Legal Memo by Michael D. Berg

What If The Political Ads Just Keep Coming?

Although there will not be many ads attacking candidates next year, third parties inspired by their recent election experience can, and perhaps many will, continue to do “issue advertising” outside election seasons. Legally, stations have far more flexibility in handling third-party ads than candidate ads, but also far more potential exposure to liability for the ads’ content. Here's what stations need to know.
By
TVNewsCheck,

The on-air political campaign season that ended last Tuesday will long be remembered for many things — among them the amounts spent on ads (between $3 billion and $4.2 billion, depending on whom you ask); the Tea Party wins and losses; and the number, frequency and ferocity of ads attacking candidates and ballot issues. 

Many of those attack ads were placed and paid for by non-candidate “third parties” freed by Supreme Court rulings earlier this year to spend without limit up to Election Day. The content of many third-party ads stirred controversy. Their targets complained to stations of falsity or fraud. Stations had to decide how to respond.

Story continues after the ad

Although there will not be many ads attacking candidates next year, third parties inspired by their recent election experience can, and perhaps many will, continue to do “issue advertising” outside election seasons.

Urging viewers or listeners to contact their elected officials to oppose or support proposed legislation is but one potential example. Health care reform, the economy, immigration and many other issues are likely to be hotly contested and widely debated for the foreseeable future, given the results on Nov. 2. Corporations, unions, “super PACs” and others with a recently-reinforced acquired taste for the political ad market may want to keep at it.

Legally, stations have far more flexibility in handling third-party ads than candidate ads, but also far more potential exposure to liability for the ads’ content.

No station is required to accept any third-party political (or non-political) ad. Stations can decline to run them for any or no reason. Lowest unit charge (LUC), which applies only to candidate ads during the 45 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election, never applies to third-party ads.

Stations may also require that non-candidate ad content be altered to remove false, defamatory or otherwise offensive or inappropriate material.

Censorship is allowed, in contrast to candidate “uses,” which stations cannot censor no matter what’s in them. Or they can “channel” ads to certain time slots, such as the 10 p.m.-to-6 a.m. “safe harbor,” when the FCC presumes that children are less likely to be in the audience.

Station licenses are granted in the “public interest,” and stations are expected to exercise reasonable judgment about what that requires of them with respect to advertising.

Because stations have this flexibility, they are not insulated from liability for third-party content, as they are for the candidate ads that stations cannot censor or channel. Stations can require substantiation of claims in ads by noncandidate advertisers before running them, or, once the ads have aired, if a station has reason to question — such as a complaint — an ad’s veracity.

Stations may also investigate ad claims, and generally should do so where the truth of an ad is called into question and the station is on notice of a potential problem. Stations can (and usually should) stop airing an ad pending substantiation or investigation of an ad claim. 

When to take these steps, and for how long, are case-by-case judgments, and consultation with station counsel is advisable. These steps may be necessary to avoid station liability for defamation and other potential claims.

Stations are not expected to be guarantors of the truth or accuracy of everything in every ad. On the other hand, a station with reason to suspect that an ad is false or deceptive or fraudulent is obligated to act — such as by requiring substantiation, investigating, pulling the ad — and the FCC generally defers to station good faith judgments if such steps are taken. These steps are also appropriate with respect to the Federal Trade Commission, which deals with deceptive advertising more often than the FCC.

Here are some other things you should keep in mind:

Licensee judgments about what is in the public interest usually are deferred to by the FCC if reasonable. Communications Act Section 315 requires stations to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. If only one side of a public issue is the subject of third party ads, a station should consider covering all sides in news programming.

Stations may let the ads run and take the risks; decline to run the ads at all or stop them at any time; ask the advertiser to indemnify them in writing against money damages that might be awarded by a court against a station in a defamation suit or other type of litigation; investigate an ad’s claims; and/or require substantiation from the advertiser of the facts alleged.. 

The FCC’s sponsorship identification rules applicable to commercial product and services advertising also apply to issue ads. They should identify who actually paid for the ad, using the language “paid for by” or “sponsored by.” The ID must reflect the person or entity that paid, even if another name is used in the transaction or elsewhere. In addition to audio the ID must be displayed visually in letters of at least 4% vertical height and on the air for at least four seconds against a contrasting background.

Edit Article

Tags

Comments (4) -

Peter Bright posted a year ago
Well we all know the coffers across the corporate world of American broadcasting today will welcome the potential for more advertising dollars. There is also a possible healthy outcome for the electorate-at-large whereas we could experience public discourse of issues that otherwise would pass like ships in the night within the walls of an elected body. Conversely we could be deluged in false and deceptive on-air promotions from unknown entities. It is a fine line to walk with so much decision making power placed in the hands of the management at any one broadcaster. The potential for the dollars to be earned for airing any one side of an issue could be tempting to a management team that looks only to the bottom line, versus the overall good of the community they serve. This is a new uncharted sea, and the watch dogs better have their waterwings well inflated for the potential tsunamis ahead. Peter Bright
Curious Nickname posted a year ago
I think that there will be one more election cycle for this outpouring of mostly unregulated and anonymous spending. One side took full advantage of the ramifications of the Supreme Court ruling during this election, they were successful and they will have little incentive to apply any restrictions. I suspect that the other side has taken note and in 2012 there will be a lot more money spent on 'issue' advertising. I also expect it to result in a remarkably vile and vicious campaign season where the carnage will be widespread among all sides of the political spectrum, the public left even more disgusted with the process and the polarization of the country unprecedented. Perhaps the wounds suffered on all sides will lead to efforts to rebottle the genie. Then again, maybe not. Perhaps those left standing will be too invested in the outcome to recognize the damage it has caused.
justthefacts Nickname posted a year ago
I just say "Bring it!" No rate regulation for Issue and I will take the money to the bank.
HopeUMakeit Nickname posted a year ago
The US Supreme Court has just facilitated the method for which the Anit-Christ will rise. Many Americans believed his number was '43 or '44 and may other Americans believe her number will be '45. Any number you assign him or her, we are screwed.

Classifieds

The Market

Symbol Last Change (%)
Nasdaq 2874.04 -19.72 (-0.68%)
NYSE 7592.82 -42.99 (-0.56%)
S&P 500 1324.80 -5.86 (-0.44%)
Updated 05/17 12:34a ET Quotes delayed at least 20 mins.
Source: Financial Content

Ratings

Overnights, adults 18-49 for May 15, 2012
  • 1.
    3.2/9
  • 2.
    2.8/8
  • 3.
    2.5/7
  • 4.
    1.7/5
  • 5.
    1.6/5
  • 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