ELECTIONS

I. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY--sec.315 OF THE COMM ACT OF 1934--

"If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station."

POLITICAL PROGRAMMING POLICIES (1991)

USE=df: "appearances that are controlled, approved or sponsored by the candidate"--i.e., the candidate must give tacit approval.

VIDEOTAPE OF EXAMPLES

EXCEPTIONS to Section 315:

1. BONA FIDE NEWSCAST

2. BONA FIDE NEWS INTERVIEW

3. BONA FIDE NEWS DOCUMENTARY

4. ON THE SPOT COVERAGE OF A BONA FIDE NEWS EVENT

5. DEBATES

Fulani v. F.C.C. (2d Cir. 1995)

COMPARABLE COST RULE

COMPARABLE TIME RULE

NO CENSORSHIP--¤315 "Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast"

Commoner (F.C.C. 1980)

Stoner (F.C.C. 1972)

Limit: Brandenburg v. Ohio

TIMELY DEMAND RULE

ZAPPLE DOCTRINE

II. ¤312(a)(7) REASONABLE ASSESS RULE

A broadcaster's license can be revoked "for willful or repeated failure to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy."

CBS v. F.C.C. (1981), p. 142

 

III. INDECENCY AND CAMPAIGNS FOR FEDERAL OFFICE

Indecent=df: "language that describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities and organs at times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience."

REVIEW: Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee

Gillett Communications v. Becker (N.D. Ga. 1992)

Becker (F.C.C. 1994)

Becker v. F.C.C. (D.C. Cir. 1996), p. 144

IV. SPONSOR IDENTIFICATION RULE

V. NEW PROVISIONS

Candidate approval

527s

VI. RECENT RULINGS BY THE SUPREME COURT

Federal Election Commision v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007)

McCain-Feingold Election Reform Act--prohibits issue ads by corporations, groups, unions (30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election) IF they have an explicit message to vote for or against a particular candidate. It applies to broadcast, cable and satellite transmissions of "electioneering communications."

The Supreme Court upheld this provision in 2003, but the composition of the Court has changed, with Rehnquist and O'Conner being replaced by Roberts and Alito.

Justice Roberts: "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

Ads can be refused if there is "no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate."

 

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010)

GO TO Critical Paper.ppt for the critical paper assignment. The text for analysis is called CitizensUnited(2).doc