Posted on August 18, 2010 by David Oxenford

Remember that Political Ads By State and Local Candidates Need to Have Candidate's Recognizable Voice or Picture to Be a Use

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. 

We have written about this issue of potential liability for the content of spots many times before, most recently in connection with ads by non-candidate groups that are now allowed from corporations and labor unions following the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.  Our most recent article on that case can be found here.  For more information about the FCC's laws and policies regarding political broadcasting, check out the Davis Wright Tremaine Political Broadcasting Guide, available here. 
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on May 23, 2010 by David Oxenford

House Committee Passes Revised DISCLOSE Act, Without New Lowest Unit Rate Provisions

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. 

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted on December 29, 2009 by David Oxenford

Early Flap in Illinois Senate Race Reminds Broadcasters that They Cannot Censor Candidate Ad

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.

For this protection from liability for the contents of a candidate ad to apply, stations do need to make sure that the ad is a "use" under FCC rules, i.e. it contains the recognizable voice or picture of the candidate.  The ad also needs to have the required sponsorship identification.

The kind of issue that is raised by this ad can be particularly troublesome in connection with ads for Federal candidates, who have a right of reasonable access.  Reasonable access means that commercial broadcast stations must provide access to all dayparts to Federal candidates who want to buy time.  Thus, we've dealt with situations where white supremacists have qualified for a place on the ballot in a Congressional race and wanted to run racist ads - and stations have had to allow it.  While this may seem like a bad outcome, it does make sure that stations cannot block unpopular viewpoints from being aired so that all points of view can be expressed by political candidates.  Thus, while individual cases may result in ugly situations, the overall purpose of encouraging diverse political speech is achieved by the rules.

Stations do need to note that ads by third parties - e.g. political parties, labor unions, interest groups, or rich individuals interested in the process - are not subject to the no censorship rule.  Thus, as ads by these third party groups can be rejected by stations based on their content, stations have theoretical liability for the content of these ads if they are defamatory.  See our post on this subject here.

The political broadcasting rules are complex and confusing.  The Davis Wright Tremaine guide to the political broadcasting rules can be found here.  But stations faced with these issues should consult with counsel for specific guidance on any specific situation that may develop.  Make those contacts now, as 2010 is likely to be a long political year with many controversies yet to come. 

 
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on September 11, 2008 by David Oxenford

Political Advertising Rules for Station Websites - Opportunites and Pitfalls

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).

Similar liability concerns do arise for broadcasters in connection with attack ads run by third-party groups – groups not “authorized” by the candidates. As broadcast stations are under no obligation to run ads by third party groups and have the full right to reject them based on their content, like an Internet spot, a station has potential liability for defamation or other civil liabilities that arise from the content of an ad that airs.  We recently wrote about the considerations that a broadcaster should use to evaluate those spots when the spots are challenged, here.  A similar process should be used to evaluate Internet spots - whether or not authorized by a candidate.
 
Tags: , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Comments
  • Share Link