Legal Memo by Michael D. Berg

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

Page 3 of 3
Continued from page 2…

In allocating political ad time, stations should factor in the public interest standard. For example, is it reasonable or in the public interest to run corporate ads that heavily and lopsidedly support or oppose a given candidate, without selling time for the opposing view? Section 315 of the Communications Act still requires broadcasters to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance, which include elections.


Story continues after the ad

This column on TV law and regulation by Michael D. Berg, a veteran Washington, D.C., communications lawyer and the principal in the Law Office of Michael D. Berg, appears periodically. He is also the co-author of FCC Lobbying: A Handbook of Insider Tips and Practical Advice. He can be reached at mberg@michaelberglaw.com or 202-530-8560. Read more of Berg's Legal Memos here.

Note: This article provides general guidance only and is not a substitute for individualized legal advice for particular situations.

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.

Today's Top Stories

Classifieds

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2915.86 +11.78 (+0.41%)
NYSE 8082.98 +13.27 (+0.16%)
S&P 500 1349.96 +2.91 (+0.22%)
Updated 02/08 5:44p ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for February 7, 2012
  • 1.
    3.1/8
  • 2.
    3.0/8
  • 3.
    2.4/6
  • 4.
    2.0/5
  • 5.
    1.6/4
  • 6.
    0.6/1
Source: Nielsen
Reviews
Opinions
Features
  • Neil Genzlinger

    Smash, NBC’s series about backstage Broadway, comes with New York and Hollywood names off screen (Steven Spielberg, Therese Rebeck) and on (Debra Messing and Brian d’Arcy James). Given that pedigree, you’re expecting to be bowled over by the pilot, but it ends up feeling like a collage of devices from the zillions of previous backstage plays, musicals and movies. However, be patient — Smash gets better as it goes along and by Episode 3 it shows signs of becoming an addictive pleasure along the lines of this season’s Revenge.

  • Lori Rackl

    Pop some Dramamine before watching ABC's new horror series, The River, because the shaky camera work is more likely to make you seasick than scared. You can, however, skip the sleeping pill. The River's two-hour premiere should suffice. Billed as a thriller, the show tries hard to be terrifying and eerie in a Paranormal Activity kind of way. It ends up being hokey and, even worse, boring.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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