Political Broadcasting

Subscribe to Political Broadcasting via RSS

This past weekend, we saw an ad posted on YouTube attacking Democratic Senatorial candidate James Tallarico – using words that were apparently from his own tweets, commenting on a number of social issues.  What made the ad notable was that the words from the tweets were not just displayed on the screen or read by some anonymous announcer, but instead they were stitched together and read in what was seemingly Tallarico’s own voice accompanied by a very convincing AI image of Tallarico himself, and interjections were included where his AI image said approvingly things about the tweets like “I remember this one” and “so true.”   It is only apparent that the ad was not an actual recording of Tallarico delivering the message by a small disclaimer in one corner of the ad labeling it “AI Generated.”  The ad is a very convincing portrayal of Tallarico, and we expect similar ads will show up during the course of the current election cycle.  Broadcasters and all other media companies need to be ready to deal with ads like these and comply with all legal obligations that apply to such advertising.

We have written before about the efforts during the last administration by the FCC, the Federal Election Commission (see our note here and our article here), and by Congress to regulate the use of AI in political ads on a national level.  Those efforts did not lead to national rules on such uses.  However, the majority of states have adopted some rules for the use of AI in political ads.  For media companies, the biggest issue is that these rules are not uniform but instead impose different obligations to avoid legal liability.

We last wrote extensively about the state laws affecting the use of artificial intelligence in political ads about two years ago, when only 11 states had adopted such rules.  Since then, more than 20 other states have adopted rules – and the obligations they impose are all over the board.  Some states (like Minnesota) make it illegal to use AI in political ads to portray a candidate doing something that they did not actually do unless the candidate consents.  Most do not go that far but instead require some form of disclosure (like that in the anti-Tallarico ad, except that in many states, the required text for the disclosures is far more extensive, though those disclosure obligations are not uniform and, in a few states, the  disclosure requirements are inconsistent in the state’s own criminal and civil statutes). Continue Reading AI in Political Attack Ads – Watch State Laws on Deep Fakes and Synthetic Media in Political Content

  • FCC Chairman Carr announced the “Pledge America Campaign” which calls on broadcasters to pledge to provide programming promoting civic education,
…
  • The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing titled “We Interrupt This Program: Media Ownership in the Digital Age.”  Testimony at
…
  • Funding for the FCC’s operations, as well as that of many other government agencies, expired at the end of the
…

While most of the country is currently frozen, February promises to heat up with several regulatory dates and deadlines broadcasters need to be aware of.  But the possibility of another federal government shutdown looms.  To end the longest shutdown in history last November, Congress gave themselves until January 31 to pass a budget bill covering the…

  • The FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice purporting to provide guidance directed to broadcast TV stations on whether the
…

The FCC’s Media Bureau, in a Public Notice released this week, provided guidance that changed the common interpretation of one of the fundamental principles of political broadcasting law for the last thirty years – that a candidate appearance on a regularly scheduled talk program subject to broadcaster control was not subject to equal opportunities claims if that program regularly interviewed newsmakers and political figures, where the program’s discussions were under the control of the program producer and not the candidate, and where the decisions as to guests were made on the basis of newsworthiness, and not for political considerations.  The Public Notice did not actually change these criteria for determining if a program is exempt.  As noted in a written statement released by Commissioner Gomez about this Public Notice, the policies underlying earlier decisions setting policy was not changed by the Notice.  What apparently has changed is the Commission’s reliance on the good faith judgement of the broadcaster as to whether a program is exempt, without the need for any prior FCC approval of the broadcaster’s determination.  Instead, the Notice makes clear that each case is different and relies on the facts of the particular case; that past precedents can only be relied on by the party that received an explicit determination that an exemption was proper; and that there is a real risk that the FCC will disagree with a determination made by a broadcaster that a program is exempt from equal time unless the broadcaster files for and receives a declaratory ruling from the FCC that a program is in fact exempt.

This discussion all stems from the Equal Opportunities requirement in Section 315 of the Communications Act.  This is commonly referred to as the “equal time” rule.  Under the statute and the FCC’s rule adopted to implement the statute (Section 73.1941), stations who allow one candidate to “use” their station by allowing that candidate to appear on the air must provide equal opportunities to other candidates for the same office by allowing them to buy equal amounts of time (for advertising and other purchased time) or to get comparable time for free when the candidate’s appearance is not paid.  In adopting Section 315, Congress recognized that there were certain appearances of a candidate on a broadcast station that should not trigger equal time.  It specifically exempted four categories of programming from the equal time requirement, declaring them to not be “uses” by a candidate – (1) bona fide newscasts, (2) bona fide news interviews, (3) bona fide news documentaries when the candidate’s appearance is incidental to the subject of the documentary, and (4) bona fide coverage of a news event (including political conventions).  The issue discussed in the Public Notice primarily stems from the exemption for news interview programs. Continue Reading FCC Media Bureau Tells Broadcasters that Candidate Appearances on Talk Programs Could Subject Them to Equal Time Demands – More Review of Such Programs Expected From the FCC

  • FCC Chairman Carr announced that the FCC will be considering two orders concerning foreign ownership requirements, including those for broadcasters,
…

It’s the start of another year, so it is time to dust off the crystal ball and look at what we expect to be the big regulatory and legislative issues facing broadcasters in the new year.  Looking back on our forecast for 2025 that came out just over a year ago, I was surprised to see that we had predicted that the new Commission would be interested in defining the public interest standard, reviewing network-affiliate relations, and looking at the political biases that broadcasters allegedly exhibited.  All of these were in fact issues that came up this year but, as no conclusions were reached on any of these matters, these same issues will no doubt continue to be on the FCC’s agenda in 2026.

Public Interest Standard

Throughout 2025, FCC Chairman Carr has been talking about the public interest standard in most of his many public discussions of media regulation, and those comments have prompted much legal analysis from all corners.  We expect that, in the coming year, there will continue to be discussions about what the public interest standard really means– and just how far that standard goes in authorizing the FCC to act to regulate broadcast operations.

Network-Affiliate Relations

The FCC has also received preliminary comments on the relationship between television networks and their affiliates.  As we noted last week, reply comments were due December 29, so the pleading cycle has now closed.  In the Public Notice asking for these comments, there was a statement that the comments would be used to inform the Commission as to whether a formal rulemaking proceeding was necessary to further review the issues.  With the comments in, we will be watching to see if the FCC moves forward with any additional proceedings. Continue Reading Crystal Ball Time – What Are the Regulatory and Policy Issues Broadcasters Should Be Expecting to Deal With in 2026?

2026 has begun, so it is time to look at the regulatory dates of importance to broadcasters in the new year.  Later this week, we will look ahead at some of the broadcast issues likely to be tackled by the FCC and Congress in this new year.  But today, we will look at dates and…