Legal Memo by Michael D. Berg

Election Ad Ruling: What's It Mean To TV?

The Supreme Court's recent decision overturning more than 100 years of political campaign law and legal precedent raises a number of questions for TV stations. Here's a look at what the decision does and doesn't do; questions the ruling leaves open -- and how they may be resolved; what happens next; steps stations should take; and pitfalls to avoid between now and the Nov. 2 general election.
By
TVNewsCheck,

Eight days ago, the Supreme Court's long-awaited corporate campaign spending ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck the law of political broadcasting with lightning.

The five-justice bare majority opinion reverses more than 100 years of bans on corporations' use of their own funds for ads and other communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal elective office. The opinion also frees labor unions from more than 60 years of those limits. Similar laws in 24 states are also expected to fall.

Story continues after the ad

The next day, editorial headlines in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal captured the strong polarization about the opinion both within the court itself (there was a ringing 90-page dissent by four justices) and in the public reaction. The Times headline was "The Court's Blow to Democracy;" in the Journal, it was "A Free Speech Landmark." 

The controversy is sparking efforts to scale back some predicted effects of the opinion through legislation or other means (see below). In the meantime, the old limits are void at least for federal campaigns. The effects could be felt as soon as the Illinois primary election next Tuesday.

What does the ruling mean for television and radio stations and their management?

I focus here -- preliminarily because rule or other changes are likely in the wake of the decision -- on what the decision does and doesn't do; questions the ruling leaves open -- and how they may be resolved; what happens next; steps stations should take; and pitfalls to avoid between now and the Nov. 2 general election.

What the Supreme Court Opinion Does

Fundamentally, the decision is about where the money can come from to pay for certain political advertising on broadcast TV and radio, cable and satellite.

Specifically, the opinion does four main things:

1. Overrules prior Supreme Court decisions upholding federal law bans on corporate, and labor union, use of their own general treasury funds for ads not coordinated with candidates ("independent expenditures") that expressly support or oppose named candidates for federal elected office (president and Congress).  

Previously, corporations and unions could finance such "independent expenditures" only through political action committees (PACs). PACs are funded by voluntary donations from individuals such as corporate employees and union members. Who can contribute and how much are regulated by the IRS and FEC. Now, there is no limit on the sources or amounts of funds that a corporation or union itself can spend on "express candidate advocacy" independent ads. Corporations and unions can also spend freely on independent "issue ads" that do not name candidates.

2. Strikes down the federal ban on corporate and union use of their own funds to pay for "electioneering communications." These are defined as "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication" that "refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office," is made within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election, and is "publicly distributed" (i.e., the communication can be received by at least 50,000 people in a state within the 30- or 60-day period.) 

Previously, corporations and unions could contribute to electioneering communications only through PACs. Now they can finance the communications directly at any time, including within 30 and 60 days of elections and right up to Election Day.

3. Upholds the validity of existing federal law disclosure and disclaimer requirements applicable to election-related advertising by corporations and unions. Specifically, these provisions continue in effect indefinitely and apply to advertising newly permitted as a result of the opinion (but note that they are subject to change):

  • Disclosure. Corporations/unions spending more than $10,000 per year to produce or air election-related ads must report, to the FEC, the names and addresses of anyone contributing $1,000 or more to the ads' preparation or distribution.
  • Disclaimer. Any third-party "independent" ad that refers to a federal candidate and is not authorized by a candidate or candidate's committee must include in the ad the statement: "[Full name] is responsible for the content of this advertising," and state the paying party's permanent street address, telephone number (or Web address) and that the communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. The statement must be spoken clearly and be displayed in text on the screen for at least four seconds. In addition, if the paying party is a corporation, the station should require that a list of the corporation's chief executive officers or members of the executive committee or board of directors be placed in the station's public file.

4. By 1 and 2 above, the court opens the door to substantial additional demand for election-related air time by any form of corporation or union, including trade associations, for-profit and nonprofit incorporated groups, and advocacy organizations from all over the political spectrum.  

By definition, the opinion applies to independent, third-party expenditures, meaning not by candidates or their authorized committees. Time requests that flow from the opinion therefore do not trigger lowest unit charge, which must be provided only to legally qualified candidates or their authorized committees.

Edit Article

Comments (9) -

BennyJets Nickname posted over 2 years ago
This is a tough one…where I value freedom of speech, I’m truly opposed to anyone buying an election or influencing the voting public with their own self interests. Definitely more exploration is needed in this situation to insure fairness and equality in both ideals. Where as I can side with the company who produced the “Hilary” documentary, Citizen’s United, I can see where exploitation and corruption can eventually put us into a futuristic Sci-Fi situation where corporations ARE the government, not just simply influencing it. Like I said, it's a tough one!
GoPrivate Nickname posted over 2 years ago
What idiot would vote for the candidate with the largest expenditure on their behalf by corporate spending and union endorsements? Oh, the same idiots who voted for change, that's right!
PSIPthing Nickname posted over 2 years ago
freedom of speech trumps all.
TV Research Guy posted over 2 years ago
This is a serious issue to our very democracy and left & right as Americans should unite against it. The last presidential election cost nearly $1 billion, that money combined with the money for Senate and all the House seats combined adds up to LESS than 10% of the profits that Exxon Mobil made that year. Now look at the billions in pure profit of the Fortune 500 and tell me how citizens will have "free" speech when it can now be purchased. This activist Supreme Court, that did not address the issue before it, but widened the question to campaign financing, has undone over 100 years of legislation (inluding McCain-Feingold), several states' laws (including Texas and Kentucky) to allow multinationals to spend money, including from Dubai, China and any other country in our political process. Who benefits from that? Time to drop the partisanship and figure out how to get the money out of politics for once and for all.
PSIPthing Nickname posted over 2 years ago
what's the proper, serious level for a limit? If the government doesn't have the authority to tell me what's the maximum amount of newspapers or magizines that I can subscribe to, why should they have any authority to limit what a voluntary association of citizens -- aka a corporation -- can spend to attempt to influence campaigns?
randomusername Nickname posted over 2 years ago
Santiago.... I highly doubt publically traded companies will be investing in candidates running for office...how would the share holders feel if they saw a message "paid for by Exxon"? True, they could donate to a special interest group, but that money has to accounted for in the share holder reports. This is going to benefit the labor unions and such groups the most...as well as the TV stations, which need it!
Michael Palmer posted over 2 years ago
A billion dollars to elect the leader of the free world is a pittance, far too low, way out of line when juxtaposed to the importance of the product. What is coca-cola's ad budget? Everyone knows what coke tastes like. Everyone knows about how much it costs and where to buy it and ONLY a billion dollars for President? There are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle whose freedom of speech is being censored by arbitrary and capricious electioneering laws. A billion dollars to elect a president? That is nothing...
PSIPthing Nickname posted over 2 years ago
only $300 mm more than the last winner spent ...
Benthere Nickname posted over 2 years ago
This is much ado about nothing. The buying of elections and votes has been and is still alive and well. Whoever thinks that this constitutional ruling will make politicians crooked are living in a cave. Where else but in politics will a candidate for Senate or US Representative put in $2 milllion or more of their own dollars for a job that pays less than one-tenth of that? These people aren't necessarily dumb, they just realize that their return on investment will be longer term. So this correct ruling is not about inciting corruption - that pig is already out of the sty.

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2905.66 +45.98 (+1.61%)
NYSE 8060.43 +115.00 (+1.45%)
S&P 500 1344.90 +19.36 (+1.46%)
Updated 02/04 5:01p ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for February 3, 2012
  • 1.
    3.9/11
  • 2.
    3.5/9
  • 3.
    2.5/7
  • 4.
    1.5/4
  • 5.
    1.5/4
  • 6.
    0.9/2
Source: Nielsen
Reviews
Opinions
Features
  • Robert Lloyd

    Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, veterans of Fox's sketch comedy MADtv, have a new series of their own, Comedy Central's Key & Peele. It is a genial, at times almost genteel, half-hour in which the pair's obvious niceness shines through even their more pugnacious characters. (Key's version of road rage is to shout, "Selfish!") In a roundabout way, that's the point. The sketches are consistently smart and smartly acted and flow easily from ordinary premises to weird conclusions.

  • Hank Stuever

    Discovery's Bering Sea Gold doesn’t seem at first like it has crossed any new reality TV frontier, relying on elements and structure familiar to the form. Enticingly (to the network), it combines the ocean and the gold and the cold and the reactive testosterone among bad-tempered desperados. To which I am surprised to cry: Eureka, they’ve found it! Bering Sea Gold is a testament to how thoroughly absorbing the genre can still be, when it’s done right.

  • Neil Genzlinger

    All Star Dealers, Discovery Channel's sports-memorabilia addition to the bloated auction/pawnshop/storage locker subgenre of reality television, should have been a winner, with endless stories to draw on and a built-in fan base. But rather than find its own formula, it was content to borrow from existing shows, and it borrowed all the wrong things.

  • Joanne Ostrow

    Kiefer Sutherland displays his softer side in Fox's Touch, a touchy-feely drama merging paranormal, spiritual and sweetly familial elements. shows off his acting chops, long forgotten, in scene after scene. It's heavier lifting than usual for the actor who was often reduced to caricature in 24. Sutherland is all about vulnerability in a show whose goal is nothing short of proving the interconnectedness of human life. We'll see if audiences can tolerate the notion of profound interrelatedness as weekly entertainment.

  • Tim Goodman

    Let's jump right to the most obvious of all sentiments when it comes to HBO's new horse racing/gambling series Luck: Do not bet against David Milch in this one. Like a lot of HBO series, Luck will require patience. It's telling a dense story with nuanced characters and it doesn't feel the need to rush in, like a network series, and hammer home the main themes. But each episode is more enriching, more engrossing than the last and there's Hoffman's superb turn at the forefront, even though his story unfolds with the least rush. Luck is a smart and ambitious series that looks to truly pay off in the home stretch.

  • Mike Hale

    The timing of FX's animated series Unsupervised is unfortunate. A kind of reversed Beavis and Butt-Head — in which the teenage heroes, while losers in just about every way, are also social strivers yearning for suburban domesticity and dispensing Oprah Winfrey-style affirmations — it has the bad luck of coming along three months after the original was revived by MTV. The new show looks awfully pale by comparison.

This advertisement will close automatically in  second(s). You will see this ad no more than once a day. Skip ad