President Obama Declares Candidacy - What Political Broadcasting Rules Should Broadcasters Be Considering Now?

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

Another area where broadcasters need to pay attention is in connection with third party ads dealing with Federal issues.  Already, in many contested Congressional districts around the country, there are ad being run sponsored by various political action committees and other interest groups -targeting potential candidates for the House of Representatives or the Senate. Sometimes the ads are subtle digs at the positions that a potential candidate is taking ("call Congressman X and tell him that he should stop voting for bills that are bankrupting the country"), and sometimes they are more direct attacks on the potential candidate.  Sometimes they don't directly address a particular politician at all, but are instead directed at an issue being debated in Congress.  And sometimes, as reportedly happened just recently, they ask callers to tell a Congressman to vote in a particular way on an issue where he has already voted in the way the ad requests.  In any case, if the ads are dealing with Federal candidates or other issues being considered by the US House of Representatives or Senate, then they are Federal issue ads on which the station must maintain full public file information, similar to that which is kept for any candidate advertising - the full schedule of advertising that is to be run, the class of time sold, the sponsor of the ad, and even the price that was paid for the spots (see our post here on the public file requirements for Federal issue ads).

Finally, with the 2012 election fast approaching, stations should start planing for the election season.  Some stations are no doubt already selling long-term contracts that will still be in effect during the primary season.  Stations should be considering how to allocate the purchase price of these long-term contracts to reflect their actual seasonal value - rather than simply booking them as having a flat rate throughout the entire year - including the pre-election lowest unit rate periods. As we wrote in our Political Broadcasting Guide, the FCC allows you, in internal station documents, to allocate for lowest unit rate purposes, the purchase price of a long-term contract in a manner different than shown on invoices given to commercial clients, as long as that allocation more accurately reflects the seasonal value of the spots sold, adds up to the total purchase price of the package, and is not done simply to avoid the lowest unit rate periods.  Consult with your attorney to make sure that you properly apply this process, but it could save you money in the long term.  For other things that you should be thinking about in preparation for the election, check out our Political Broadcasting Guide

Is Your Station Running the NAB Future of Television Spots? Are You Identifying Them As Issue Ads in Your Public File?

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. 

Specifically, when a station receives any request for time to address any issue dealing with a Federal matter (one to be considered by Congress, the President or any US government agency), the public file entry should include:

  • If the request to purchase time is accepted or rejected
  • If the ads are accepted, the dates on which the ad is run
  • The rates charged by the station (or in the case of the NAB spots, that there was no charge but the ads themselves were furnished at no charge)
  • 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.

Remember - issue ads don't implicate equal time or lowest unit rates - so taking these ads from the NAB should not be an issue for the station in terms of triggering any obligations for spots taking a contrary view.  But note the broadcast of these issue ads in your public file just to avoid any issues about whether "issue ad" obligations were met.

 

So Just What is an "Issue Ad" and Why Should I Care?

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. 

It has been suggested to me that an issue ad needs to be identified so as to decide whether the ad needs to have a "paid for" or "sponsored by" tag at the end to identify its sponsor.  In fact, any ad where the sponsor of the ad is unclear - even a pure commercial ad needs to have a "paid for" or "sponsored  by tag."  For instance, a few years ago, a station was fined when a local chamber of commerce was buying time to promote all the businesses in its town, and the chamber was never identified in the ad - much less as the sponsor of that ad.  When the ad is for a product, and the maker of the product is that sponsor, the Commission considers the identification of the product to be sufficient sponsorship identification.  But where the actual sponsor is someone else, and it is not clear from the ad who the sponsor is, a broadcaster is required to identify that sponsor.

So, in considering whether a spot is an issue ad, why go through the trouble of worrying too much about it.  If it deals with something that looks controversial, err on the side of caution.  Consider it an issue ad, place notice in your public file, and go on with your business!

Supreme Court Allows Corporate-Sponsored Issue Ads to Mention Candidates - Watch for Even More Political Advertising Next Year

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

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

In a separate opinion, Justice Scalia and two other Justices argued that Section 203 (the relevant section of BCRA prohibiting the mention of candidates in corporate sponsored issue ads) is unconstitutional on its face and should be thrown out.  However, the end result was that five Justices, a majority of the Court, believe that Section 203 was unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied to these issue ads, and thus, the Court invalidated the FEC decision..

Four other Justices, led by Justice Souter, dissented, believing that Section 203 is constitutional, as had been previously decided by the Court just a few years earlier.  The dissenters believed that it is  easy for corporations to support or oppose candidates through ads superficially posing as issue ads and to thus evade the clear intent of BCRA to reduce corporate influence in elections.

With this decision, broadcasters can expect that more corporations and labor unions will be running ads that urge voters to write to their Congressman to express outrage about some issue or another (and of course it will be completely coincidental that such ads will only be asking that people write to those Congressmen who happen to be up for reelection.  This will no doubt increase advertising inventory in next year's advertising season.