge obligations here.  Once a candidate is qualified, even outside of the "political window", equal opportunities apply. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The care and feeding of the broadcaster's public file is a hot topic once again. For many years, the public file was often overlooked, being visited most often by competing broadcasters looking for dirt on their cross-town rivals, or by college journalism students assigned a project by their professor requiring the review of local stations' files. But, with the debate that occurred earlier this year over the online public file for television stations, the file has received much publicity, being the subject of review and analysis in the popular and academic press, as well as in the broadcast trade journals. This week, the FCC issued a reminder about the obligations of a television broadcaster for complying with the public file rules (see that reminder here). In the past two weeks, I've conducted two seminars for broadcast groups on the public file obligations of stations. The first was a webinar for 20 state broadcast associations and their members, organized by the Michigan Association of Broadcasters. The PowerPoint slides used in that presentation are available here.

The slides set out information about the importance of the file, and provide some description of the required contents of the file, and the retention period for documents that need to be contained in the file. Radio stations have the obligation to place all of the required documents in their local, paper files and maintain them there for the appropriate period of time. TV stations, with the advent of the FCC-hosted public file (see one of our previous posts on the mechanics of the online file here), actually have a somewhat easier time in meeting some of their obligations – as the FCC itself will post to the file all documents that stations are required to file with the FCC – including renewal and technical applications, ownership reports, children's television reports, coverage maps, the station license and the Public and Broadcasting procedure manual. Radio stations need to find all of these documents and manually place them into their files. TV stations need only upload other information that is not filed at the FCC – like Quarterly Issues Programs lists, annual EEO Public File Reports, and certifications as to the station's compliance with the Children's television commercial limits. Beyond these basics, in the seminars that I recently conducted, several other interesting questions were raised.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several months ago, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals created shockwaves throughout the noncommercial broadcasting community by holding that the Communications Act's prohibitions against the sale of advertising time by noncommercial stations was unconstitutional when applied to political advertising. That decision may be short-lived, as the full Court of Appeals, in reviewing the decision of the initial three judge panel, has indicated that the case should not be relied on as precedent in any other court decision until the full Court can complete its review. While one must be careful in pre-judging any court decision, especially when all we have to divine the intent of the Court is a two sentence order, this at least hints that the full Court may have misgivings about the initial decision in this case.

The initial decision by the three judge panel suggested that the limits on political speech placed unjustified burdens on the First Amendment, and that there was no overriding non-speech related objectives served by these restrictions. The panel suggested that political ads were different than other commercials trying to sell a service or product, as political speech did not sell a commercial product, but instead encouraged civic discourse not unrelated to the educational mission of noncommercial stations.  Many noncommercial stations saw the potential that this decision could lead to a new source for revenue to support their operations, while others expressed fears that it could erode the noncommercial nature of educational stations. The FCC, while questioning the decision, had initially stated that it would allow stations in the Ninth Circuit to accept political ads as soon as the panel's decision became effective (in the FCC's notice of proposed rulemaking asking for comments on other noncommercial fundraising issues). Given the Court's order in this case, we will wait to see if the FCC revisits this finding as to stations in the Ninth Circuit.  Look for a final decision in this case in the coming year. In the meantime, stations outside the Ninth Circuit should not look for any immediate relief, and stations in the states in the circuit should proceed cautiously in considering any political advertising on their stations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In these last days before the November election, the third-party ads attacking candidates in various political races don't show any sign of letting up. In fact, press reports indicate that, if anything, the use of these ads is expanding to states not yet receiving them as, because there is so much money in these organizations and so few days left to spend it, they are throwing money into ads in states where there was thought to be little chance of their candidate prevailing. As we warned in our article about third-party political advertising, stations always have a bit of risk in running these ads, as stations have full discretion as to whether or not these ads air. Unlike candidate ads that cannot be censored, third-party ads are aired at the discretion of the station, and if the station airs an ad that is false, and injurious to a candidate, and the station either knows or should have known that the ad was false yet continues to air it (meeting the "actual malice" standard as applied by the Supreme Court to public figures in NY Times v Sullivan), the station theoretically has liability for the content of that ad.

While stations in political seasons often receive threatening letters about third-party ads from representatives of candidates that are attacked – suggesting that the station continuing to run the ad will lose its license or be sued for defamation – such threats rarely result in real penalties or even subsequent legal actions from the complaining parties. But in a complaint just filed in US District Court in the Eastern District of California, Congressman Jeff Denham has filed suit against the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for producing an allegedly defamatory attack ad, and against 5 local television stations that are allegedly running the ad even after Denham's representatives told the stations that the ad was false and requested that the ad be removed from the air. The Congressman is seeking injunctive relief (meaning that he wants the Court to order that the ad be stopped) and damages as appropriate.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC today acted on a reasonable access complaint by Randall Terry against a Washington DC television station, ordering the station to sell commercial time to his campaign as he is on the ballot as a legally qualified candidate for President in the state of West Virginia. The decision was based on the Commission's finding that a portion of the station's noise limited service contour ("NLSC") encompassed a county in West Virginia. Prior to the conversion of television stations to digital operations, the FCC's policy was that a station would have to give reasonable access to a candidate if the station provided more than de minimis Grade B coverage of the district in which the candidate was legally qualified. This decision held, for the first time, that the NLSC was the equivalent of the Grade B contour for reasonable access purposes. It further found that NLSC coverage of 54,000 people, 3% of the state's population, was not de minimis, and ordered the station to provide reasonable access to purchase advertising time on the station before next week's election.

We recently wrote about the reasonable access obligations of broadcast stations. We also wrote about Mr. Terry's attempts to purchase airtime on television stations during the primaries to air graphic anti-abortion ads. Now that Mr. Terry has secured a place on the Presidential ballot in certain states, we may see some of those ads on TV stations in the closing days of this election. Perhaps a scary thought for many on this Halloween night.  But, for television stations, this decision also establishes the extent of their obligations for the carriage of ads from candidates who may be running in districts that make up only a small portion of their total coverage area. Stations take note. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We recently wrote about candidate ads, and the "no censorship" provision of Section 315 of the Communications Act.   Broadcasters can’t censor a "use" by a political candidate (a candidate ad that features his or her recognizable voice or image), and thus the broadcaster is not liable for the content of a candidate's ad. So no matter what the candidate may say – the broadcaster runs the ad as is.  Ads from third parties (PACs, SuperPACs, labor unions, right to life groups and other advocacy organizations) are, however, different. The “no censorship” provisions of the political rules don’t apply, so broadcasters are free to accept or reject third party ads based on the content of the ads.  Even though broadcasters can reject political ads that come from third-party groups, they rarely do, and we seemingly see just as many outrageous claims about candidates in third party ads as we see in the candidate ads that can’t be censored. Why don’t broadcasters more aggressively decide which ads are truthful and which are not, and reject those ads that are not accurate?

A recent article in the Tampa Bay Times asks that question, citing a political ad running on a television station which had, in a news segment, determined that the contents of the ad were not true. Why was the ad still running on that very station? I spoke to the author, and was quoted as saying that broadcasters don’t want to act as “gatekeepers.”  In more detail, I said that broadcasters don’t want to be in the position of being the arbiter of what ads are "truthful enough" to run and which ones should be rejected.  In the political world, the concept of “truth” is often in the eyes of the beholder. Whether a candidate a “big-spending liberal” or not is not a claim that cannot be factually evaluated. Even in cases where the import of specific legislation is involved, or questions of what a piece of legislation accomplishes or the purposes underlying its adoption can be seen by different people in the political world from very different perspectives, making determinations about “truth” very difficult.  In the eyes of some, a legislative act may be motivated by a desire to respond to constituent desires, but in the eyes of others that same act may be motivated by caving in to special interests or as part of some vast conspiracy to undermine the American way.  In most cases, broadcasters are reluctant to draw lines as to when an ad is truthful enough to run on the air and when it is not – instead leaving the debate over the "truth" to the marketplace of ideas. If someone thinks that an ad is untrue, they can buy their own ad and spell out their position on the issue. (See this article from the Denver Post  complementing TV stations on fact-checking and making their results available for the public to check on the veracity of political ads).  But does that station need to worry about liability for the third-party ad?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

How can political attack ads get away with taking out-of-context statements of the candidates that they are attacking, and twisting these statements to convey meanings that were never intended by the candidate who first uttered the words? And how can political ads take a single line of an incredibly complex piece of legislation and use that legislation to allege that a candidate has violated some core belief that the candidate espouses on the campaign trail? Do stations have liability for these attack ads, and must they react when the candidate being attacked asks that the ad be pulled? In the fourth of our series of political broadcasting refreshers (following those on lowest unit rates, equal opportunities, and reasonable access), we’ll address the question of the no censorship provision of the rules and what rights stations have to deal with the content of political ads.

Starting with the basics, the FCC rules (stemming from Section 315 of the Communications Act) prohibit broadcasters from censoring the content of advertising that is a “use” by a candidate. Essentially, that means that the broadcaster cannot reject an ad that is sponsored by the candidate or the candidate’s official campaign committee, if that ad has the recognizable voice or image of the candidate somewhere in the course of the ad. No matter how outrageous the statement of the candidate may be, the station cannot refuse to run the ad (with the limited instance of ads that are legally obscene or which otherwise may violate some Federal felony statute). So, even if an ad by a candidate may be totally untrue in claims made about the candidate’s opponent, or even if it could give rise to other civil liability (for instance if it is defamatory or a copyright violation), the station cannot refuse to run the ad.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In recent days, we’ve been writing about political broadcasting topics in anticipation of the November election. We provided a refresher on the basics of lowest unit charges on Monday, and equal opportunities on Wednesday.  Today, we’ll look at reasonable access – how much time must stations sell to political candidates (or give to them if they would rather meet their obligations through free time, which few stations are willing to do). Reasonable access requires broadcasters to make reasonable amounts of time available to candidates for Federal office – in all classes and dayparts on all commercial broadcast stations (noncommercial stations were exempted by Congress about a decade ago when candidates started to demand free time on these stations). With the expected onslaught of political advertising coming up in most battleground states, stations fearful of having to devote all of their commercial time to election advertising wonder just how much time is reasonable?

The FCC leaves the determination as to what is “reasonable” to the reasonable discretion of the station, as long as access is provided to all classes and dayparts on the station.  The discretion, though, is to be exercised in coordination with the political candidates themselves. For Federal candidates, stations should not put up-front limits (e.g. in a political rate card or on a political disclosure statement) as to how many spots they will sell to any Federal candidate in any specified period of time. Instead, stations are supposed to engage in a give and take with the candidate, accessing the candidate’s needs and desires and weighing them against the needs of the station to provide advertising to other clients.  After hearing the needs of the candidates, it is up to the station to reach a determination as to what is reasonable. If stations give candidates at least some access to all classes and dayparts on their stations, even if it is not as much as the candidate wants, stations have traditionally been given the benefit of the doubt by the FCC.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Now that we are in the political window, we’re doing a series on the basics of the FCC’s political broadcasting rules. On Monday, we covered lowest unit charges. Today’s topic is equal opportunities. Many think of this as a straight-forward issue – just requiring that you provide equal time to competing candidates. But the nuances are what makes equal opportunities much more complicated.

At its most basic level, stations are supposed to treat competing candidates in the same way. Most people think of the issues arising to the extent that stations need to give time to all candidates for an office when they give any candidate air time. In most cases, the free airtime given by stations is not an issue, as there are many programs and appearances by candidates that are exempt from equal time. For instance, the appearance of a candidate in a regularly scheduled bona fide news or news interview program, or in on-the-spot coverage of a news event, is exempt from equal time. As we’ve written before many times (e.g. here and here), that exemption has been broadened to include any program on a station that is editorially under the control of the station, that does not use time for a partisan purpose (but uses some good faith quasi-journalist or newsworthiness discretion as to who to include in the program), and which regularly covers issues in the station’s service area. The exemption has been interpreted to include programs as diverse as Entertainment Tonight, The Howard Stern Show, and Phil Donahue. For most station, any program that features talk (whether it be a radio morning show or a local TV program), and which from time to time interviews newsmakers, can also interview candidates without having to deal with equal time issues. Thus, concerns about giving free equal time usually only arise when a candidate appears in some scripted entertainment program (like in the days that Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger movies were pulled from TV stations whenever they ran for office), or perhaps in a sports program (though the recent appearances of Presidential candidates in football pre-game shows demonstrates that, even in some sports programs, the interview of a candidate may not give rise to any equal time issue). But there are other places that the equal opportunities doctrine is still important.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Now that the Democratic and Republican conventions are over and the candidates begin the final sprint to the November 6 elections, the political broadcasting season goes into overdrive. Effective last Friday, lowest unit rates are in effect. In this year which will probably break all records for political spending, is your station ready to comply with all of the political rules? We thought that we’d provide a series of articles on some of the basics of the FCC political broadcasting rules, to make sure that your station is prepared to deal with the most common issues that arise in a political season.  Today, as the lowest unit charges have just kicked in, we’ll hit some of the common questions that we get about these rates.  In coming days, we'll address other areas of the FCC's political rules.

Essentially, lowest unit charges guarantee that, in the 45 days before a primary and the 60 days before a general election, candidates get the lowest rate  in any class of advertising time for a spot in that class that is then running on the station. Candidates get the benefit of all volume discounts without having to buy in volume – i.e. the candidate gets the same rate for buying one spot as your most favored advertiser gets for buying hundreds of spots of the same class.  But there are so many other aspects to the lowest unit rates, and stations need to be sure that they get these rules right.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 The Online Public File for television stations is now a reality. While appeals of the imposition of the rules remain pending, both the FCC and the US Court of Appeals denied stays of the August 2 effective date for the new requirements, so full-power and Class A television stations should now be complying with the new obligations to maintain their public files online. The Online Public File is hosted by the FCC, and uses the FCC’s newly created system for uploading, storing and accessing the documents. So far, the system seems to be functioning with a minimum of problems, though one or two glitches have been reported here and there.

Documents that stations file with the FCC are supposed to be uploaded to the Online Public File automatically by the FCC, so individual stations do not need to worry about importing them into the new system. We have heard that this may not have occurred in every instance, so stations should check their files to be sure that the proper uploading has in fact occurred. Other documents will need to be uploaded by the stations themselves, and stations will also be responsible for maintaining and monitoring the file, and deleting documents when their retention is no longer required.

Just what are the requirements for the new online public file? The FCC has put out its own Frequently Asked Questions, available here. There are many other questions that will no doubt arise over time.  We have tried to do our own summary of the obligations as we know them in the answers to common questions that we are getting about the obligations under the new rules.  Those questions and answers are set out below.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Does a broadcast station need to book a political ad buy for an agency purporting to be representing a candidate, but refusing to reveal who that candidate is? We’ve recently received this question from a number of broadcast stations in a number of states, as agencies seemingly are jockeying to tie up valuable commercial time in advance of what is likely to be a hotly contested election in November. This seems to be happening particularly with stations that have coverage areas that include parts of certain “swing states” in the Presidential election, or in states with crucial Congressional or Senatorial elections. It seems to us that, unless and until you know that there is a real candidate, there is no obligation for a station to book time for a hypothetical candidate or candidate to be named later.

Booking time for an unknown candidate raises numerous issues for a station. How can a station account for the sale of that time in its political file? If it doesn’t know who the candidate is, it can’t place the required information (which includes the candidate’s name) into the political file. Booking time for a political candidate gives rise to equal opportunities obligations, even outside the 45 and 60 days political windows. How can you determine to whom you owe equal time when the station itself doesn’t even know who the candidate is? And, if the agency even refuses to reveal if it is a Federal or state campaign for which it plans to buy time, making time available to an agency on behalf of an unknown candidate that turns out to be a state candidate may cause the station, through the application of equal opportunities, to have to sell time for a race to which it did not intend to provide access, or to open up dayparts to that state race when it did not intend to offer those dayparts to state candidates. In fact, without knowing the candidate, how can the station assess whether the candidate is legally qualified, or that the time is being purchased by an authorized candidate committee? 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In recent days we have seen political action committees (PACs) claiming they are "prohibited" from running political ads in primary states due to "new rules" regarding "electioneering communications."  As explained below, these claims are incorrect.  What they are really doing is trying to avoid the need to reveal the identity of their contributors, following a US District Court decision in March.

Under Federal Election law, an "electioneering communication" is a broadcast, cable or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, targeted to 50,000 or more people in the state or district the candidate seeks to represent. For President and Vice Presidential candidates, an "electioneering communication" is one that can be received by 50,000 or more people within 30 days of a state primary or the nominating convention.

By federal statute, sponsors of "electioneering communications" must disclose the names and addresses of each donor who contributed $1000 or more to the sponsoring organization. This is is the provision that led to the US District Court decision at issue.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At its meeting today, the FCC voted to require that television stations maintain most of their public inspection files online, in a database to be created by the FCC (see the FCC's Public Notice here).  While the details about this obligation have not yet been released, from the comments at the FCC meeting, much is already evident.   All TV stations will have to post their files to an online server to be maintained by the FCC.  Proposals for new obligations to post information about sponsorship identification and shared services agreements have been dropped, at least for now.  Most documents not already online at the FCC will need to be uploaded within 6 months of the rule becoming effective.  And, in the most controversial action, broadcaster's political files will need to be posted to the new online database, though in a process that is to be phased in over time.

The political file obligation will apply at first only to affiliates of the Top 4 TV networks in the Top 50 markets.  And only new information for the political file will need to be posted.  Information in the file before the effective date of the order apparently will not need to be posted online, at least not initially.  The requirement for posting the political file online will be reviewed in a proceeding to begin one year after the effective date of the new rules.  As stations outside the Top 50 markets, and other stations in those large markets, will not need to comply with the political file obligations until July 2014, the FCC will be able to reexamine the impact of the disclosure obligations before the compliance obligation for the political file expands to all stations. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Communications Act's ban on noncommercial broadcast stations running political and issue advertising was struck down as unconstitutional by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  While the Court upheld the prohibition on commercial advertising for products and services, the majority of the Court felt that the ban on political advertising could not be justified.  Bob Corn-Revere of Davis Wright Tremaine's DC office, who is quite experienced in First Amendment litigation and is a frequent speaker and author on these issues, offers this summary of the constitutional issues raised by this case:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Communications Act provisions that ban political and issue advertising on public broadcasting stations violate the First Amendment.  The court left intact another provision that prohibits commercial advertising on public stations.  The majority opinion in Minority Television Project, Inc. v. FCC, written by Judge Carlos Bea, reasoned that Congress lacked substantial evidence that the ban on political and issue advertising set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 399b was necessary to serve the government’s purpose of preserving the mission and quality of public broadcasting, and that the statute was not narrowly tailored.  At the same time, the court held that allowing commercial advertising would undermine the purpose of public broadcasting to provide educational and niche programming.

Synthesizing three decades of First Amendment case law, Judge Bea wrote that Congress must have substantial evidence to justify a content-based speech restriction “at the time of the statute’s enactment.”  The evidence must show “that the speech banned by a statute poses a greater threat to the government’s purported interest than the speech permitted by the statute.”  The decision principally relied on FCC v. League of Women Voters, a 1984 Supreme Court case that struck down a similar Communications Act prohibition on editorializing by public broadcast stations.  Judge Bea’s opinion also relied on a 1993 commercial speech case, Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, for “[a]dditional instruction on what narrow tailoring requires.  That case invalidated a municipal ordinance that imposed differential regulation on newsboxes, depending on whether they contained commercial or noncommercial matter.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While rumors are flying that the FCC is rushing to adopt its proposals to require that TV stations put their public inspection files online (see our summary of the proposals here), both the FCC and public interest groups are targeting the public files of television stations - looking to copy some or all of those files.  Rumors are that the FCC inspected the public files of all television stations in at least one city - and asked for copies of the complete files to be produced at the FCC within a day or two, in some cases requiring the copying of several file cabinets worth of material very quickly.  Whether this inspection is a one-shot deal or the start of a program to audit the files of TV stations across the country is unclear.  At the same time, public interest groups have been urging their members to inspect TV station public files across the nation, to copy parts of those files, and to post the information that they collect online.  TV stations across the country need to be prepared for these inspections.

Why these actions now?  Some may think that the FCC is just conducting a random audit, while others may suggest that the demand for complete public files is just a fact-finding mission as part of its rulemaking process.  The more suspicious of broadcasters may think that this represents the FCC sending a message that the online public file is coming, and stations may find it easier to accept the online file rather than facing these demands for the instant reproduction of their entire files to be inspected at leisure in Washington. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Political speech has been called the "life-breath of democracy" by the US Supreme Court and receives very strong First Amendment protection.  For that reason, the FCC has said that it will "not attempt to judge the truth or falsity of material broadcast regarding candidates or ballot issues."  That principle is sure to be tested in the wave of negative campaign ads we are likely to see between now and November, many of which will generate "cease and desist" letters from the subjects of those negative ads. Of course, broadcasters and cable operators alike are immune from liability for anything said in the context of a candidate "use" featuring a sponsoring candidate's recognizable voice or image...the so-called "no censorship" rule.

There is, however, one type of political ad that could create potential liability for the media if allowed to run unchecked:  A third party or PAC attack ad that is defamatory. A defamatory ad is one that exposes the candidate to public hatred, shame, disgrace or ridicule.  Generally, these are ads that allege crime, fraud, dishonest or immoral conduct on the part of the candidate.  Truth is the only absolute defense to a defamatory claim.  Therefore, when defamation is alleged, substantiation should be requested.  Read on for details of a recent case study....

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an 11th hour decision released at about 5 PM on the Friday before the Super Bowl,the FCC decided that TV station WMAQ-TV in Chicago was justified in denying Randall Terry's request to buy advertising time in the Super Bowl.  As we've written before, Mr. Terry is claiming that he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, and as such has a right of reasonable access to broadcast stations, meaning that they must sell him advertising time.  If he had such rights, the stations could not censor the content of the ads that the candidate decided to run (see our article here about the Communications Act's no censorship rule).  As Mr. Terry has promised to run some very graphic antiabortion ads featuring images of aborted fetuses, many stations were reluctant to run the ads, especially in the Super Bowl when families will be watching the big game.  The FCC decided that WMAQ-TV acted reasonably in denying Mr. Terry time in the Super Bowl for two reasons: (1) he had failed to make a substantial showing of his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in Illinois, and (2) even if he had, he had no right to demand that his ads be placed in the Super Bowl.  Each of these prongs of the decision clarifies some issues in the law of political broadcasting that had been long-debated, but the first part of the decision leaves questions - important questions to which many stations want answers.

The first prong of the decision concluded that WMAQ-TV was justified in determining that Mr. Terry was not a bona fide candidate for the Democratic nomination for President in Illinois as he was not on the ballot there, and had not made a "substantial showing" that he was otherwise a candidate in the state (see our discussion of the requirements to be a legally qualified candidate, here).  The FCC found that the station did not need to be a private investigator and ferret out every instance of campaign activity that Mr. Terry had engaged in within the state to determine if his activity was substantial.  Instead, the station could rely on the information that Terry presented to it when he made his request.  That information essentially amounted to the fact that he had made appearances in two small towns in the state, and had some campaign literature (though there was no evidence that it was ever distributed in Illinois).  Based on those facts, the Commission denied the request - concluding that he had not engaged in campaign activities throughout a substantial portion of the state, as required by prior FCC precedent.  While this may answer the question in this case (and helped to clarify the law as to the showing that write-in candidates need to make before they can demand reasonable access to broadcast stations), it leaves several questions unanswered for stations that have or may receive Mr. Terry's request for airtime in other states where Mr. Terry is on the ballot.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the Florida broadcast airwaves overrun with political ads in the last few days - the great majority of them attack ads - many ask why do broadcasters keep running those ads?  Of course, there are revenue considerations.  But as the attacks get nastier, and perhaps even go against the interest of the station owners themselves, why do broadcasters keep running these ads?  Often, it's because broadcasters have to - under the applicable laws.  We've seen two stories this week that illustrate that point - one where Gloria Allred, the well-known attorney, has written to a number of television stations asking them to refuse graphic anti-abortion ads to be run during the Super Bowl sponsored by purported Democratic presidential candidate Randall Terry, and a second about an NBC-owned station in Florida apparently continued to run a Mitt Romney ad attacking Newt Gingrich, featuring NBC News footage of an old Tom Brokaw Nightly News report, even after NBC News asked the Romney campaign to stop using the clip.  The NBC station apparently recognized its obligations, while Ms. Allred ignored the station's obligations under Section 315 of the Communications Act and the FCC's political broadcasting rules. 

Broadcasters are sometimes in a sticky position with nasty political ads, as by law (Section 315 of the Communications Act) they are not allowed to censor a candidate ad.  What this means is that they cannot reject a candidate ad based on its content, with the possible limited exception of where the ad violates a Federal felony statute like the obscenity laws (though not the indecency rules, which are not felony statutes).  If the ads just violate someone's property interests, or could give rise to some sort of civil liability (e.g. defamation), as we've written before, the broadcaster is immune from liability for running the ad by a candidate or his authorized campaign committee. The broadcaster is also immune from liability from a perceived copyright action like that alleged by NBC.  But that immunity arises only because the station cannot, under law, reject the ad.  So the only remedy for someone objecting to the content of a candidate's ad is to seek a remedy against the campaign itself, not against any station that runs the campaign's ad.  (See examples of suits against the candidates, but not the stations, in cases we wrote about here and here)  So, even if the copyright owner who objects to the use of its copyrighted content in an ad owns the TV station, it is still stuck running the ad if the candidate insists.

Similarly, in the case that Ms. Allred complained about - asking stations to pull the graphic anti-abortion ads sponsored by Randall Terry, she posed the wrong question - alleging that the ad would be offensive and inflammatory.  Stations can't make those judgments about political ads - they have to run them even if they can be upsetting. The FCC has even been told by the Courts that it can't allow stations to channel upsetting political ads (like those anti-abortion ads that Mr. Terry plans to run), into late night hours.  If a candidate wants to run ads in the middle of the day (or in the middle of children's programs), a station can warn its audience that the ad may be disturbing and that it is being forced by law to run it, as long as such warnings are done in a neutral fashion, but it must run the ad in the form the candidate created it.  So what should Ms. Allred have argued about the Terry ads?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

What's up for broadcasters in 2012?  What dates do they need to keep on their radar to make sure that they are in legal compliance?  Our broadcaster calendar for 2012 is now available and ready for your review.  It's an especially busy year - with television license renewals beginning and radio renewals continuing, lowest unit charge windows for primary and general elections, as well as the normal regulatory deadlines - EEO public file reports, quarterly programs/issues lists, children's television reports, noncommercial ownership reports, regulatory fee filing deadlines, and children's television reports.  We've even thrown in the dates for the upcoming auction of new FM channels, and a reminder about the the filing dates in connection with SoundExchange royalties for audio streaming.  Check out our broadcaster's calendar, and be ready for the year ahead. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the Iowa primary approaching, political ads are increasing on the local Iowa TV stations.  While the national press may have been focused on some of the recent Rick Perry ads about the end of "don't ask, don't tell" and its connection to the celebration of Christmas in the public schools, there has been an even more controversial ad running on Iowa TV stations - anti-abortion spots being run by Randall Terry, the head of Operation Rescue, who has announced that he is running for the Democratic nomination for President - challenging President Obama for the privilege of running in next year's election.  Some of the planned ads have graphic depictions of the results of abortions.  These ads are disturbing to some, and many viewers (and many stations) are concerned and upset about their being broadcast - so why are stations running them?  For the most part, it is based on the requirement of Section 315 of the Communications Act that prohibits a station from censoring an ad from a candidate for public office.  Not only that, but court rulings concerning the reasonable access provisions of the Communcations Act prohibit stations from channeling potentially disturbing ads to later night hours - limiting stations to a pre-ad disclaimer warning viewers of the content to come and advising them that the ad is being aired by a candidate and is not subject to station censorship (stations should work with counsel to use language on such a disclaimer that has been approved by the FCC). 

But there are issues that stations need to explore to prevent everyone with the money to cover an ad from claiming to be a candidate for office and being able to air disturbing images on broadcast stations.  Under the law, a person has no censorship rights for their ads (and reasonable access rights for Federal candidates) only if they can show that they are a "legally qualified candidate."  In most cases, the question as to whether someone is legally qualified is relatively easy.  The station looks at whether the person has the requisite qualifications for the office that they are seeking (age, residency, citizenship, not a felon, etc.), and then looks to see whether they have qualified for a place on the ballot for the upcoming election or primary.  In most cases, qualifying for a place on the ballot is a function of filing certain papers with a state or local election authority, in some places after having received a certain number of signatures on a petition supporting that person.  But once the local election authority receives the papers (and does whatever evaluation may be required), a person is legally qualified and entitled to all the FCC political broadcasting rights of a candidate: equal opportunities, no censorship, reasonable access if they are Federal candidates, and lowest unit rates during the limited LUC windows (45 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election).  But, for Presidential candidates, especially in caucus states, and for write-in candidates, there are slightly different rules that are applied, as there is no election authority to certify that the requisite papers have been filed for a place on the ballot.  Instead, in these situations, a person claiming to be a candidate must make a "substantial showing" that he or she is a bona fide candidate - that he has been doing all the things that a candidate for election in the caucus would do. What does that mean?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC issued a declaratory ruling this week finding that Anderson Cooper’s new talk show appeared to be a bona fide news interview program exempt from equal opportunities under the FCC’s political broadcasting rules interpreting the mandate of Section 315 of the Communications Act. This ruling is another in a series of rulings by the FCC making clear that virtually any interview-type program on which a candidate appears, that is not administered in a partisan fashion and which is regularly scheduled and regularly conducts interviews with newsmakers or discusses political issues, is exempt from equal time. The FCC has, in the past, issued such rulings for programs as diverse as the Phil Donahue program, Geraldo, Howard Stern, Entertainment Tonight, Today and a variety of other programs. As we have written before, these decisions stem from the FCC’s belief that people no longer get their news from the stereotypical Sunday morning news interview program, but instead they find news of interest in programs that might otherwise be considered entertainment or even comedy, but which regularly touch on political topics. As long as these programs are not administered so as to be a mouthpiece for a party or candidate, but instead pick their guest based on some form of journalistic discretion (“journalistic” being a very broad term – one that covers any sort of reasonable judgment as to newsworthiness or topicality), the fact that the program talks to one candidate for a public office does not require a station carrying the program to give equal time to all other candidates for that same office.

At one time, these rulings regularly were issued by the FCC, but they are less frequent now, as the FCC has clearly established the precedent and shown its very liberal interpretation of the bona fide news interview program exemption from equal opportunities. Stations do not need to get a declaratory ruling to operate pursuant to this exemption. Any program that your station produces that is under the control of the station, and which regularly interviews newsmakers and covers political topics, can rely on this exception. So that crazy morning team that occasionally talks to the mayor or the local state Senator can interview political candidates without the fear of having to provide every minor party or write-in candidate an opportunity to be heard. A free speech victory.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The full text of the FCC's Order overturning its 2007 decision on online public inspection files for TV broadcasters and the adoption of the Form 355 "enhanced disclosure form" has now been released.  This order, adopted at the FCC's open meeting this week (held on October 27, 2011, which we wrote about here), also contains a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking again suggesting an online public file, but this time it would be one hosted by the FCC.  In reading the full text, more details of the FCC's proposal become clear.  As set forth below, the Order suggests everything from a future application of these rules to radio once the bugs have been worked out, to an examination of whether a station needs to save Facebook posts and other social media comments in the same way that it preserves letters from the public and emails about station operations, to a proposal for stations to document in their files information about all "pay for play" sponsorships.  Comments on these proposals, and the others summarized below, which include a request for detailed information about the costs of compliance with the proposals, are due 30 days from when the order is published in the Federal Register, with Reply Comments due only 15 days thereafter.  The FCC, after sitting on these obligations for almost 5 years, now seems to be ready to move quickly. 

In reaching it's decision, the order first discusses some proposals that it was rejecting - some for the time being.  For radio broadcasters, the most important of the rejected thoughts was the extension of this rule to radio.  The Commission noted that there were proposals pending and ripe for action as part of the Localism proceeding (which we summarized here), to extend the online public file obligations to radio.  In this week's order, the FCC decided that it was not yet ready to apply these rules to radio.  The Commission noted that there might need to be differences in the rules for radio (implying that, at least partially, there might be resource issues making it difficult for radio broadcasters to comply with these rules), and also finding that it would be better to see how an online file works for TV before extending the rule to radio.  But, from the statements made in the Order, there is no question but that, at some point in the future, some form of the obligations that are proposed for TV will also be proposed for radio broadcasters. 

Also, it is important to note that the FCC's Localism proceeding is not dead yet.  While this week's Order stems from the FCC's Future of Media Report (renamed the Report on the Information Needs of Communities), and that report recommended that the Localism proceeding be terminated, this Order did not do that.  The Commission notes its plans to start a new proceeding designed to force broadcasters to complete a more comprehensive report on their public interest programming.  That proceeding may be where the looming Localism proposals are finally dealt with.  Statements at the meeting and passages in the Order make clear that the examination of the public interest obligations for broadcasters will begin with a Notice of Inquiry, which is a most preliminary stage of an FCC proceeding (which would be followed by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking after the inquiry comments are reviewed) and then an Order.  So final resolution of these issues seem to be far down the road.  If that is the case, will the Localism proposals stay on the table until the Order in this new proceeding is adopted?  It is certainly unclear from the Commission's statements thus far.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While the off-year elections of 2011 are not yet history, the Lowest Unit Rate period for the 2012 Presidential election will soon be upon many stations in the early primary and caucus states.  Last week, Bobby Baker, the head of the FCC's Office of Political Programming, and I conducted a webinar for 13 state broadcast associations to provide a refresher on the political broadcasting obligations of broadcasters.  The webinar covered all the basics of the political broadcasting rules - including reasonable access, equal opportunities, lowest unit rates, the public file and sponsorship ID obligations, and the issues of potential liability of broadcasters for political advertising not bought by candidates but by PACs, unions and other interest groups. PowerPoint slides from the presentation are available here, and the video of the presentation can be accessed here by members of the state associations that were involved.  Additional information about the FCC's political broadcasting rules can be found in our Davis Wright Tremaine Guide to Political Broadcasting.

One particular issue came up in the webinar that warrants additional discussion and clarification. Rate issues are always the most difficult to explain, and the questions concerning package rates are among the most confusing.  The FCC has said that stations cannot force a candidate to purchase a package of spots containing multiple ads of different classes.  Instead, stations must break up the price of packages into their constituent spots and, if the package spots are running during a Lowest Unit Charge period (45 days before a primary or Presidential caucus or 60 days before a general election), determine if the spots in that package affect the lowest unit rates of the classes of time represented by advertising spots contained in the package.  For instance, if you sell a package of 10 morning drive spots with a bonus of 2 overnight spots on your radio station for $100, you need to break up the package price and allocate it to the spots from the two classes of time in the package - the morning drive and the overnight spots. So some of that $100 package price gets applied to the 10 morning drive spots (say, for example, $96) and the rest (for example, $4) is assigned as the value of the 2 overnight spots.  Thus, in this package using this allocation, the unit rate for morning drive spots would be $9.60, and the unit rate for overnights would be $2.  You then take these rates, and see if you have sold spots for these classes of advertising time at lower rates.  If so, the package has no effect on your LUR.  If not, the spots in the package may reduce the LUR for one or both classes of time.  In such cases, the determination of which classes' LUC will be lowered may be affected by the allocation of the package price that you make.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Broadcast stations must charge political candidates the lowest unit rate that they charge any commercial advertiser for a comparable advertising spot during the 45 days before a primary and the 60 days before a general election.  Broadcasters need to remember that this applies to state and local races, as well as Federal campaigns, so those charges must be given to candidates for upcoming off-year November elections that are to be held in many states in less than a month.  As we've written before, while reasonable access does not apply to spots for state and local candidates, once a station decides to give these candidates access to the airwaves by selling time, most of the other political rules (lowest unit rates, equal opportunities, no censorship) apply.

With the Iowa caucus likely to take place on January 3, lowest unit rates will need to be afforded to presidential candidates by stations serving Iowa in mid-November, with stations serving New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida moving into a lowest unit charge window soon thereafter.  The FCC has held that candidates are entitled to lowest unit rates for caucuses as if they are primary elections.  And the rules apply to stations in neighboring states that have service into the states with early primaries and caucuses.  So many states are currently in lowest unit rate windows for local races, and others soon will be for the Presidential race.

Look for more information about the FCC's rules in our Political Broadcasting Guide.  I'll also be conducting a webinar summarizing the political broadcasting rules, featuring Bobby Baker, head of the FCC's political broadcasting office, on Wednesday - sponsored by the Michigan Association of Broadcasters in cooperation with the broadcast associations of at least 10 other states.  Get ready for the political broadcasting season by viewing our webinar or one of the other refresher courses sponsored by other associations in the coming months. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, FCC Chairman Genachowski issued a press release stating that the FCC was abolishing the Fairness Doctrine as part of its clearing of its book of 83 obsolete media rules.  What should the reaction of broadcasters be now that the Fairness Doctrine has been officially abolished?  Probably, a collective yawn.  In 1987 - almost 25 years ago - the FCC felt that it could not enforce the doctrine as it was an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech of broadcasters.  Since then, we have had no instances where the FCC has tried to revive the doctrine.  While, as we have written before, the revival of the doctrine is a political issue that is from time to time bandied about as something horrible one political party or another plans to impose on America, there really has been no serious attempt to bring the doctrine back in this decade.  So the repeal of the actual FCC rule that sets out the doctrine is really inconsequential, as it practically changes nothing.

What remains unknown about yesterday's announcement from the Chairman is just how far this repeal goes.  While certain corollaries of the Doctrine - including the political editorializing and personal attack rules - have been specifically mentioned in press reports as being repealed, the one vestige of the doctrine that potentially has some vitality - the Zapple Doctrine compelling a station to provide time to the supporters of one candidate if the station provides time to the supporters of another candidate in a political race, has never specifically been abolished, and is not mentioned in the Chairman's statement.  Zapple, also known as "quasi-equal opportunities", has been argued in in various recent controversies, including in connection with the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry, when Kerry supporters claimed that they should get equal time to respond should certain television stations air the anti-Kerry Swift Boat "documentary."  We have written about Zapple many times (see, for instance, here, in connection with the Citizens United decision).  What would be beneficial to broadcasters would be a determination as to whether Zapple has any remaining vitality, as some have felt that this doctrine is justified independent of the Fairness Doctrine.  Perhaps that clarification will come when the full text of the FCC action is released.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Advertising from Stephen Colbert's Super PAC was rejected by Des Moines television station WOI-TV, based on its belief that these commercials would be confusing to Iowa voters.  Colbert, the host of Comedy Central's the Colbert Report, has formed his own Political Action Committee to run ads during the upcoming Presidential election.  The first ads ran in Iowa this past week - making fun of the amount of third party money that was being spent on political advertising in Iowa and urging voters to vote for "Rick Parry", with an "a" rather than "Rick Perry."   WOI-TV, rejected them, while the spots ran on all other stations in Iowa's capitol city.  Are there legal issues with this station deciding not to run these ads?

Not at all.  The FCC has said many times that broadcast stations are not "common carriers," meaning that they don't have to run all advertising time that advertisers want to run on their stations.  Instead, stations pick and choose among the ads that are brought their way, and stations have an affirmative duty to reject ads that they feel are not in the public interest.  So, while many may question whether these Colbert ads were outside of the norms applied to advertising in the public interest (as Colbert himself argued that the station runs many other ads as likely to confuse the public on many issues), the station has the absolute, non-delegable duty to decide on its own what is and what is not in the public interest - with the very narrow exception of candidate ads.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This past week's political news seemed to be all about Donald Trump and his possible run for the Presidency - and his plans to announce his intent to run on the season finale of The Apprentice.  When, a week ago, we wrote about the President declaring his candidacy, there was little interest in our post, and there seemed to be little news attention in general to that announcement.  But when Donald Trump started making noise about his possible Presidential run, and his plans to announce his intent on the season finale of The Apprentice in May, our phones started ringing, asking how can he do that?  My partner David Silverman was quoted in a Huffington Post article, while my analysis was misunderstood in a Hollywood Reporter legal blog (see why I was misunderstood below).  But the question remains - can Trump continue on The Apprentice while signaling his interest in running for President?

In fact, there is no FCC rule that prohibits a broadcaster from giving airtime to a political candidate on any kind of program, as long as they are willing to provide equal time to opposing candidates.  There may be other legal issues involved in giving time to a candidate as it may in effect be a deemed a campaign contribution to the candidate (an issue apparently for PACs as well, as explained by that legal scholar Steven Colbert, here), but the FCC's equal time rules don't prohibit the appearance of a candidate on an entertainment program, they only demand that the stations that broadcast the program give equal amounts of time to opposing candidates who ask for it - if the opponents ask for it within 7 days of the candidate's appearance.  And that is often the first issue - will the opposing candidate ask for it?  None of the Republicans asked when cable networks continued to run episodes of Law and Order featuring Fred Thompson, even after Thompson declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination.  Nor did other candidates request time after there was a parade of candidate appearances on Saturday Night Live during the last election (see our post on this pattern of candidates passing on their equal time rights).  But would a Trump declaration of a candidacy on The Apprentice even face that minimal risk?  Probably not.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the President declaring his candidacy for reelection in 2012, broadcasters thoughts may be turning to that election and the expected flood of money that may come into the political process.  But visions of next year's elections should not be distracting broadcasters from their current political broadcasting obligations.  I've received many calls this year about whether broadcasters need to provide lowest unit rates to candidates in the races that are going on in 2011 - including many municipal elections and some special elections to fill various political posts.  As we have written before, if a station decides to sell time to a political candidate in a local race, that sale must be at the lowest unit charge for the class of time sold during the 45 days before a primary and the 60 days before the general election.  While state and local candidates need not be afforded the "reasonable access" that applies to Federal candidates, that merely means that stations do not need to sell these candidates any advertising time at all, or that stations may limit the purchase by state and local candidates to only the dayparts during which the station has more inventory.  But once the time is sold to one candidate in a race, most other political rules - including lowest unit charges, equal opportunities and the no censorship rule, all apply to the local candidate's spots.

With the President now filing to become a candidate, and many Republican candidates likely to be filing soon, what obligations are imposed on stations?  For the most part, there is no effect on the rates to be charged to candidates or their campaign committees - those rates only become effective 45 days before the primaries - so the lowest unit charges for Presidential campaigns likely will not kick in until very late this year, or early next, for the early Presidential primaries and caucuses in states like Iowa and New Hampshire. But, as candidates become legally qualified, there will be reasonable access and equal opportunities obligations that will arise.  Candidates for President can request reasonable access to all classes and dayparts - even outside the 45 and 60 day windows before a primary and general election, respectively.  In the case of a Presidential campaign, a candidate becomes legally qualified in all states once he has become legally qualified in 10 states. There may be few Democrats who are to likely to challenge the President, so equal opportunities will most likely be a major issue only on the Republican side.  And, as we've written before, the FCC has determined that most interview programs where the content is under station control - even those that have little news value on the normal day - are deemed "news interview programs" exempt from equal time rules.  Thus, equal time is normally only an issue in making sure that all candidates have equal opportunities to buy spot time, and in those rare circumstances where a candidate appears on a purely entertainment program (e.g. as a character on a scripted TV show) or where the candidate is themselves a host of a broadcast program - and usually stations ensure that the candidates are long gone from hosting programs once they formally declare that they are running for a political office

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many broadcasters, both television and radio, have been running the NAB spots on the Future of Television.  Those spots contain a description of the service available from local television stations and the new technologies that over-the-air television are in the process of deploying, and end with the suggestion that the Future of Broadcast Television lies in "technology not regulation from Washington DC."  Obviously, these ads are geared to address some of the many legislative and administrative issues facing TV broadcasters - including the proposals to take back some of the TV spectrum for wireless broadband uses.  Given that these spots could be arguably be seen as addressing Federal issues, to be safe, they should be identified as issue ads in stations' public inspection files, and appropriate information about those spots should be placed in the files.

The NAB, in announcing the availability of these spots, suggested this same precaution.  We've written before about issue ads, and the need to place notations in the public file about these ads. For instance, when stations ran ads on the broadcast performance royalty, we suggested that same treatment (and proponents of the royalty complained that broadcasters might not be making such notations).  What needs to go in the public file?  As the issues are Federal ones (as opposed to state and local issues that have lesser disclosure obligations), the requirements are similar to those that apply to political candidates. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Citizens United v. FEC one year ago today.  That case allowed corporations and labor unions to make independent expenditures for or against political candidates.  An editorial in today's Washington Post by the President of Citizens United and its lead counsel argues that the hysteria following that decision was unfounded because the amount spent by citizen groups in the last election paled in comparison to the amount spent by the Democratic and Republican parties and by the candidates themselves.  Rather, the authors argue, the primary political speech to come out of the Supreme Court's decision has been that of independents, and politicians are upset by this because they cannot control the speech of independents.

 As a reminder, the Supreme Court case arose as a result of a film directed against then Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton.  Citizens United was a nonprofit corporation that produced the film, and there was debate whether this was a "documentary" or an "electioneering communication," as well as whether distribution via video on demand constituted "public distribution" of the film.  The Supreme Court found that the film was indeed an "electioneering communication" and that VOD was likewise a public distribution of the film.  Thus, Citizens United ran smack up against the FEC prohibition on independent corporate political expenditures.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My station received a cease and desist letter for a third party political ad.  What should we do?  This is a question we hear more than ever these days from both broadcasters and cable operators.  As we previously advised, this is not unexpected following the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which allowed third party money to be used freely for political advertising on behalf of candidates for federal office.

Of course, if the ad is a "use," meaning that it contains the recognizable voice or image of the candidate sponsoring the ad, Section 315 of the Communications Act provides absolute immunity to broadcasters and cable operators for anything said in the ad.  But most of the cease and desist letters relate to third party ads attacking candidates that are not "uses" exempt from censorship under Section 315.  (The purely negative use of a candidate's voice or image is not a protected "use.")

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the waning days before the mid-term election, we have received many questions about the applicability of the political broadcasting rules to state and local candidates.  In particular, we have seen a number of letters from attorneys representing candidates who are running for state and local offices (everything from Governor to county commissioner or school board representative), who claim that an attack by an opposing candidate is unfounded and that a broadcast station must pull that ad from the air.  Just as is the case with Federal candidates, ads by state candidates cannot be censored by a station.  Thus, except in certain very unusual situations (where the language of the ad would violate some Federal criminal statute, e.g. if it is obscene), a station must air the ad as it was created.  It cannot be rejected because the station disagrees with the content or the tone, and it cannot be pulled even if the opposing candidate believes it to be defamatory.  Because the station cannot censor a candidate's ad, they have no liability for the content of the ad, i.e. they cannot be held responsible for any defamatory content that it may contain, even if they are on notice of that content.  They cannot censor an ad by a candidate or a candidate's authorized campaign committee - whether that candidate is running for a Federal, state or local office.

Note that, as we have written many times, this is in contrast to those situations where a candidate complains about an attack ad sponsored by a non-candidate group.  In those cases, the station does have the option of whether or not to run the ad (the no censorship provisions of Section 315 of the Communications Act do not apply).  Thus, if the station is on notice that there is potentially defamatory content in an ad, it must do some investigation of that ad, and make an informed decision about whether or not to allow the ad to continue to run.  If it does not investigate, and continues to run an ad that is defamatory after receiving notice of that fact, in some extreme cases, it could face liability for that defamatory content.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While most of the FCC's political broadcasting rules have remain unchanged for almost 20 years, each year there are a few new wrinkles that arise, and seemingly a few misconceptions that make the rounds among advertising agencies that work with political candidates.  One such misconception that seems to be circulating this year is that an ad for a state or local political candidate does not need to have their voice or picture to be a "use" under FCC rules.  Only "uses" are entitled to lowest unit rates and subject to the no censorship provisions.  For some reason, agencies in several states have tried to convince broadcasters that, as long as a spot has a sponsorship identification at the end (and, for television, a textual sponsorship identification 4% of screen height for 4 seconds), that spot is a "use."  But that is not correct.  A "use" requires that the recognizable voice or picture of a candidate be in the spot - and that is true even for spots for state and local candidates.  Some advertisers may be confused by the change in Federal laws (now itself almost a decade old) that required that Federal candidates identify themselves in their ads and personally state that they approved the message of the ad,  Perhaps some of the advertisers think that, because the law for Federal candidate is so detailed, and because it does not specifically cover state candidates (though several state laws now have imposed the same obligation on state and local candidates in their states), there is no requirement at all for state and local candidates to appear in their ads.  But they are not correct - for a spot to be a use, a candidate him or herself must have a recognizable voice or image in that ad.

While it is not illegal for a station to run a state or local candidate's ad when the ad does not have a candidates voice in it, there are important ramifications for the station if the spot is not a "use".  First, without the candidate's voice or picture, the ad is not entitled to lowest unit rates.  There has been some controversy, not settled by the Federal Election Commission and perhaps subject to interpretations under state election commission rules, about whether a station that charges a candidate lowest unit rates for a spot not entitled to such rates may be making a corporate campaign contribution to that candidate, which is prohibited under Federal law and in most states.  Most importantly for the stations, if the spot does not have the candidates voice or picture in it, the spot is not covered by the 'No censorship" provision of Section 315 of the Communications Act.  That provision prohibits a station from rejecting a candidate's ad based on its content.  But, because the station can't reject the ad based on its content, the station has no liability for the contents of the ad.  Conversely, if the ad does not have the appearance by the candidate in it, then the station is free to reject it based on its content, and thus the station could theoretically have liability for the content of the ad.  As we approach a heated election season where stations don't want the obligation to check the veracity of every claim made by one candidate about an opposing candidate in an attack ad, stations should be careful to insure that spots purchased by candidates are in fact uses, containing the recognizable voice or picture of the candidate - even for state and local candidates. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the last few weeks, I've been asked several times by broadcasters whether an ad should be considered an "issue ad."   Usually, the ad in question deals with some sort of faintly controversial issue, and the broadcaster seems torn about how to classify the ad.   In many ways, the answer is almost irrelevant as, other than some public file obligations, whether or not an ad is an issue ad has little practical significance.  Issue ads are not entitled to special rates - lowest unit rates are reserved for candidate ads.  They are not entitled to special placement in broadcast schedules.  As there is no Fairness Doctrine, there isn't even a requirement that you treat both sides of an issue in the same fashion (except perhaps, where a Fairness obligation may still arise if the issue being discussed is a candidate in an election, when the last remnant of Fairness, the Zapple Doctrine, has not officially been declared dead).  So why worry about whether or not something is an issue ad?

The principal reason is the public file. Commission rules require that the sponsor of an issue ad be identified in a broadcaster's public file, along with the sponsor's principal officers or directors.  This is required for any ad dealing with a controversial issue of public importance.  The ad does not need to deal with a political issue, or one to be considered by a government body.  Any controversial issue of public importance merits the public file treatment.  For ads dealing with a "federal issue", one to be considered by the US Congress, any Federal administrative agency or any other branch of the United States government, additional disclosures need to be made in the file (which we have listed before), setting out all the information that you would need to provide with respect to a candidate ad - including the price paid for the ad and the schedule on which the ad will run. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 27, 2010, David Oxenford spoke to the Vermont Association of Broadcasters annual meeting in Montpelier, updating the broadcasters on Washington events of importance, and discussing the FCC's political broadcasting rules.  A copy of Dave's PowerPoint on issues of importance to broadcasters will be posted here soon.  Broadcasters may want to refer to Davis Wright Tremaine's Political Broadcasting Guide for a discussion of the political broadcasting issues that may arise in this election season.  One of the political broadcasting issues that was discussed in detail was the issue of what a station should do when faced with a political ad that comes from a third party, attacking a political candidate, and the candidate tells the station that the ad is untrue and, if it continues to run on the air, it may subject the station to liability.

This issue may be coming up more in the coming months.  The recent Citizens United case signals the potential for more campaign spending by corporations and labor unions. This money would be spent directly by these organizations, not contributed to the candidates, as the case did not loosen the limits on corporate contributions directly to candidate’s campaign committees. Thus, as the ads will not come from candidates, they will not be subject to the “no censorship” rule that applies only to candidate ads. Because the no censorship rules prevent a broadcast station from rejecting a candidate’s ad based on its content, stations are protected from any liability for the content of those candidate ads. In contrast, broadcasters are free to reject ads from corporations, labor unions, or other non-candidate groups. Because they can choose whether or not to accept such ads, they can technically be held liable for the contents of those ads, should the ad be defamatory or otherwise contain legally actionable material. This should not be new to broadcasters as, even before Citizens United, stations were often faced with complaints from candidates about ads from third party interest groups (like the political parties' campaign committees, or so-called 527 groups like MoveOn.org) that were permitted to advertise even before the recent decision. Most broadcasters want to be able to accept these advocacy ads from non-candidate groups, but they also want to avoid potential liability. What is a station to do when it receives such an ad, or when an ad is already running and a candidate complains about its contents?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The DISCLOSE Act recently passed the Committee in the House of Representatives charged with dealing with it, without many of the provisions that most worried broadcasters and cable companies.  We recently wrote about the DISCLOSE Act legislation proposed in both the House and Senate in response to the Citizens United Supreme Court case (which freed corporations and labor unions to spend money during political campaigns to explicitly support or oppose the election of particular candidates).  When introduced, in addition to provisions mandating new disclosure requirements for corporations, labor unions and other third parties who decide to run political ads, the legislation had a section expanding the requirements for lowest unit rates and reasonable access - extending these rights to political parties (as opposed to being limited to the candidate's own campaign committees, who are the only ones eligible under current law) and mandating advertising rates even lower than the current lowest unit charges in certain circumstances.  That section of the original bill also required that the FCC conduct audits of broadcasters' compliance with the political rules, and seemingly expanded the FCC political advertising obligations of cable systems.  The House of Representatives Committee on Administration this week approved the bill, sending it on to the full House for consideration.  The DISCLOSE Act's sponsors want to have the bill approved and in place by July 4th so that it will have an impact on the November elections.  The approval without these provisions, which may well have caused broadcasters and other media companies to come out in opposition to the bill and delayed its passage, signals that the Act may in fact move on the rapid timeline that its sponsors envision.

Of course, this is not the end of the story.  The Senate still has to consider the bill in committee, and the full House and the full Senate have to vote on the legislation before it is adopted.  At any point, amendments can be offered that could have the impact of returning some of these provisions of concern.  But, at least for now, while imposing some additional disclosure requirements on political advertisers, the House version of the legislation is much more palatable to the broadcasting community.  But watch this bill as it progresses through Congress in the coming month to see what else may develop. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In reaction to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision invalidating restrictions on corporate spending on advertising and other messages explicitly endorsing or attacking political candidates (about which we wrote here), new legislation, called the DISCLOSE Act,  has just been introduced in both houses of Congress seeking to mitigate the perceived impact of the Court's decision.  While the announced goal of the legislation is aimed at disclosure of the individuals and companies who are trying to impact the political process, the draft legislation, if adopted would have significant impact on broadcasters and cable companies, including potentially extending lowest unit rates and reasonable access to Federal political party's campaign committees (and not just the candidates themselves).  The draft legislation also proposes lower Lowest Unit Rates in political races where there are significant independent expenditures, more disclosure by broadcasters through an on-line political file, and even mandates for audits by the FCC of the rates charged by television stations to political candidates.  The language could also be read as an expansion of the current applicability of the political rules to cable television - applying reasonable access to cable systems and lowest unit rates and equal opportunities to cable networks.  As Congressional leaders are proposing to move this legislation quickly (with votes before July 4) so that it can be in place for the coming Congressional elections, broadcasters and cable companies need to carefully consider the proposals so that they can be discussed with their Congressional representatives before the bills are voted on by Congress.

While much of the bill is intended to force disclosure of those sponsoring ads and otherwise trying to influence the political process, the portions of the bill that amend provisions of the Communications Act include the following:

• An extension of Reasonable Access to require that broadcasters give reasonable access not just to Federal political candidates, but also to Federal political parties and their campaign committees.  In recent years where the Democratic and Republican Congressional Campaign Committees have been big buyers of broadcast time.  The extension of reasonable access to these groups could put even greater demands on broadcast advertising time on stations in markets with hot races, as stations could not refuse to provide access to "all classes of time and all dayparts", as required by the reasonable access rules.  This could crowd out other advertisers, and even make it harder for ads for state elections (as state and local candidates have no reasonable access rights) in states where there are hotly contested races.
• Extends the Reasonable Access requirements to require reasonable access to "reasonable amounts of time purchased at lowest unit rates."  The purpose of this change is not clear, as all political time must be sold to candidates at lowest unit rates in the 60 days before a general election and the 45 days before a primary. 
• Extends the requirement for Lowest Unit Rates to Federal political parties and their campaign committees.  Currently, the lowest unit charges apply only to the candidate's campaign committees, not to political parties.  Under the proposed language, LUC rates would also apply to the parties, and to groups like the Republican and Democratic National Campaign Committees
• Extends the "no censorship" provisions to Federal political parties and their campaign committees.  This change may be a positive for broadcasters.  As we have written before, a broadcast station cannot censor a candidate's ad.  But, as they have no power to reject a candidate's ad based on its contents, they have no liability should that ad contain material that could potentially be defamatory or otherwise subject the station to liability.  This proposed language would extend the no censorship rule to cover ads from Federal political parties, so that stations would not have liability for those ads either.  As many of the hardest hitting attack ads often come from these committees, if this legislation were to pass, stations would not have to worry about evaluating the truth or falsity of the committee's ads, as they would have no liability for the contents of the ads as they would be forbidden by law from rejecting the ads based on their contents.
• Provides for a lower Lowest Unit Rate in races where there are independent expenditures by any group of more than $50,000.  If a corporation or other group spends $50,000 in any political race, then all stations would be required to charge all candidates in the race the lowest charge made for "the same amount of time in the last 180 days" - not just the lowest charge for the same class of time as is then currently running on the station.  First, this would force stations to look back 6 months to determine their lowest unit rates.  For a primary election in June or July, rates in the doldrums of January or February could set the June political rates.  Moreover, the legislation does not state that it would look at the lowest rate for the same "class" of time over the previous 180 days, but instead it talks only about the same "amount" of time.  It is unclear if this is an intentional attempt to make stations sell prime time spots at overnight rates, but the current language of the bill seems to avoid the traditional distinctions on spots being sold based on their class.
• Forbids the preemption of advertising by a legally qualified candidate or national committee except for unforeseen circumstances.  This provision may well be intended to force stations to sell candidates advertising at their lowest nonpreemptible rates, and then treat the spots as they would much more expensive non-preemptible fixed position spots
• Requires the FCC to conduct random audits during the 45 days before a primary and the 60 days before a general election.  Audits would have to be conducted as follows: 
  • 6 of the Top 50 TV markets
  • 3 of the markets 51-100
  • 3 of the markets rates 101-150
  • 3 markets below 150
  • Audits would be required of the 3 largest networks, 1 independent TV network, 1 cable network, 1 provider of satellite services, and 1 radio network.  The language here, too, seems odd, as the requirements for audits are for "networks" of broadcast, cable and radio stations, not for local operators, and for an "independent television network" which would seem to be an inherently contradictory term - if a station is truly an independent, it is not affiliated with a network, so how can the FCC audit an "independent television network"?  It is unclear of whether this provision is requiring audits of the networks themselves, or of affiliates of the networks in the markets in which audits must be conducted. 
• Requirements that stations keep on their website information about all requests for the purchase of broadcast time by candidates, political parties or other independent political groups. Right now, the rules specifically do not require that political files be kept online.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 16, David Oxenford spoke at a Continuing Legal Education Seminar on the FCC’s Political Broadcasting rules. The panel, sponsored by the Federal Communications Bar Association, included another attorney in private practice, an attorney from the NAB, Bobby Baker (the head of the FCC’s Political Broadcasting office), and a media time buyer for political candidates. The panel not only discussed the basic rules governing political advertising on broadcast stations, but also dealt with topics including the impact of the Citizen’s United case on FCC rules (see our post here on that topic), issues of what to do if a political spot contains objectionable content, and how stations should deal with complaints from candidates about the content of political ads. Many of these topics and others are discussed in the Davis Wright Tremaine Political Broadcasting Guide, available here.  The discussion also provided a useful reminder on certain aspects of the law regarding how much broadcast stations can charge political candidates for the purchase of advertising time on broadcast stations.

At the session, the political time buyer complained that broadcast stations were trying to charge political candidates premium prices for purchases of advertising time outside the “political window.” During the window, 45 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election, stations are required to charge candidates the “lowest unit rate” charged for any spot of the same class of time run on the broadcast station. Outside the window, broadcasters do not have to charge lowest unit rates but, as the buyer reminded the audience, they do still need to charge “comparable rates” to what the station charges advertisers for the same type of purchase. So, while candidates do not get volume discounts without buying in volume (as they do during the window), if they do buy in the required volume, they should get the same discount that other advertisers get. Stations should not “mark up” the rates charged to political candidates outside of the window.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On February, 18, 2010, David Oxenford conducted a seminar for the Utah Broadcasters Association on legal issues that affect radio and television broadcasters.  First, David summarized the various broadcasting legal and policy issues pending before the FCC and Congress.  David's PowerPoint presentation is available here.  Broadcasters interested in Washington issues that may affect them this year may also want to read our blog post from early January where we presented our legal predictions for 2010.

David then conducted a refresher course on political broadcasting issues that may arise in this election year.  His PowerPoint on political issues for broadcasters can be viewed here.  Broadcasters wanting more information on the FCC's political broadcasting rules and policies should review the Davis Wright Tremaine Political Broadcasting Guide.  A discussion of the issues for broadcasters raised by the recent Citizen's United case is available here.

Finally, David discussed recent developments in enforcement of the FCC's EEO policies.  The PowerPoint used in this session can be seen here .  Our Advisory on EEO rules and policies is available here, with forms and recordkeeping suggestions attached to that memo.  Our most recent EEO Public Inspection File Report advisory, with a model report attached, is available here.  Finally, our description of one of the recent FCC fines for noncompliance with the EEO policies is available here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York Times just ran an article on the number of radio and television commentators who are also potential political candidates, speculating on whether the appearance of these candidates on TV and cable talk shows, and on radio programs, give them an advantage in their future political careers.  That perceived TV bump might be most in the news in the potential candidacy of Harold Ford in the Democratic Senate primary in New York, with his appearances on MSNBC (and this past weekend on Meet the Press on NBC, where he was part of a panel to talk about the week's news, and was then asked about his future political plans).  But it is also evident in the almost daily parade of potential candidates on radio, TV and cable talk programs.  So, one might ask, what are the FCC implications of these appearances?

The week before last, we wrote on this question, in connection with on-air radio or TV performers who actually become candidates, and how a broadcast station should deal with those candidates and the equal opportunities obligations to opposing candidates that arise when these employee-candidates appear on the air.  But the question of when the equal opportunities obligations arise is one that we only touched on.  Under the FCC's interpretation of the Section 315 of the Communications Act, the equal opportunities obligations arise once you have a legally qualified candidate - one who fulfills all of the obligations that a state imposes for securing a place on the ballot.  Usually, this involves the filing of certain papers, often with petitions signed by a specified number of registered voters, with a state's Secretary of State by a given deadline.  Once the requirements established by the state have been met, the candidate is legally qualified and equal opportunities attach to any on air appearances outside the context of an exempt program (see our post here about those appearances, principally in news and interview programs, which are exempt from equal opportunities). 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we enter the 2010 election season, questions are beginning to arise about broadcast station on-air employees who decide to run for political office, and what a station needs to do about such employees to avoid issues under the FCC political broadcasting rules.  For instance, in Arizona, talk show host (and former Congressman) JD Hayworth recently left his radio program and announced that he was planning to contest John McCain's reelection by challenging him in the Republican primary.  On a local level throughout the country, on-air station employees are deciding to throw their hats into the political ring.  And, whether that ring is a Federal office like the one that Mr. Hayworth is seeking, or a state or local elective position, whether it be Governor or member of the Board of Education or Water Commission, an announcer-candidate can mean equal time obligations under Section 315 of the Communications Act and under FCC rules for a broadcast station. 

We wrote about this issue last election cycle,here, and the rules have not changed. Once a candidate becomes "legally qualified" (i.e. he or she has established their right to a place on the ballot by filing the necessary papers), equal opportunities rights are available to the opposing candidates.  What this means is that, if the on-air broadcaster who is running for political office stays on the air, any opposing candidate can come to the station and demand equal opportunities within seven days of the date on which the on-air announcer/candidate was on the air, and the opponent would be entitled to the same amount of time in which they can broadcast a political message, to be run in the same general time period as the station employee/candidate was on the air.  So if your meteorologist decides to run for the city council, and he appears on the 6 o'clock news for 3 minutes each night doing the weather, an opposing city council candidate can get up to 21 minutes of time (3 minutes for each of the last 7 days), and that opposing candidate does not need to read the weather, but can do a full political message.  So what is a station to do when an on-air employee decides to run for office?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, freeing corporations to use their corporate funds to take explicit positions on political campaigns, has been mostly analyzed by broadcast trade publications as a good thing - creating one more class of potential buyers for broadcaster's advertising time during the political season - which seems to almost be nonstop in these days of intense partisan battles in Washington and in the statehouses throughout the country.  What has not been addressed are the potential legal issues that this "third party" money may pose for broadcasters during the course of political campaigns.  Not only will an influx of money from non-candidate groups require that broadcasters review the contents of  more commercials to determine if the claims that they make are true, but it may also give rise to the return of the Zapple doctrine, one of the few remnants of the Fairness Doctrine never specifically repudiated by the FCC, but one which has not been actually applied in over a quarter of a century.  Public file obligations triggered by these ads also can not be overlooked. 

First, the need for broadcasters to vet the truth of allegations made in political ads sponsored by non-candidate advertisers.  As we have written before(see our post here), the political broadcasting rules enforced by the FCC allow broadcasters to run ads sponsored by the candidates themselves without fear of any liability for the claims made in those ads.  In fact, the Communications Act forbids a station from censoring a candidate ad.  Because the station cannot censor the candidate ad (except in the exceptionally rare situation where the airing of the ad might violate a Federal felony statute), the broadcaster has no liability for the contents of the ad.  So candidates can say whatever they want about each other - they can even lie through their teeth - and the broadcaster need not fear any liability for defamation based on the contents of those ads.  This is not so for ads run by third parties - like PACs, Right to Life groups, labor unions, unincorporated associations like MoveOn.org and, after the Citizens United case, corporations. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

David Oxenford today conducted a webinar for the Kansas Association of Broadcasters on the rules for political advertising.  In addition to the elections for the US House of Representatives, Kansas has a race to fill a vacant US Senate seat, as well as elections for Governor and a whole host of state and local offices.  With an August primary and the November general election, the 2010 election season could be a busy one in the state.  David's presentation covered reasonable access, equal opportunities, lowest unit rates, FCC paperwork obligations and the other related issues that govern how broadcasters need to treat political candidates and other political advertisers.  The slides from David's presentation are available here.  Broadcasters should also refer to Davis Wright Tremaine's Political Broadcasting Guide for information about preparing for the upcoming campaign, and spotting legal issues that may arise during the election season.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Each year poses a new set of regulatory deadlines, and to help you remember all of those deadlines, the Davis Wright Tremaine Broadcast Group has prepared a calendar setting out the dates that broadcasters need to remember in 2010.  The calendar can be found here, and sets out FCC imposed deadlines for, among other things, Ownership Report filings (for noncommercial stations for now, until the status of the Form 323 for commercial stations is resolved), for quarterly issues programs lists, for EEO public file and Mid-Term reports, and for children's TV reports.   The calendar also provides reminders about the dates of SoundExchange filings and payment obligations, and for the political windows during which lowest unit rates apply for the Federal elections to be held in 2010 (for the House of Representatives in all states, and for the Senate in over a third of the states).  Lots of dates to remember - so check out the DWT Broadcasters Calendar.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Another year is upon us, and it’s time for predictions as to what Washington may have in store for broadcasters in 2010.  Each year, when we look at what might be coming, we are amazed at the number of issues that could affect the industry – often issues that are the same year to year as final decisions are often hard to come by in Washington with the interplay between the FCC and other government agencies, the courts and Congress. This year, as usual, we see a whole list of issues, many of which remain from prior years. But this year is different, as we have had a list topped by issues such as the suggestion that television spectrum be reallotted for wireless uses and the radio performance royalty, that could fundamentally affect the broadcast business.  The new administration at the FCC is only beginning to get down to business, having filling most of the decision-making positions at the Commission.  Thus far, its attention has been focused on broadband, working diligently to complete a report to Congress on plans for implementation of a national broadband plan, a report that is required to be issued in February.  But, from what little we have seen from the new Commission and its employees, there seems to be a willingness to reexamine many of the fundamental tenants of broadcasting.  And Congress is not shy about offering its own opinions on how to make broadcasting "better."  This willingness to reexamine some of the most fundamental tenets of broadcasting should make this a most interesting, and potentially frightening, year. Some of the issues to likely be facing television, radio and the broadcasting industry generally are set out below.

Television Issues.

In the television world, at this time last year, we were discussing the end of the digital television transition, and expressing the concern of broadcasters about the FCC’s White Spaces decision allowing unlicensed wireless devices into the television spectrum. While the White Spaces process still has not been finalized, that concern over the encroachment on the TV spectrum has taken a back seat to a far more fundamental issue of whether to repurpose large chunks of the television spectrum (if not the entire spectrum) for wireless users, while compressing television into an even smaller part of what’s left of the television band – if not migrating it altogether to multichannel providers like cable or satellite, with subscription fees for the poorest citizens being paid for from spectrum auction receipts. This proposal, while floated for years in academic circles, has in the last three months become one that is being legitimately debated in Washington, and one that television broadcasters have to take seriously, no matter how absurd it may seem at first glance. Who would have thought that just six month after the completion of the digital transition, when so much time and effort was expended to make sure that homes that receive free over-the-air television would not be adversely impacted by the digital transition, we could now be talking about abolishing free over-the-air television entirely? This cannot happen overnight, and it is a process sure to be resisted as broadcasters seek to protect their ability to roll out new digital multicast channels and their mobile platforms. But it is a real proposal which, if implemented, could fundamentally change the face of the television industry.  Watch for this debate to continue this year.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The 2010 political broadcasting season is off to a fast start, with a controversy already erupting in connection with the Illinois Senate race to fill the seat once held by President Obama.  Illinois has one of the first primaries in the nation for the 2010 election, to be held on February 2, 2010.  In that race, Andy Martin, one of the Republican candidates for the open Senate seat that will be vacated by Senator Burris, is reportedly running ads on radio in Illinois stating that the front-runner for the Republican nomination, Mark Kirk, is rumored to be gay, and has many gay staffers, and asking that Kirk clear up questions about his sexuality.  Many stations in Illinois have expressed concern about running an ad from a fringe candidate in the race that makes such a controversial allegation.  Stations that are concerned need to remember that an ad by a legally qualified candidate cannot be censored once a station has agreed to sell time to the candidate.  As we've written previously, if the attacking candidate is legally qualified for a place on the primary ballot, as news reports indicate that he is in the Illinois case, then stations cannot censor that ad - and have to run it with these attacks on the front-running candidate, even if the stations do not like the message. 

The Chicago Tribune story about this controversy quotes me as stating that stations can censor a candidate ad if the ad violates a Federal felony statute.  That caveat was added to FCC policy when it was feared that Larry Flint was going to run for Federal political office and run campaign ads that might test the limits of obscenity laws.  More importantly, however, stations should recognize that, because they cannot censor an ad by a candidate's authorized campaign, the station itself has no liability for the contents of that ad.  The candidate may be sued for libel or defamation (which has occurred in other cases), but the station itself should be immune from liability as it has no choice but to run the ad or violate Federal election laws.  Stations do, however, have the ability to put disclaimers on ads - stating that they are political messages that cannot be censored and do not necessarily reflect the views of the station, but these disclaimers should be applied to all candidates for the same race equally.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The 2010 political broadcasting season is almost upon us, with Texas leading the way.  With the first 2010 primaries on March 2, candidates in Texas are already in windows during which they need to file the paperwork to qualify for a place on the primary ballot.  Once they qualify for that ballot spot, they become "legally qualified candidates" in the eyes of the FCC, triggering reasonable access (for Federal candidates) and equal opportunities requirements.  Soon after, broadcast stations in Texas need to start according lowest unit rates to candidates (Federal, state and local) in the primary - such rates to start on January 16.  To help broadcasters prepare for the primary and the rest of the election season, David Oxenford and Bobby Baker, the head of the FCC's Office of Political Programming, conducted a webinar for the Texas Association of Broadcasters on December 2, 2009, originating from the TAB offices in Austin.  The PowerPoint slides used in the presentation is available here.  The Davis Wright Tremaine Political Broadcasting Guide that forms that basis of the TAB's political guide can be found here.

Texas will have an unusually active political season, with a primary election for Governor, where the State's sitting Governor's re-election is being challenged in his own party by one of the state's US Senators.  Races for the Texas State legislature will also likely be a hotbed of activity as the state will be electing the legislators who preside over Congressional redistricting after the 2010 census - a process that was particularly controversial in Texas after the last census.  Given the likely level of activity, broadcasters in Texas need to immediately start planning for the 2010 election and the obligations that it imposes on broadcasters.   And broadcasters in the rest of the country should similarly be preparing, as these same issues will be arising for them very soon, and advertising sold now could well have an impact on their political rates later in 2010 (see information about the webinar that David and Bobby conducted for 13 other state broadcast associations here). 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 10, Davis Wright Tremaine's David Oxenford and Bobby Baker, the head of the FCC's Office of Political Broadcasting, conducted a webinar on the FCC's political broadcasting rules and policies.  The webinar originated from Lansing, Michigan, before an audience of Michigan Broadcasters, and was webcast to broadcasters in 13 other states.  Topics discussed included reasonable access, equal opportunities, lowest unit charges, and political sponsorship identification and public file rules. 

Seminar participants were provided with Davis Wright Tremaine's Political Broadcasting Guide, available here.  The PowerPoint presentation used in the seminar is available here.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FCC today asked for public comments on the petition of the MusicFirst Coalition asking the Commission to take action against broadcast stations who did not fairly address on air the proposed sound recording public performance royalty for terrestrial radio.  The Petition, about which we wrote here, alleges, with very few specifics, that some radio stations have taken adverse actions against musical artists who have spoken out in support of the royalty, and also that stations have refused to run ads supporting the performance royalty while running their own ads opposing the royalty (opposing ads which MusicFirst claims contain false statements).  MusicFirst submits that these actions are contrary to the public interest.  The FCC has asked for comment on specific issues raised in the Petition.  Comments are to be filed by September 8, and Replies on September 23.  

The specific questions on which the FCC seeks comment are as follows:

(i)      whether and to what extent certain broadcasters are “targeting and threatening artists who have spoken out in favor of the PRA, including a refusal to air the music of such artists";

(ii)    the effects of radio broadcasters’ alleged refusal to air advertisements from MusicFIRST in support of the PRA;

(iii)   whether and to what extent broadcasters are engaging in a media campaign, coordinated by NAB, which disseminates falsities about the PRA; and

(iv) whether certain broadcasters have evaded the public file requirements by characterizing their on-air spots in opposition to the PRA as public service announcements.

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A story in today's Wall Street Journal discusses the significant amount of money being spent on television advertising for and against pending proposals for health care reform.  As we have written before, broadcasters are required to keep in their public file information about advertising dealing with Federal issues - records as detailed as those kept for political candidates.  Information in the file should include not only the sponsor of the ad, but also when the spots are scheduled to run (and, after the fact, when they did in fact run), the class of time purchased, and the price paid for the advertising.  Clearly, the health care issue is a Federal issue, as it is being considered by the US Congress in Washington.  So remember to keep your public file up to date with this required information. 

Section 315 of the Communications Act deals with these issues, stating that these records must be kept for any request to purchase time on a "political matter of national importance", which is defined as any matter relating to a candidate or Federal election or "a national legislative issue of public importance."  Clearly, health care would fit in that definition.  The specific information to be kept in the file includes:

• If the request to purchase time is accepted or rejected
• Dates on which the ad is run
• The rates charged by the station
• Class of time purchased
• The issue to which the ad refers
• The name of the purchaser of the advertising time including:
  • The name, address and phone number of a contact person
  • A list of the chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or board of directors of the sponsoring organization.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With much of the media world celebrating the life of Walter Cronkite this weekend, we have to wonder what he would have thought about press reports that the FCC is considering the commencement of a proceeding to investigate the status of broadcast journalism - assessing its quality, determining whether the Internet and other new sources are making up for any quality that is lost, and potentially deciding to mandate specific amounts of news coverage by broadcast stations. That surprising story about a planned FCC Notice of Inquiry on the state of broadcast journalism was reported in an an online report picked up by the broadcast trade press last week.  And even if that story is not true, concerns about the government's intrusion into a broadcaster's coverage of controversial issues arise from the recent Congressional committee action voting down a bill that would ban the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.  In what should have been a symbolic embrace of the First Amendment (symbolic as, in the last 6 weeks, four of the FCC Commissioners or Commissioners-to-be disavowed any interest in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in their confirmation hearings ), the defeat of the bill raises questions as to whether someone has an agenda to resurrect the government's role in assessing broadcast media coverage of controversial issues.  In reading one of the many stories of the life of Cronkite (here, at page 3), we were stuck with the contrast between these actions, and the actions of Mr. Cronkite to address controversial issues - regardless of the FCC implications.  One anecdote related his questioning of John Kennedy about his religion when Kennedy thought that topic off limits, even in light of the potential president's veiled threat that, when he took office, he would be appointing the FCC who would be regulating CBS.  Do we really want the FCC to have that power to assess what journalism is good, or what opinions each station must air to ensure "fairness"?

In reviewing the many FCC Fairness Doctrine claims that CBS faced in the Cronkite era, we are struck with the amount of time and money that must have been spent in defending its coverage against critics from both the right and the left.  We also found one particularly relevant quote from Mr. Cronkite himself: 

That brings me to what I consider the greatest threat to freedom of information: the Government licensing of broadcasting. Broadcast news today is not free. Because it is operated by an industry that is beholden to the Government for its right to exist, its freedom has been curtailed by fiat, by assumption, and by intimidation and harassment. 

 

 In the last 20 years, since Mr. Cronkite's retirement as the CBS anchor, the FCC has steadily moved away from the role that he feared.  Yet with these recent actions, one wonders if there are some in government now trying to prove Mr. Cronkite's concerns correct.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We’re not even in what most would consider election season - except for the two states with off-year governor’s contests and those other states with various state and municipal elections. Yet political ads are running on broadcast stations across the country.  Republican groups have announced plans to run ads attacking certain Democratic Congressmen who are perceived as vulnerable, while certain Democratic interest groups have run ads about the positions of Republicans on the Obama stimulus package and the President’s proposed budget.   In addition to these ads targeting specific potential candidates, there are issue ads running across the country on various issues pending before Congress, or likely to be considered by Congress in the near term. These ads often have a tag line “write or call your Congressman and tell him to vote No” on whatever bill is being discussed. While these are not ads for political candidates that require lowest unit rates or specific equal opportunities, they do give rise to political file issues.  Stations need to remember to observe these requirements and put the required information into their public file to avoid FCC issues.

Under provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, when a station runs an ad addressing a “Federal issue”, the station must keep in its public file essentially all the same information about the ad that it would maintain for a candidate ad. The station must identify the spot and the schedule that its sponsor has purchased, the identify of the sponsor (name, address and list of principal executive officers or directors), the class of time purchased, and the price paid for the ads.  Federal issues are ones that deal with a Federal election or with any issue to be considered by Congress or any Federal government agency.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, we wrote about how the Fairness Doctrine was applied before it was declared unconstitutional by the FCC in the late 1980s. When we wrote that entry, it seemed as if the whole battle over whether or not it would be reinstated was a tempest in a teapot. Conservative commentators were fretting over the re-imposition, while liberals were complaining that the conservatives were making up issues. But what a difference a week makes.

Perhaps it is the verbal jousting that is going on between the political parties over the influence of Rush Limbaugh that has reignited the talk of the return of the Doctrine, but this week it has surprisingly been back on the front burner  – in force. Senator Debbie Stabenow from Michigan said on a radio show that the positions taken by talk radio were unfair and unbalanced and that “fairness” shouldn’t be too much to ask (listen to her on-air remarks) . When prompted by the host as to whether there would be Congressional hearings or legislation, the Senator said that it would certainly be something that Congress would consider.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Share Link

While it seems like we just finished the election season, it seems like there is always an election somewhere.  We are still getting calls about municipal and other state and local elections that are underway.  And broadcasters need to remember that these elections, like the Federal elections that we've just been through, are subject to the FCC's equal time (or "equal opportunities") rule.  The requirement that lowest unit rates be applied in the 45 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election also apply to these elections.  "Reasonable access," however, does not apply to state and local candidates - meaning that stations can refuse to take advertising for state and local elections (unlike for Federal elections where candidates must be given the right to buy spots in all classes and dayparts on a station), as long as all candidates for the same office are treated in the same way. So stations can take ads for State Senate candidates, and refuse to take ads for city council, or restrict those ads to overnight hours, as long as all candidates who are running against each other are treated in the same way.

One issue that arises surprisingly often is the issue of the station employee who runs for local office.  An employee who appears on the air, and who decides to become a candidate for public office, will give rise to a station obligation to give equal opportunities to other candidates for that same office - free time equal to the amount of time that the employee's recognizable voice or likeness appeared on the air.  While a station can take the employee off the air to avoid obligations for equal opportunities, there are other options for a station.  See our post here on some of those options.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

Since the election of President Obama and the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, the fears of the return of the Fairness Doctrine have been highlighted on talk radio, online, by emails and in conversations throughout the broadcast industry.  Even though President Obama had stated that he was not in favor of its return, and even liberal commentators have gone so far as to make fun of conservatives for suggesting that there might be an attempt to bring it back (see our post on Keith Olbermann lambasting George Will for making such a suggestion).  Yet this week the doctrine was back into the national discussion, coming up in a press conference with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (who joked it off without dismissing the rumors) and in a speech by FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell.  What's all the fuss about anyway?

To really understand the debate, it's important to understand what the Fairness Doctrine is and what it is not.  We've seen many politicians referring to the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Rule in the same sentence, as if they are part and parcel of the same thing. In fact, they are different issues.  Essentially, the Fairness Doctrine simply required that stations provide balanced coverage of controversial issues of public importance.  The Fairness Doctrine never required "equal time" in the sense of strict equality for each side of an issue on a minute for minute basis.  In talk programs and news coverage, a station just had to make sure that both points of view were presented in such a way that the listener would get exposure to them.  How that was done was in a station's discretion, and the FCC intervened in only the most egregious cases.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

2009 - a new year, and a whole new cycle of regulatory requirements.  We wrote last week about the potential for changes in regulations that may be forthcoming but, like death and taxes, there are certain regulatory dates each year that broadcasters need to note and certain deadlines that must be met.  Those dates are set out in our advisory - Important Dates For Broadcasters in 2009 - a calendar of the year's regulatory filings.  Dates include the deadlines for routine FCC filings - ownership reports, children's television reports, quarterly issues programs lists, EEO Public File reports, etc.  Dates for the payment of royalties for Internet radio streaming operations are also included, as well as the lowest unit rate windows for upcoming gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia.  And the all-important DTV deadlines are also listed.  So, to keep track of your regulatory obligations, check out our broadcaster's calendar, here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Come the New Year, we all engage in speculation about what’s ahead in our chosen fields, so it’s time for us to look into our crystal ball to try to discern what Washington may have in store for broadcasters in 2009. With each new year, a new set of regulatory issues face the broadcaster from the powers-that-be in Washington. But this year, with a new Presidential administration, new chairs of the Congressional committees that regulate broadcasters, and with a new FCC on the way, the potential regulatory challenges may cause the broadcaster to look at the new year with more trepidation than usual. In a year when the digital television transition finally becomes a reality, and with a troubled economy and no election or Olympic dollars to ease the downturn, who wants to deal with new regulatory obstacles? Yet, there are potential changes that could affect virtually all phases of the broadcast operations for both radio and television stations – technical, programming, sales, and even the use of music – all of which may have a direct impact on a station’s bottom line that can’t be ignored. 

With the digital conversion, one would think that television broadcasters have all the technical issues that they need for 2009. But the FCC’s recent adoption of its “White Spaces” order, authorizing the operation of unlicensed wireless devices on the TV channels, insures that there will be other issues to watch. The White Spaces decision will likely be appealed. While the appeal is going on, the FCC will have to work on the details of the order’s implementation, including approving operators of the database that is supposed to list all the stations that the new wireless devices will have to protect, as well as “type accepting” the devices themselves, essentially certifying that the devices can do what their backers claim – knowing where they are through the use of geolocation technology, “sniffing” out signals to protect, and communicating with the database to avoid interference with local television, land mobile radio, and wireless microphone signals.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In a Sunday column, George Will revisited conservative commentators' biggest fear - the return of the Fairness Doctrine.  Will went into depth on the history of the doctrine, the growth in the number of broadcast outlets in recent years, and growth in talk programming since the doctrine was abolished, all to argue against its reimposition.  This column prompted a response on MSNBC's Countdown Program the next day, ranking Will third on Keith Olbermann's Worst Person's segment - not for Will's argument against the return of the Fairness Doctrine, but for his even bringing up the issue of the possible return of the Doctrine.  Olbermann in effect accused Will of inciting unfounded fears of the doctrine's return, citing President-elect Obama's statement that he did not favor its return, and claiming that the Democrats in Congress otherwise were not pushing for its reimposition.  So what's the truth here?

As always, the truth always seems to lie somewhere in between these two extreme points of view.  The President-elect has indeed stated that he did not favor the return of the Fairness Doctrine and, while there have been no major efforts to reinstate the Doctrine yet announced, there is a proposal in almost every Congress for its return (see, for instance, our post on Congressman Kucinich's proposal to reimpose the Doctrine made two years ago and another post about the suggestion in support of its return made by Congressman Dingell six months later).  Other Congressional statements have also not ruled out an effort to bring it back, including a statement by Senator Schumer  of New York who, when asked about the Doctrine, asked: who could be against Fairness?  While we won't see the Doctrine return in what little is left of this year, who knows what efforts could be made next year to try to resurrect it - though the changes in the media landscape since the FCC declared the doctrine unconstitutional, as outlined by Will and about which we have written before, would seem to make its justification almost impossible on constitutional grounds (e.g. there is seemingly little scarcity that would justify the rule applying only to broadcasters and not any other medium).  But a simple matter of probable unconstitutionality has never stopped Congress from considering legislation before, so who knows what we might see considered this year - though, as Olbermann and Will's comments demonstrate, it seems as if neither end of the political spectrum really want the Doctrine to return.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Share Link

Last week, President-elect Barack Obama delivered his first weekly radio address since he was elected President.  The broadcast made news, not only for its content, but also because it was streamed on the Internet, particularly on You Tube, but also retransmitted on many other websites.  The fact that the Internet makes such transmissions not only possible, but so easy and so widely available demonstrates one of many reasons why all the worry about the return of the Fairness Doctrine is unwarranted.  With access to so many diverse opinions not only on the radio but also through all of the new technologies, why should the government care that one radio station may not cover all sides of a controversial issue?  If one station does not put on a strongly held viewpoint on an important issue, you can bet that someone who holds that viewpoint will find some way to transmit it to others. 

The return of the Fairness Doctrine has been the great invisible monster in the room since the election - with many commentators, particularly conservative ones, worrying that the Democratic Congress will attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.  Off-hand comments such as those made by Senator Schumer on Fox News, have fueled this speculation, even though the Obama campaign has specifically rejected such a return.  The Fairness Doctrine is one grounded in scarcity of the electronic spectrum - from the fear that if one side of an issue was allowed to dominate one of the few means of communicating with the population of a community, it would effectively be able to stifle the ability of those with contrasting viewpoints to get their message out.   But, to use a phrase that is becoming increasingly popular - that thinking is so 20th Century.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

The FCC Equal Time rule (or more properly the "equal opportunities" doctrine) requires that, when a broadcast stations gives one candidate airtime outside of an "exempt program" (essentially news or news interview programs, see our explanation here), it must give the opposing candidate equal time if that opposing candidate requests the time within 7 days of the first candidate's use.  Cable systems are also subject the requirement for local origination programming, and many have surmised that, faced with the proper case, the FCC would determine that cable networks are also likely to be covered by the doctrine.  While the FCC has extended the concept of an exempt program to cover all sorts of interview format programs, allowing Oprah, The View, Leno and Letterman and the Daily Show to have candidates on the air without the fear of equal time obligations, the rule still theoretically applies to scripted programming.  Yet in this election, we have seen candidates appear on scripted programs repeatedly, seemingly without fear of the equal time obligations.  Early in the election season, cable networks ran Law and Order with Fred Thompson without any equal time claims being made.  All through the election, candidates seem to have made themselves at home on Saturday Night Live, culminating with Senator McCain's appearances on the SNL programs on Saturday Night and the SNL special run on election eve.  Yet through it all, stations have not seemed reluctant to run these programs, and candidates have not seemed to show any interest in requesting any equal time that may be due to them.  This seems to raise the question as to whether there remains any vitality to the equal opportunities doctrine.

This is not just a case of candidates deciding not to appear on a program that they don't like because they don't want to appear in a program with that particular format, as the equal time rules free the candidates from format restrictions.  Thus, had Senator Obama sought equal time for McCain's appearances on SNL, he would have been entitled to an amount of time equal to the amount of time that McCain appeared on camera, and Obama could have used that time for any purpose that he wanted, including a straight campaign pitch.  He would not have had to appear in an SNL skit just to get that time.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

A Canadian radio station has apparently pulled off an amazing stunt that would have prompted an FCC fine if it had been done by a US radio station - calling Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and engaging her in an on-air conversation under the premise that she was talking to French President Nicholas Sarkozy.  A recording of the purported conversation can be found here.  Had this been done in the US, the radio station would have been fined by the FCC as, under US law, you cannot air a telephone conversation on a broadcast station without first getting the permission of the person at the other end of the line - even if the person just says "hello" before being informed that they are on the air, and even if they are a public official.

The FCC rules were made clear in a recent decision of the FCC, fining a station $4000 for failing to inform two people who worked for a local airport that they were on the air when a station called to ask about certain policies concerning taxis at the airport.  The station argued that the people being interviewed were public officials and that the conversation was newsworthy, but the FCC denied that argument finding that there was no exception in the required notice provisions of Section 73.1206 of the FCC rules for conversations with public officials.  No matter who you are calling, they must give permission before their voice is placed on the air.  The Commission also indicated that even putting the receptionist on the air when she said "hello" and said that she would connect the call to the person that the station's on-air host was trying to reach would have been a violation had the receptionist complained and confirmed that no consent had been given to the airing of her voice.  Thus, the FCC rules are clear - you must get permission to air a call before the person at the other end of the line even says hello.  Thus, surprise calls are out in the US, so stations can't have as much fun or break news in the way that this Canadian station did. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

In two races for the US Senate, candidates have filed defamation lawsuits against their opponents charging that attack ads go over the line from political argument to actionable falsehoods.  However these suits ultimately play out, they demonstrate the premise that we've written about before, that broadcast stations are prohibited by FCC rules and the Communications Act from censoring the content of a candidate's ad, and because they cannot censor the content of a candidate's ad (or refuse to run a candidate's ad because of the content of that ad), stations are immune from liability that might otherwise arise from that content.  But the candidates being attacked can sue their opponents for the contents of those ads, and that is just what has happened in the North Carolina and Minnesota Senate races.

In North Carolina, according to press reports, Democratic candidate Kay Hagan has filed suit against the campaign of Elizabeth Dole for a commercial that accused Hagan of being associated with a group called Godless Americans - an ad ending with a woman's voice that some interpreted as being that of Hagan (when it was in fact not) saying "there is no God."  In Minnesota, Senator Norm Coleman has reportedly filed a lawsuit against Al Franken's campaign claiming that Franken campaign ads improperly claimed that Coleman was rated one of the four most corrupt Senators and that he was getting an improperly financed apartment in Washington DC. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As we enter the waning days of this election season, where some candidates get more desperate and the attack ads get sharper, broadcasters are often faced with requests that they pull an ad created by a candidate.  Claims are made that the ad contains untrue claims about an opponent or that the ad contains copyrighted material used without permission.  What is a station to do?  When the ad is an ad purchased by a candidate or their authorized committee, and contains a "use" by the purchasing candidate (a use being a spot where the purchasing candidate's voice or likeliness appears on the spot) the broadcaster is forbidden from censoring that ad.  Essentially, that means that the candidate can say just about anything in their ad (as long as it does not violate a Federal felony statute), and the FCC's rules prohibit the broadcaster from refusing to air the ad based on its content.  But, because the station cannot censor the ad, it has no liability for the contents of that ad.  This is in contrast to ads by third parties (e.g. advocacy groups, unions, political parties and others not specifically authorized by the candidate), where the broadcaster theoretically has liability for the content of a political ad (see our post on that subject, here).

Two recent cases illustrate the issue.  In one, according to press reports, in a race for the sole seat in the House of Representatives representing the state of North Dakota, one candidate has claimed that the ads of the other misrepresent the positions of that candidate.  The candidate being attacked has asked that the spots be pulled from the air, while the candidate running the spots has refused to pull them.  Even if requested by the candidate being attacked, and even if the ad is in fact false, broadcasters cannot pull one candidate's ad if that candidate wants to continue to run it.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Press Reports (such as this one) have stated that the Obama campaign has purchased half-hour blocks of time on at least NBC and CBS to broadcast a political infomercial to be aired at 8 PM Eastern time on October 29.  Some reports indicate that other broadcast and cable networks will also be broadcasting the same program.  Did the networks have to sell him the time?  In fact, they probably did.  Under FCC rules, Federal political candidates have a right of reasonable access to "all classes" of time sold by the station in all dayparts.  This includes a right to program length time, a right that was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals when the networks did not want to sell Jimmy Carter a program length commercial to announce the launch of his reelection bid.  Because of this right, the networks often had to sell Lyndon LaRouche half hour blocks of time to promote his perennial candidacy for President. 

How often do networks (or stations) have to make such time available?  They only have the right to be "reasonable." While what is reasonable has not been defined, the amount of time that will be requested will probably be limited by the cost of such time.  Even were it not limited by cost, the FCC would probably not require that a broadcaster sell such a prime time block more than once or twice during the course of an election - and given the late stage that we are in the current election, it seems unlikely that more than one such request would have to be honored during these last few weeks of the campaign.  Stations do not need to give candidates the exact time that they requested - so the rumored reluctance of Fox to sell this precise time to the Obama campaign because it might conflict with the World Series would probably be reasonable - if they offered him the opportunity to buy a half hour block at some other comparable time.   

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

According to numerous press articles, including this one in Multichannel News, the FCC has begun an investigation into several commentators on TV news programs to see if they were receiving payments or other consideration for presenting a particular viewpoint on military issues on which they were interviewed.  According to press reports, the FCC has sent letters requesting information about the arrangements to both television networks and the commentators themselves.  This investigation would appear to be a continuation of the FCC's concern about undisclosed sponsors of programming attempting to convince the public of a particular position on any controversial issue of public importance.

This investigation seems to be very similar to a case about which we wrote last year, where the FCC issued fines to a station group that aired programming that included commentator Armstrong Williams, who had been receiving consideration to speak in support of the No Child Left Behind program.  The FCC has also been looking at similar issues in its Sponsorship Identification and Embedded Advertising Proceeding, about which we wrote here.  In both of these proceedings, the FCC has warned broadcasters that they need to assess whether anyone who is supplying programming material to the station is receiving consideration for the views expressed on that programming, particularly where that programming involves something that could be considered a controversial issue of public importance.  Thus, stations should be asking networks, program syndicators, and others appearing on a program whether they are receiving any consideration for the views that they are about to express - particularly where that is not clear from the context of the program.  While the FCC has not explicitly so stated, it would seem like an interview of an author about his new book or an actor about his new movie would clearly imply that the author or actor received consideration.  But where someone is expressing an opinion on some matter where it is unclear that there is any commercial or financial interest, and such an interest does indeed exist, the station should be aware  of that interest and disclose that connection on-air.  See our discussion here for another case where the FCC imposed fines on a cable system for not disclosing such interests.  One more thing to worry about!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Barack Obama Channel – a surprising concept to find on your satellite television dial. Yet there appears to in fact be such a channel, according to a columnist at Politico, who found that the Dish Network is dedicating a whole channel to Obama commercials run back to back. Has Dish owner Echostar decided to stake out a partisan position in this hotly contested election? No, instead, it appears that the Obama campaign has decided to purchase time on that channel to run their ads. Leaving aside the question of whether this is a wise expenditure of campaign funds, the question is raised – is this legal?

The answer appears that it is legal, as long as the McCain campaign is given equal opportunities to buy their own channel at a similar price. The Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) Companies – Dish and DIRECTV – are subject to the FCC’s political broadcasting rules in the same manner as broadcasters (rules more strict than those that apply to cable companies, as reasonable access requirements are imposed on DBS requiring that they sell reasonable amounts of commercial time to Federal candidates who may request it). Thus, the equal time or equal opportunities rule would apply to DBS.  Because of the equal opportunity obligations, the mere fact that only one candidate has decided to avail themselves of the opportunity to buy the time does not make it problematic. Dish just needs to maintain enough channel capacity to create a McCain channel should that campaign decide, at some point between now and the election, to spend its resources to buy a channel of its own. The Obama Channel is another in a seemingly never-ending stream of weird political broadcasting issues that have come up in this election season. Our coverage of some of the other issues that have come up this year can be found here, and our Political Broadcasting Guide, setting out many of the rules of the road for this election season, is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Today's announcement from John McCain that he is suspending his Presidential campaign to work on issues dealing with the economic bailout, and that he will not participate in Friday's scheduled Presidential debate if the bailout package has not been enacted, raises an interesting question about the application of the FCC's equal opportunities rules.  If Barack Obama were to appear at the debate and answer questions, and that appearance was televised, would the stations that carried the debates later be subject to a claim for equal opportunities by the McCain campaign?  Under FCC precedent, the answer would be "yes."  Debates are exempt from equal opportunities because they constitute on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event - one of the exemptions from equal opportunities specified in the Communications Act.  However, as we've written before, debates were not always considered exempt and, at one time, if all candidates (including all minor party candidates) were not included in the debate, any excluded candidate could demand equal time.  Thus, debates rarely occurred.  In the 1970s, the FCC loosened the rules to permit debates to be covered as news events, even if minor party candidates were excluded, without triggering equal opportunities obligations - if there were reasonable, objective criteria used to determine which candidates could participate.  However, in doing so, the FCC concluded that, if only one candidate showed up for a debate, it was not a true debate, and thus not exempt from the equal opportunities doctrine.

What would this mean if a station was to cover a debate where Obama showed and McCain did not?  If the McCain campaign were to timely request equal opportunities, stations would have to provide to McCain time equal to the amount of time that Obama appeared on screen, and McCain could do anything with that time that he wanted - he would not have to answer questions from the debate moderator.  Thus, traditionally, if only one candidate shows up for a scheduled debate that is supposed to be broadcast, the debate (or at least the broadcast) is canceled.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

Failing to meet the obligations set out under the law for required sponsorship identification on Federal political ads could, theoretically, cost candidates significant amounts of money – if stations decide to hold the candidates to the letter of the law. Under the terms of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”), Federal candidates airing television commercials that refer to a competing candidate must specifically state, in the candidate’s own voice, that he or she has approved the ad, while a full-screen image of the candidate appears on the screen. In addition, the name of the sponsoring candidate’s campaign committee must appear in text on the screen for at least 4 seconds at 4 percent of screen height, with sufficient color contrast to make the text readable. If the proper identification is not contained in an ad, the candidates forfeit their right to lowest unit rates for the entire pre-election period (45 days before a primary or 60 days before an election), even with respect to future ads that comply with the rules. In recent days, representatives of Democratic Congressional candidates have reportedly filed complaints that argue that Republican competitors have not complied with the rules in several cases, as their written disclosures did not air for the full four seconds. The challengers argue that television stations must take away LUR for these candidates. While the statute say that the candidates forfeit their rights to such rates, the law is unclear as to whether stations are obligated to deny that rate to candidates after the right has been forfeited – and these cases could resolve this issue.

Television stations undeniably have the power to charge full rates to candidates whose ads have not complied with the requirements of the campaign statute. However, many stations have been reluctant to do so for minor infractions such as the ones identified in this complaint. Why wouldn’t television stations want to charge more money? For several reasons. First, denying one candidate lowest unit rates will no doubt trigger a fly-specking of every commercial by the competitor who filed the complaint against the first candidate, to try to trigger a forfeiture of the second candidate's right to Lowest Unit Rates, and adjudicating such complaints will no doubt make the station’s political sales process much more difficult and costly to administer. In addition, there is the question of whether, for a minor violation, a station really wants to give the other candidate a political advantage – especially if the candidate who gets charged more more wins the election and gets to vote on laws that may effect business in the future. But can stations legally continue to charge the lowest unit rate even when a candidate has not complied with the legal requirements for sponsorship identification?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Each election season brings new issues for broadcasters. In recent years, broadcasters are more and more frequently dealing with requests for political uses of the a station’s website. For the most part, unlike a broadcast station that is subject to the full panoply of the FCC’s political rules, those rules largely don’t apply to station websites (some FEC rules, will not be discussed here, may apply to websites). About the only informal pronouncement to come out of the FCC on the use of a station website is that, if the website is sold to one candidate as part of a package with broadcast spot time, then the same offer should be made to competitors of the candidate. This is not an application of FCC’s the rules to the Internet, but instead just a restatement of a long-standing FCC policy that, if one advertiser gets extra benefits that come with the purchase of ad time, and those benefits would be of value to a candidate, they should also be offered to the candidate, and that equal opportunities demands that all candidates for the same office be treated alike.

While the freedom from reasonable access, lowest unit rates, and equal time may seem like a boon to broadcasters, that freedom comes with a price. For instance, the “no censorship rule,” which forbids a station from editing the content of a candidate’s spot or rejecting that spot based on its content (unless that spot violates a Federal felony statute), does not apply to Internet spots. Because candidate spots broadcast on a station cannot be censored, the station has no liability for the content of those spots. So the station is immune for libel and slander, or copyright violations, or other sources of potential civil liability for the content of a candidate’s broadcast spots. But since these spots can be censored or rejected on the station’s website, a station could have theoretical liability for the content of the Internet spot even though the broadcaster could run the exact same spot on the air without fear of any liability. For instance, just recently, according to the Los Angeles Times, CBS asked You Tube to remove a McCain spot attacking Senator Obama as the spot used a copyrighted clip of a Katie Couric commentary without permission. Had that spot been running on a broadcast station, the station would have been forbidden from pulling the spot (and would have no liability for the copyright violation).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Political Broadcasting season is now in full swing, with the Democrats just ending their convention, and the Republicans beginning theirs next week.  Already, we've seen disputes about third party attack ads (see our post here), and there are bound to be many more issues about the FCC's political broadcasting rules that arise during what looks to be a very contentious political season.  For guidance on many political broadcasting issues, you can check out our Political Broadcasting Guide, with discussions of many common political broadcasting issues (including reasonable access, equal opportunities, lowest unit rates, public file issues, and political disclosure statements) in what we hope is an easy to follow question and answer format.   Broadcasters should also remember that the Lowest Unit Rate "political window" opens on September 5, meaning that stations cannot charge political candidates any more than the lowest rate that is charged a commercial advertiser for the same class of time run at the same time as the candidate's spot. 

We have reminded broadcasters that the Lowest Unit Rate (or "Lowest Unit Charge,"  often abbreviated as" LUC" or "LUR")must be available to all candidates for public office - including state and local candidates.  While state and local candidates have no right of reasonable access (meaning that a station can decide not to sell time to those candidates, or to restrict their purchase of time to particular limited dayparts), if the station sells state and local candidates time, it must be at Lowest Unit Rates during the political window. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The American Issues Project has recently started running a controversial new television ad attacking Barrack Obama for his connections to former Weather Underground figure William Ayers.  The text of the ad is reported here.  While reportedly some cable outlets (including Fox News) have refused to air the ad, numerous broadcast stations are also wondering what the legal implications of running the ad may be.  We have already seen many other attack ads being run by third-party groups - including political parties, long-standing activist groups like Move On.org, as well as from new organizations like American Issues Project which have seemingly been formed recently.  As the use of such ads will no doubt increase as we get closer to the November election, it is important that broadcasters understand the issues that may arise in connection with such ads under various laws dealing with political broadcasting.  Legal issues that must be considered arise not only under FCC rules, but also potentially in civil courts for liability that may arise from the content of the ad.  Broadcast stations are under no obligation to run ads by third party groups, and stations have a full right to reject those ads based on their content.  This is in contrast to ads by Federal candidates, who have a right of reasonable access to all broadcast stations, and whose ads cannot be censored by the stations.  As a candidate's ad cannot be censored, the station has no liability for its contents.  In contrast, as the station has the full discretion as to whether or not it will run a third-party ad, it could have liability for defamation or other liabilities that might arise from the content of such ads that it decides to accept and put on the air.  

The standards for proving defamation (libel and slander) of a public figure are high, but if the ad does contain some clearly false statements, the standard could in fact be met.   Basically, to have liability, the station needs to run an ad containing a false statement either knowing that the ad is untrue or with "reckless disregard" for the truthfulness of the statements made.  This is referred to as the "malice standard."  Essentially, once a station is put on notice that the ad may be untrue (usually by a letter from the candidate being attacked, or from their lawyers),  the station needs to do their own fact checking to satisfy themselves that there is a basis for the claims made or, theoretically, the station could itself be subject to liability for defamation if the claims prove to be untrue.  A few years ago, some TV stations in Texas ended up having to pay a candidate because they ran an ad by an attack group that was shown to contain false statements, and the ad was run even after the candidate complained that the statements were untrue.  These determinations are often difficult to make as the ad's creators usually have hundreds of pages of documentation that they say supports their claims, while the person being attacked usually has documentation to refute the claims.  Thus, the determination as to whether or not to run the ad is a decision that each station needs to make after consultation with their lawyers, and after careful review of the spot and the backing documentation.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Federal Election Commission ruled recently that it would not grant a waiver of the requirements for a verbal sponsorship identification on ads by an interest group, the Club for Growth, which wanted to run 10 and 15 second commercials opposing Federal candidates for Congress. Because of the abbreviated length of the commercials, the organization wanted the FEC to waive the requirement that there be a verbal identification of the sponsor as the commercial was too short to be able to fit such a message while still conveying their principle message.  The Club promised to have the required written disclosures on the ads, but the FEC said that this was insufficient as Federal law does not make any exception to the requirement for the verbal announcements on television commercials.  Thus, television stations should expect that third party ads dealing with Federal elections should contain both a written and verbal sponsorship identification.

The verbal identification need only identify the sponsor of the ad and state the sponsor's responsibility for the ad.  Thus, a verbal statement that "The Club for Growth PAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement" is sufficient to meet the requirements of the rule, while the written statement needs to be more detailed - containing not only the verbal identification, but also an address or website for the sponsor and the fact that the ad was not authorized by any candidate.  The written material must be at least 4 percent of screen height and must last at least 4 seconds.  These are the FEC rules regulating the advertiser, which are very similar to the FCC rules for political advertisements.  For details on the FCC's sponsorship identification requirements and other political broadcasting rules and laws applicable to broadcast stations, see our Political Broadcasting Guide. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The New York Times ran an article about how certain African-American radio hosts were acting as cheerleaders for the Obama campaign, and contrasting that to past elections where talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh gave a boost to Republican candidates on their programs.  How is it that these programs can take political positions without triggering requirements that opposing candidates get equal time?  Under FCC rules, unless a candidate' recognizable voice or image is broadcast by a station, there is no right to equal opportunities.  In the past, until the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine by declaring it to be unconstitutional, even without a candidate appearance, the station would have had an obligation to give both sides of a controversial issue of public importance, such as an election, free time to respond to on-air statements by an announcer.  When the doctrine was abolished, stations were free to air pointed programs taking positions on issues, giving rise initially principally to the conservative commentators, and more recently to their more liberal counterparts such as those heard on Air America radio.

The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine also allowed broadcasters to editorialize, even endorsing candidates for political office without having to give the opponent of their favored candidate equal time, just like print media can do. Similarly, a station can take a position on a ballot issue, or on another controversial issue of public importance in their communities without having to provide time to those with opposing viewpoints - allowing stations to fully participate in their communities political life.  Under the Fairness Doctrine, stations even had to give time to those with viewpoints opposed to parties who bought time on a controversial issue if the opponents could not themselves afford to buy time.  The occasional discussion of reviving the Fairness Doctrine ignores these issues.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.....

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

This article is no longer available. for more information on this topic, see Political Advertising Rules for Station Websites - Opportunites and Pitfalls

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This article is no longer available. For more information on this topic, see FCC Repeals the Fairness Doctrine - Who Cares?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This article is no longer available. For more informartion on this topic, see Remember FCC Public File Obligations When Running Issue Advertising

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

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. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

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.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As we predicted in our entry of October 14, the FCC yesterday ruled that the Tonight Show appearance of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is running for reelection as Governor of California, was a bona fide news interview program exempt from equal time obligations.  As our October 14 posting set out in detail, previous decisions of the FCC had established that many programs that most people would consider to be entertainment qualified as bona fide news interview programs exempt from equal opportunities.  As cited in yesterday's FCC decision, past cases where this ruling has been made include programs such as Donahue, Sally Jesse Raphael, Jerry Springer, Politically Incorrect, Howard Stern and Entertainment Tonight.  As long as the program regularly discusses political or other topical issues, the program content and topics are not controlled by the candidate, and the programming is not presented in a blatantly partisan fashion, a program will be exempt from equal opportunities. 

This decision should give comfort to broadcasters who may have been shy about letting candidates on their talk shows for fear of equal opportunities claims.  If the program discusses topical issues from time to time, it can be considered an exempt program even if the bulk of its content deals with entertainment or other issues.  The FCC is encouraging political speech - in whatever form it may take. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As we wrote here last week, a station has no obligation, and in fact no right, to edit a candidate's ad, so it has no liability for the contents of that ad. But at this time of year, we are receiving many calls about ads from third party groups who want to address an election, usually supporting or attacking a candidate.  For these non-candidate ads, including all ads dealing with ballot propositions, the station can choose whether or not to run the ad, and has complete editorial freedom to accept or reject an ad based on its content. Thus, as the station can elect whether or not to run an ad, it can be found liable if the ad contains material that is actionable. In fact, there have been cases where a station has been found liable for running a defamatory ad after having been put on notice that the claims in the ad were not true. 

A station has a duty to investigate the truth of an ad from a noncandidate.  Even though the station did not produce the ad, by broadcasting it, the station can be found to have liability.  Where an ad is false and contains any sort of personal attack on an individual or identifiable class of people, there is the possibility of a defamation claim.  When the ad deals with a public figure (such as an attack ad by a third-party group against a political candidate), for there to be liability, not only does the ad have to be false, but the claim must be made with "malice."  Malice can be found if the claim is broadcast either knowing that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.  In other words, if just by looking at the spot the station should know that it is false (e.g. a claim that your local Congressman was convicted of treason), the station should not run it.  Even if the ad is not clearly false on its face, if the station is put on notice that the claim is false yet continues to run it without investigation of the truth, then reckless disregard could be shown.

When a third party attack ad is broadcast, a station may well get a letter from a lawyer for the candidate being attacked, claiming that the ad is false, and threatening some action against the station if the ad continues to run.  Once the station is put on notice that the spot may be false, the station has a duty to investigate whether or not it is true before continuing to run the ad.  Most of the groups producing attack ads have information on hand supporting their claims, and they will quickly provide it to the station if asked.  The station should review that material, and discuss it with counsel and their corporate headquarters to determine how comfortable they are with the truth of the ad.  This is often not an easy question, but should be treated carefully to avoid any potential liability for running an ad that is not true.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This past week's appearance of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show raised the question of when the equal opportunities requirements of Section 315 of the Communications Act apply.   While there has been extensive press coverage of the event, seemingly asking why the Democratic candidate is not by law entitled to equal time, the policy of the Commission has been to treat most interview programs, even ones that usually concentrate on entertainment matters, as "bona fide news or news interview" programs, exempt from the equal time obligations.

While, at one time, the FCC had considered only traditional news and news interview programs (like Meet the Press or Face the Nation) to be "bona fide news or news interview programs."  But in the 1990s, the Commission began to realize that political discourse and the coverage of political races often occurred in programs much different than these traditional news programs.  To encourage this expanded coverage of the political process, the bona fide news exemption had to be extended to programs that routinely featured newsmakers, though the programs themselves might more often focus on entertainment or less serious programming.

The morning "news" programs like Today and Good Morning America were quickly recognized as bona fide news interview programs, and then talk programs like Donahue, Geraldo and Sally Jesse Raphael were later recognized to be exempt.  And, as time went on, the Commission recognized that the even programs that were far more entertainment oriented could still have serious discussions (or at least discussions relevant to their particular audiences) about political issues.  Specific exemptions were granted to the Howard Stern program, Imus in the Morning, and to Entertainment Tonight, which all, from time to time, interviewed political figures or other newsmakers about topics of interest to their audience.  And, while many of these programs filed with the FCC asking for specific declarations that the programs were indeed bona fide news interview programs and exempt from the equal time requirements, the exemption applies to any program that meets the FCC's standards, without the need for a prior determination from the FCC that they are exempt.

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

From watching television in almost any state with a contested election, it's clear that it's political season again.  As the ads multiply, one of the most common tactics to disrupt an ad campaign is to write a letter to a  station saying that the ad is untrue and should be pulled.  However, when an ad is purchased by the candidate or his authorized campaign committee in connection with the campaign, and contains the voice or picture of the candidate, the circumstances in which an ad can be pulled are quite limited.  Nevertheless, the questions are rolling in. 

In one race in the Midwest, stations received complaints about a Federal candidate ad that did not contain the full disclaimer required by BCRA (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which requires the now familiar statement from Federal candidates that “I’m John Smith, and I approved this ad”). A competing candidate urged stations to pull the ad that did not contain that disclaimer. In fact, stations cannot pull the ad that does not contain the disclaimer (as long as it has the FCC mandated “paid for” or “sponsored by” language at the end of the spot). While the candidate may get into trouble with the Federal Election Commission for not having the BCRA language, and the station may deny lowest unit rate if the required language is not on a spot that mentions an opposing candidate, the spot cannot be pulled from the airwaves.

In another race in a Western state, the question was raised about the use of one of the words that the FCC has ruled to be "indecent" in almost any circumstance.  At the NAB Radio Show, the FCC's Bobby Baker was asked if such  an ad could be channeled to the "safe harbor" periods after 10 PM.  Bobby answered that it was possible that such channeling would be permitted, but that the FCC has never addressed that question.  So, for now, the issue is unsettled until someone asks for a declaratory ruling or the issue is otherwise put before the FCC.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

At a continuing legal education seminar held by the Federal Communications Bar Association a week ago, Bobby Baker, the FCC’s chief of the Office of Political Programming, confirmed an issue that has been confounding broadcasters for many months. In recent years, several organizations, including Google’s dMarc service, have begun to take remnant advertising inventory from broadcasters, and to market that inventory on-line. For this left-over spot time, prices that are charged for such time are often less than a local advertiser would pay for similar time on the same radio station.

Given that we are now in a political window, the issue has been raised as to the impact that the sale of a station’s advertising time through one of these on-line services has on the services lowest unit rate for political candidates. The simple answer given last week was 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. While not specifically addressed by Bobby at the seminar, it would seem that  even if the spot has unique properties from spots sold locally (e.g. high level of preemptibility, no make good or preemption protection, a different rotation), it would form a different class of time that must be offered to the candidate who requests information about all classes and rotations, even if the candidate buys direct without using one of these electronic services. Spots sold through these on-line services would be like spots sold by a station’s rep firm, which similarly must be considered in a lowest unit rate analysis.

However, if the spot is sold as part of a package with other stations, where the advertiser buys on a cost-per-thousand basis or based on some other form of audience delivery, and where the advertiser does not have the ability to buy spots on any single station, then the spot does not impact on the station’s lowest unit rate. This would be an application of the FCC’s policy with respect to unwired networks and other sales of multiple stations, which has held that such sales do not affect lowest unit rates.  As other advertising issues arise during this political season, look for advice here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

A front page article in today's Washington Post reports that the National Republican Congressional Committee expects to spend about $45 million on negative campaign ads this year, attacking Democratic challengers on personal and character issues.  One academic quoted in the article indicated that this year's election may be "a more negative campaign that any in recent memory."

If the Republican Party spends money, no doubt the Democrats and other interest groups will be spending as well in this tight election with control of Congress potentially at stake.  For broadcasters, this means that they will be in for lots of controversy, and lots of work. 

When a legally-qualified candidate buys advertising time on a broadcast station, the station cannot censor that ad.  Therefore, the station is exempt from any liability for the content of that ad.  But when the ad is purchased by a non-candidate third party group, the station has no obligation to run the ad, and therefore, if the ad is defamatory, the broadcaster could have liability for running it.  Particularly if the broadcaster knows or suspects from the content of an ad that it is false, or is put on notice that the facts contained in the ad are untrue, the broadcaster faces liability if it does nothing to investigate the truth of that ad.  So, if a broadcaster is running an attack ad and gets a complaint about the truth of the ad (most likely from the candidate being attacked), the broadcaster needs to verify the truth of the claims being made before any further airing of the ad.  And usually the proponent of the ad will have reams of paper to support the claims that are made - support that needs to be evaluated by the broadcaster.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

This Friday, September 8, begins the 60 day "window" during which lowest unit rates will apply for broadcast advertising for the November 7 general election.  Stations should already be observing equal opportunities obligations and maintaining their political files, as these obligations exist as soon as there are legally qualified candidates, even outside of the political windows.  Reasonable access, the right of Federal candidates to demand to buy time on commercial broadcast stations, also applies as soon as there are legally qualified candidates.

According to reports in many publications, including the Wall Street Journal and Broadcasting and Cable Magazine, this may be one of the most active political broadcasting years ever.  With many observers believing that both the US House of Representatives and the Senate are potentially up for grabs, and there being many significant gubernatorial races in large states including New York, California, Texas and Michigan, money should flow into political advertising, straining the inventories of some broadcast stations in battleground states.  Now is the time, early in the campaign, for broadcasters to consider how to manage these political buys.  Remember that a station must give equal opportunities to opposing candidates to match spots run by their opponents within the prior 7 days.  So stations, when approached early in a campaign by candidates with lots of available funds, need to be careful about booking too many large buys from one side of a political race for spots to be run in the last days of the campaign.  By booking too many large buys now from only one side, the station may find itself, in the last few days of the campaign, with requests from the opposing candidate for equal time, which will have to be accommodated.  Accommodating those equal opportunities may require the preemption of commercial advertisers, something that stations may be loath to do to advertisers who will be around well after the political season ends.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link