Posted on February 3, 2012 by David Oxenford

FCC Decides That Randall Terry Not Entitled to Run Graphic Anti-Abortion TV Ads in the Super Bowl For His "Presidential Campaign" - But Questions Remain

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.

The decision did not reach the question of whether Mr. Terry could be a qualified candidate in other states, including states where his name does appear on the ballot for the Democratic nomination (including Missouri and Oklahoma).    The FCC's decision cites a letter from the Democratic National Committee that concludes that Mr. Terry cannot be considered a bona fide Democratic candidate, as he had not shown that he had a history of participation in the Democratic Party, was dedicated to the party's success and would participate in the Democratic Convention in good faith.  But the FCC decision does not specifically state that the DNC letter ends the question of whether he is a bona fide candidate for the Democratic nomination.  In a case in the late 1990s involving Lyndon LaRouche, the FCC stated that the determination of a political party as to who was a qualified candidate for its nomination was binding on the FCC and would not be second-guessed.  Some have suggested that the LaRouche decision gives stations the ability to conclude based on the DNC letter that Mr. Terry is not a bona fide candidate, even where he is on the ballot.  But the LaRouche case arose after all the primaries were done, and the only debate was whether the candidate could run ads about the party convention.  The decision did not have to address the issue of what happens when a candidate is actually on the primary ballot in a state and demands time before the primary. As the FCC rules state that a place on the ballot is enough to be a legally qualified candidate, the FCC has left stations in states where Mr Terry is on the ballot in a precarious situation - can they rely on the Democratic Party letter and deny him advertising time, or simply because he paid his filing fee and secured a place on the ballot, is he then entitled to buy time?  Certainly, the latter option opens up the campaign process to all sorts of shenanigans, as anyone could pay the filing fee in states where there are not complicated ballot qualification processes, and then be able to demand time on broadcast stations - at the cheapest rates that such stations sell advertising time during the lowest unit rate windows 45 days before an election, and rely on the no censorship rule to advertise almost anything that they wanted to - bypassing many station's standards for advertising content.

The second part of the decision, that stations need not sell advertising time to candidates in the Super Bowl, is much more straightforward.  Stations have always known that candidates do not have the right to demand access to any specific ad placement, as long as the station offers the Federal candidate "reasonable" access.  The Commission went further here, relying on one of its policy statements on the political broadcasting rules that said that stations did not need to sell time to candidates in one-time programs of special significance where the stations would be unlikely to be able to provide equal opportunities to opposing candidates as required by law.  As the Super Bowl is the highest rated program in the TV year, were the station to sell some of its limited advertising inventory to Mr. Terry, how could it offer equal opportunities to President Obama's campaign, which would have 7 days to make an equal time demand? As the Super Bowl is unique, it would simply be impossible to offer comparable time to opposing candidates after-the-fact, as required by law.  This decision makes perfect sense as the Super Bowl's limited local advertising inventory provides all sorts of problems for stations - even without having to worry about political ads and the potential for equal opportunities.

This decision may not bring the Terry story to an end, as we'll have to see if more time is demanded on other stations in other states.  But it does illustrate some of the many practical and philosophical questions about the implementation and obligations put on stations by Sections 312 and 315 of the Communications Act.  First Amendment issues abound with forcing stations to sell time to candidates with whom they disagree and whose messages may be upsetting to many viewers. We'll see if these broader issues are further discussed as the still-young campaign season progresses. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on December 14, 2011 by David Oxenford

Graphic Abortion Ads In Iowa By Presidential Candidate - And A Seminar on FCC Political Broadcasting Rules

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?

Section 73.1940(f) of the Commission's rules sets out what a substantial showing needs to include.  The rule states:

The term substantial showing of a bona fide candidacy as used in paragraphs (b) of this section means evidence that the person claiming to be a candidate has engaged to a substantial degree in activities commonly associated with political campaigning. Such activities normally would include making campaign speeches, distributing campaign literature, issuing press releases, maintaining a campaign committee, and establishing campaign headquarters (even though the headquarters in some instances might be the residence of the candidate or his or her campaign manager). Not all of the listed activities are necessarily required in each case to demonstrate a substantial showing, and there may be activities not listed herein which would contribute to such a showing.

Stations are entitled to ask a purported candidate to make that substantial showing before they accord the candidate all the rights that he or she might be entitled to under the rules.  Stations will looks at factors including whether the candidate has had campaign rallies. Is he making speeches and campaign appearances throughout the area where the election is being held? Is there campaign literature that is being distributed on his behalf? Does he have any campaign offices or campaign workers?  Is his campaign more than a website?  A station is entitled to ask for this evidence, and then needs to review it, probably with the aid of counsel and possibly with the informal advice of the FCC (whose Political Broadcasting Office is usually quite helpful in working through issues like this) to determine whether it meets the substantially test.

For Presidential candidates, there is yet another wrinkle - as once a candidate has established his qualifications in 10 states, then he or she is presumed to be qualified throughout the country.  So, candidates like Mr. Terry, who work hard to qualify in early primary and caucus states, will have the FCC rights of a candidate accorded to them in later states by virtue of their actions in these early states.  This may become important as Mr. Terry has claimed that he is looking to buy spots in the Super Bowl from stations across the country.

Is this system fair?  Does it allow fringe candidates valuable airtime access that stations would otherwise likely deny?  The intent of this law to is forbid stations from being censors of political messages – leaving candidates free to deliver their message in a manner that they believe to be the most effective.  With stations not being able to second guess the decisions of candidates, some controversial material may be aired in candidate advertising, but that will be the candidate's choice.  It is then up to the voters (not the stations) to make the decision as to whether the candidate made wise decisions in delivering his or her message in their advertising in the way that they choose.  But substantial questions remain about whether stations should be allowed to channel ads to periods when a more appropriate audience may exist.  But given court decisions in this area, it would take an act of Congress to allow the FCC to allow such channeling. 

This question, and other questions about the political rules were discussed last week in a webinar that I conducted for the Texas Association of Broadcasters.  The slides from that presentation are available here.  Other questions about the political broadcasting process are available in the Davis Wright Tremaine Political Broadcasting Guide, and we'll continue to highlight on this blog some of the interesting issues that arise throughout this election season. 
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted on June 2, 2010 by David Oxenford

David Oxenford Speaks to Vermont Broadcasters - Addresses What to Do When a Station Receives a Complaint about the Truth of a Political Ad

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?

While there is no easy answer, and a broadcaster should always consult with their lawyer when one of these issues arises, the broadcaster can rely on the standard for judging potential liability in most cases is that used in a defamation case. This standard, set out by the US Supreme Court, requires a finding of “malice” before a party can be found to be liable for transmitting information about a “public figure,” which would include a political candidate. For liability to be found, the malice standard requires that the broadcaster ran the ad either knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard of its truth. Thus, if a broadcaster has actual knowledge that a claim made in an ad is false, or has a substantial reason to doubt its truthfulness, yet nevertheless runs the ad and it does in fact prove to be false, there is the potential for liability. But if the ad is the typical campaign rhetoric – that Candidate A votes for big government, or votes for spending bills that waste taxpayer’s money, or that he has not done enough for education – there is no reason for the station to be on notice that there is anything wrong with such a spot, and running it in the first instance is not likely to be a concern. 

What we have seen in many recent campaigns, however, is that candidates or their representatives object to such ads once they start running, and demand that a station cease running the ad and threaten to sue if no action is taken. Once one of these letters challenging an ad arrives, if the ad in indeed false, the letter could be seen as putting the station on notice of the potential untruth of the ad. Thus, the receipt of the letter heightens the station’s duty to investigate to determine if the spot may in fact present some basis for liability. In many cases, the ad’s sponsor will have ready substantiation that the station can review. If, after investigation, the claims appear to have a reasonable basis, it's unlikely that the broadcaster will get into trouble for airing those ads. But if the ads are baseless, the broadcaster needs to beware.

Should the broadcaster pull the ad while it investigates? That involves the broadcaster and its counsel in some risk assessment. The risk often depends on the nature of the ad and the kind of claims that it makes. If the ad is making those typical political claims that are subject to interpretation (“Candidate X is a big spending liberal ”or “candidate Y favors policies that will lessen your freedom”), it is less likely that a court would find these to be actionable claims – particularly where the claims cannot really be proved false. By contrast, if there are claims that directly address the character or integrity of the candidate (e.g. “he was having an affair with a city employee while in office” or “he used taxpayer funds for his own private use”), then, if these claims are proved false, there is much more risk for the station. These kinds of ads should be approached more cautiously. 

There is no easy way to just say take the money and run.  While there have only been a handful of cases where a station has been sued for the content of a third-party ad, and even fewer where they have had to pay any damages, the threat is always there. Thus, in dealing with these issues, stations need to be careful, and need to vet the ads with their attorneys.  But most ads probably will be able to be run.  So proceed - but proceed with care.  

And remember, these cautions apply only to ads by third party groups.  If the ad is by a candidate's authorized campaign committee, the station cannot censor the ad, and it cannot be held liable for its contents.  So if you get a letter from an opposing candidate challenging the content of the ad by a candidate, you can't censor the ad, and should not be pulling it for investigation or because of concerns about the truth of the ads.  So be careful about the contents of third party ads, but rest easy when a candidate ad is running. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,