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.

Classifieds

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2847.21 +68.42 (+2.46%)
NYSE 7542.98 +115.24 (+1.55%)
S&P 500 1315.99 +20.77 (+1.60%)
Updated 05/22 7:36a ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for May 20, 2012
  • 1.
    2.4/7
  • 2.
    1.9/6
  • 3.
    1.6/5
  • 4.
    1.3/4
  • 5.
    1.0/3
  • 6.
    0.4/1
Source: Nielsen
Reviews
Opinions
Features
  • David Wiegand

    Fans of Sex and the City have finally gotten their wish: Their beloved sex-focused sitcom is back on the air ... sort of. The four women have become four men, of course, and the writing isn't as good. Oh, and the laugh track so annoying, it's offensive. And did I mention that the costumes would be considered fashionable if you were holding a yard sale? Men at Work on TBS is almost quaint, it's so old fashioned. If it had any meat on its bones, you'd be tempted to say it's the sadly ignoble epitome of TV's long-festering emasculated-men syndrome. But it's so much of a big, forgettable, innocuous shrug, it's not even worth any actual vitriol.

  • Mike Hale

    The USA Network's motto is "Characters Welcome." Apparently they're especially welcome if they resemble Oscar Madison and Felix Unger. Already stocked with Odd Couple knockoffs in Psych and White Collar, USA adds to its inventory Common Law, another comic crime-fighting show about mismatched partners. But this latest entry exhibits very little of that kind of spark as it tries to wring laughs from the juxtaposition of counseling and police work. It looks too flat and schematically plotted to succeed as the type of lightweight summer fun we’ve come to expect from USA.

  • Joanne Ostrow

    Johnny Carson: Fantastic entertainer, miserable human being. That's the lasting message of Johnny Carson: King of Late Night, the new PBS American Masters film, a rich history of a rare product of television who dominated the small screen for decades. Unprecedented access to personal archives plus all existing episodes of The Tonight Show (1962-92), distinguishes this film by Peter Jones. Telling interviews with family and colleagues, including second wife Joanne Carson, former Tonight Show executive producer Peter Lassally and a number of biographers sharpen the picture. The clips are carefully selected to illustrate specific personality traits, the performance highlights are given context and meaning beyond funny lines and memorable moments.

  • Hank Stuever

    AMC's The Pitch is a sharply-made if slightly off-putting reality series that follows different advertising agencies each week as they compete for new accounts. The inspiration for the show — made clear by its own ad campaign — is to harness some of the verve generated by the network's acclaimed Mad Men. The Pitch has a way of making the ad world seem like a real downer — a repugnant exercise in egotism laced with depressing bouts of creative compromise.

  • Tim Goodman

    HBO's Veep stars Julia Louis-Dreyfus as former Sen. Selina Meyer, who accepts the vice presidential duty and regrets it almost immediately: She has no real power and gets muscled by the Senate, Congress and the (so-far-unseen) president, who delegates all the truly crappy jobs to her. Louis-Dreyfus has found perhaps her best post-Seinfeld role and takes to it with such fervor — the constant swearing, the barely veiled desire to become president, the unhappy give-and-take with other politicians and a delightful disdain for average citizens — that you can't help but applaud what is clearly an Emmy-worthy effort. Her work alone makes Veep a gem, but there's even more to like.

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