Articles Posted in Political Advertising

Published on:

By

In a not all that surprising development for those who monitor Chairman Carr’s pronouncements, the FCC’s Media Bureau today released a “Guidance on Political Equal Opportunities Requirement for Broadcast Television Stations” narrowing the programs found exempt from the Equal Opportunities requirement.  The clear target is appearances by candidates on the TV broadcast networks’ morning and late night interview programs.  Tellingly, while the Equal Opportunities requirement applies to both radio and TV stations, today’s Public Notice containing the guidance is directed only at “Broadcast Television Stations” (see the title above).

The Equal Opportunities requirement (often inaccurately called “equal time”) was created by Congress via Section 315(a) of the Communications Act of 1934.  This requirement was not only in the original statute as enacted in 1934, but the language was copied over from its predecessor statute, the Radio Act of 1927.  This 99-year-old provision requires that whenever a broadcast station has a political candidate appear on-air, the station must make comparable airtime available on comparable terms to all competing candidates that request it.  So if Candidate A buys a campaign spot, the station must sell comparable airtime at comparable rates to competing Candidates B, C, D, and E if they request it.  The true rub lies in the comparable rate part.  If the station grants free airtime to Candidate A, then B, C, D, and E are entitled to request free airtime as well.  As long as their request arrives within seven days of Candidate A’s appearance, the station must honor it (admittedly, I am simplifying a bit here).

Incredibly, from its original adoption in 1927 until 1959, the statutory language provided for no exceptions, so even a station airing a presidential news conference would trigger Equal Opportunities obligations if the President was running for reelection at the time.  The only reason this situation could persist for so long is that the FCC inferred an exception for newscasts in which a candidate appeared.  However, in 1959, the FCC reversed itself on even that, concluding that newscasts were not exempt.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has stated that decision “created a national furor, and it was feared that its strict application of the equal opportunities provision ‘would tend to dry up meaningful radio and television coverage of political campaigns.’”

In response, Congress reasserted itself, and in a matter of months amended the Communications Act to create exemptions where a candidate appears in:

(1) a bona fide newscast;

(2) a bona fide news interview;

(3) a bona fide news documentary; or

(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including political conventions and related activities).

In the early years after these exemptions were added, the FCC was rather begrudging as to which events it believed qualified as bona fide news.  In 1962, it ruled that the airing of candidate debates did not qualify for any of the exemptions, and in 1964, it ruled that candidate press conferences, even by the President, were not exempt from Equal Opportunities.  Almost comically, the FCC realized years later that the legislative history it had relied upon in making both these decisions referenced language that was stricken from the legislation before it was enacted.  As a result, the FCC reversed itself in 1975, adopting a broader interpretation of the exemptions.

In the years since, the FCC has specifically blessed a broad range of programs as containing bona fide news interviews, moving beyond traditional journalism programs like Meet the Press and Face the Nation to Donahue (1984), Entertainment Tonight (1988), the Sally Jessy Raphael Show (1991),  Jerry Springer (1994), Politically Incorrect (1999), Howard Stern (2003), and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (2006).  Notably, the Communications Act only requires that a program fit into one of the four exemptions to be exempt from Equal Opportunities.  No pre-approval by the FCC is required.  However, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has noted in a different context, the FCC has “life and death power over” broadcasters, and it is therefore not surprising that stations would want a clear ruling from the FCC that a program is exempt before treating it as such.

Some early press articles have portrayed today’s action by the Media Bureau as “[t]he Federal Communications Commission told broadcasters late night and daytime talk shows are not exempt from the ‘equal time’ rule of the Federal Communications Act, meaning the talk shows will be required to provide political candidates equal opportunity for air time if their opponents sit down for interviews.”  That’s not quite right.  What the Media Bureau did today is more subtle, but equally consequential.  Late night and daytime talk shows that fit into one of the four exemptions will still qualify as exempt from Equal Opportunities because that is what the statute says and the FCC can’t overrule Congress.  Similarly, Congress didn’t require that broadcasters get prior approval from the FCC in order to treat a program as exempt, so the FCC can’t require that either.  What the FCC can do is make the life of a broadcast licensee airing an “unblessed” program miserable through its investigatory authority and control over broadcast license renewals and station sales, among other things.

That makes the dramatic aspect of today’s Public Notice the following two paragraphs from its last page (bold added):

“Concerns have been raised that the industry has taken the Media Bureau’s 2006 staff-level decision [regarding The Tonight Show] to mean that the interview portion of all arguably similar entertainment programs—whether late night or daytime—are exempted from the section 315 equal opportunities requirement under a bona fide news exemption.  This is not the case.  As noted above, these decisions are fact specific and the exemptions are limited to the program that was the subject of the request.

Importantly, the FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bona fide news exemption.  Moreover, a program that is motivated by partisan purposes, for example, would not be entitled to an exemption under longstanding FCC precedent.  Any program or station that wishes to obtain formal assurance that the equal opportunities requirement does not apply (in whole or in part) is encouraged to promptly file a petition for declaratory ruling that satisfies the statutory requirements for a bona fide news exemption.”

In other words, the Media Bureau has wiped the slate clean, making clear that no currently airing program should be considered exempt based on a prior FCC blessing, not even The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon because it is not The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (the latter being found exempt in 2006).

That means there are no safe harbors among these programs, and broadcast stations must either (1) treat such programs as exempt using their own best judgment and run the risk of being second-guessed by the FCC later, with appropriate penalties meted out, (2) seek a declaratory ruling for each program from the FCC, with the risk that any episodes aired without providing Equal Opportunities while awaiting such a decision could lead to FCC penalties if the FCC later concludes the program doesn’t fit into one of the statutory exemptions, or (3) treat every candidate appearance in every non-newscast program as triggering Equal Opportunities, and hand out airtime to competing candidates like candy.  Of course, all of these lead to the far more likely option 4: no candidate interviews aired outside of newscasts.  That hardly seems to be in the public interest, which is the guiding mandate of the FCC, much less consistent with the First Amendment.

On that last point, the Media Bureau’s words from its 2006 decision granting a safe harbor to The Tonight Show seem relevant (brackets omitted):

“The Entertainment Tonight ruling further states that ‘Congress did not note that bona fide news could be coverage of only certain substantive areas.’  It stated that the prospect of the Commission making determinations as to whether particular kinds of news are more or less bona fide ‘would involve unwarranted intrusiveness into program content and would be thus, at least suspect under the First Amendment.’  The ruling concludes that ‘so long as the program characteristics set out by Congress are met, our role is properly limited to determining whether a broadcaster was reasonable in deciding that a program fits within an exemption.  Our role is not to decide, by some qualitative analysis, whether one kind of news story is more bona fide than another.’

***

[W]e again note the Commission’s observation in Donahue: ‘it would seem elemental that Congress when adopting the news exemptions contemplated interviews with elected officials and candidates for elected office as newsworthy subject matter.’  As the Commission stated in Donahue, ‘Congressional intent is to defer substantially to the good faith news judgments of licensees.’”

How much deference remains to be seen.

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published the FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue is a special edition:

FCC Enforcement Monitor—The Government Shutdown Edition
While shutdowns of the federal government have become depressingly common, the FCC has generally been less affected than most government agencies because it is not funded by taxpayer dollars but by regulatory fees paid by broadcasters and others regulated by the FCC. However, because the FCC collects those fees in arrears—at the end of the fiscal year they fund rather than the beginning—the FCC must borrow operating funds from the federal government to operate and then repay that debt when regulatory fees are collected at the end of the fiscal year. That is the reason the FCC is never able to extend its regulatory fee collection deadline beyond September 30, the last day of the federal fiscal year.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

With publication of OMB approval in the Federal Register, today was the effective date for amendments to Section 73.1212(j) of the FCC’s Rules, which governs sponsorship identification for broadcast programming that “has been provided by a foreign governmental entity.”  Under those amendments, broadcast licensees would need to use one of two recordkeeping methods to demonstrate compliance with the foreign sponsorship disclosure rules.

Late today, however, the FCC’s Media Bureau released a Public Notice stating:

By this Public Notice, the Bureau announces that OMB has approved the rule modifications which revise requirements under 47 CFR § 73.1212(j)(3).  Accordingly, these revised requirements are now effective as of June 10, 2025.  However, the Bureau defers requiring compliance with the revised rules under 47 CFR § 73.1212(j)(3) until 6 months after June 10, 2025, or December 8, 2025. Only new leases and renewals of existing leases entered into on or after the compliance date must comply with the rule modifications.

So while the amended rules did go into effect today, broadcasters won’t need to come into compliance with the new recordkeeping requirements until December 8, 2025.  Until that time, you can read a detailed description of how the currently applicable pre-amendment rule works here.

Hopefully, today’s announced delay is a cause for optimism that a deregulatory FCC might use the additional time to streamline these cumbersome requirements.  If not, however, on December 8, 2025, stations will need to maintain records verifying whether a party leasing airtime is a “foreign governmental entity” for purposes of providing adequate disclosures through one of the following two recordkeeping methods:

Certification Approach

Stations and lessees of airtime must each complete a written certification reflecting that the station made the required inquiries regarding foreign governmental sponsorship.  Parties may use the FCC’s own “check-box” templates (Appendices C and D to the FCC’s Order), or create their own certification forms, provided that the forms collectively address the following required certifications:

  • Whether the licensee informed the airtime lessee of the foreign sponsorship disclosure requirement;
  • Whether the licensee asked about, and whether the lessee is, a “foreign governmental entity,” which includes foreign governments, foreign political parties, agents of foreign principals (as defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), and U.S.-based foreign media outlets;
  • Whether the licensee asked about, and whether the lessee knows of, any entity or individual further back in the production or distribution chain that meets the definition of a foreign governmental entity and has provided some form of inducement to air the programming;
  • Whether the licensee sought a written certification from the lessee certifying lessee’s answers; and
  • Whether the licensee obtained the necessary information for a disclosure where one is required.

These certifications must be dated and signed by an appropriate representative of each party and retained in the licensee’s records as discussed below.

Screenshot Approach

As an alternative to certifications, licensees may ask lessees to provide screenshots of their search results when searching for themselves in the following two federal databases:

This option places the responsibility for conducting the searches on the lessee and, the FCC believes, avoids triggering the investigatory concerns raised by the D.C. Circuit. Licensees must still conduct and document the same underlying foreign sponsorship inquiries (but without need of written certifications) and retain the lessee responses in their records.

Regardless of which approach a station adopts by December 8, it must retain documentation of its diligence efforts—whether certifications or screenshots—for the remainder of the license term or one year, whichever is longer.  The records may be stored in either the licensee’s Public Inspection File or in its internal files, as long as the documents are promptly made available to the FCC upon request.

Published on:

By and

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week released a highly anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on proposed disclosure requirements for political ads containing AI-generated content.  The item was adopted earlier this month by a 3-2 party-line vote, nearly two months after FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel first announced its circulation among the commissioners for consideration.

As discussed in more detail below, the proposed rule would require radio and TV broadcasters to (1) inquire of any person making a request to buy airtime for political advertising whether the ad contains AI-generated content; (2) make on-air disclosures of AI use with regard to political ads containing AI-generated content immediately before or during their airing; and (3) include a disclosure of AI use in the station’s Political File records for each such ad buy.  While this post focuses on the NPRM’s broadcast-specific proposals, we note that it proposes similar obligations for cable operators, Direct Broadcast Satellite providers, and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service licensees engaged in program origination, as well as for Section 325 permit holders (those authorized to export programming for transmission back into the United States).

Aware that such rules might conflict with similar efforts by states and other federal agencies, the NPRM characterizes the proposed disclosure requirements as a “complement” to efforts to regulate AI in political advertising that are underway in various states and at the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which we wrote about here and here.  However, FEC Chairman Sean Cooksey made his contrary views clear in a letter last month to FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel in which he stated that the FEC has exclusive jurisdiction in this area and “the FCC lacks legal authority to promulgate conflicting disclaimer requirements only for political communications.”

The proposal would require broadcasters to do the following:

Duty of Inquiry:  Broadcasters would need to inform each political advertiser, at the time the station agrees to air a political ad, of the requirement that stations must air a disclosure for any ad that includes AI-generated content and then inquire of the buyer as to whether the ad includes such content.  While styled as a “simple inquiry,” the NPRM acknowledges various challenges that are likely to arise.  It seeks comments on how to deal with such situations, including, for example, where a station is working with a media placement agency that had no role in the creation of the ad and which may not know whether it includes AI-generated content, or the station receives political content from a network or syndicator and has no direct contact with the advertiser.

On-Air Disclosure:  A broadcast station that receives a candidate or issue ad containing AI-generated content would need to air a disclosure immediately before or during the ad to inform viewers of the ad’s use of AI.  The proposal contemplates and seeks comment on the following standardized language for the disclosure: “[The following]/[this] message contains information generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence.”  Once again, the NPRM acknowledges there are challenges broadcasters will face in complying with the proposed rule.  These include (a) what should a station do if it has received no response to its inquiry about AI use; (b) what should a station do if it was told by the person or entity buying the time that an ad contains no AI-generated content and is later informed by a credible third party that the ad does include AI-generated content (and who should qualify as a “credible third party?”); and (c) what should a station do when it receives political programming through a network and lacks any information from the advertiser on AI use as well as the ability to insert a disclosure in network-delivered programming?  The NPRM seeks comment on these and many other issues that may affect a station’s ability to comply with the proposed disclosure requirement.

Online Disclosure: Adding yet more to the burden on broadcasters, the NPRM proposes requiring broadcasters to include in their online Political Files the following written disclosure for each political ad containing AI-generated content: “This message contains information generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence.”

Because of the FCC’s limited jurisdiction, the proposed rules would apply only to certain FCC-regulated entities, doing nothing to address the use of AI in political ads that voters see and hear on social media or elsewhere.  As a result, it would impose a significant burden on regulated entities while leaving unregulated entities like social media—the primary source of deceptive political information—completely unregulated.  This would incentivize advertisers to put their AI ads on any media other than radio and TV, both because of their desire not to include disclosures and the added bureaucracy/delay involved in the multi-step process stations would need to follow with advertisers to determine if a disclosure is needed (and the added time needed to then insert such a disclosure). Continue reading →

Published on:

By and

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • TV Broadcaster Faces $150,000 Fine for Failure to Negotiate Retransmission Consent in Good Faith
  • Sponsorship ID and Political File Violations Lead to $500,000 Consent Decree for Radio Broadcaster
  • $26,000 Fine for Georgia Radio Station EEO Rule Violations

 FCC Finds That TV Broadcaster Failed to Negotiate Retransmission Consent in Good Faith

Responding to a complaint by a cable TV provider, the Federal Communications Commission found that a broadcaster failed to negotiate retransmission consent for its New York TV station in good faith.  The enforcement action involves a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) proposing a $150,000 fine against the broadcast licensee.  The licensee was represented in the negotiations by another broadcaster who provides services to the station at issue.

Under Section 325 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), TV stations and multichannel video programming distributors (i.e., cable and satellite TV providers) have a duty to negotiate retransmission consent agreements in good faith.  In a 2000 Order, the FCC adopted rules relating to good faith negotiations, setting out procedures for parties to allege violations of the rules.  The Order established a two-part good faith negotiation test.  Part one of the test is a list of objective negotiation standards, the violation of any of which is deemed to be a per se violation of a party’s duty to negotiate in good faith.  Part two of the test is a subjective “totality of the circumstances” test in which the FCC reviews the facts presented in a complaint to determine if the combined facts establish an overall failure to negotiate in good faith.

In this case, the cable provider complained that the broadcaster, through its negotiator, proposed terms for renewal of the parties’ agreement that would have prohibited either party from filing certain complaints with the FCC after execution of the agreement.  For its part, the broadcaster did not dispute that it proposed the terms in question, but argued that (1) “releasing FCC-related claims or withdrawing FCC complaints is not novel,” (2) “parties typically agree to withdraw good faith negotiation complaints once retransmission consent agreements have been reached,” and (3) no violation could have occurred since the proposed term was not included in the final agreement reached.

The FCC disagreed, stating that its 2000 Order made clear that proposing terms which foreclose the filing of FCC complaints is a presumptive violation of the good faith negotiation rules.  The FCC also disagreed with the broadcaster’s contention that terms not included in a final agreement could not violate the good faith rules.  Finally, while the licensee argued that it was not responsible for actions taken by the party negotiating on its behalf, the FCC reiterated that licensees are responsible for the actions of their agents, and the licensee in this case delegated negotiation of the agreement to its agent.

Relying upon statutory authority and its Forfeiture Policy Statement, the FCC arrived at a proposed fine of $150,000.  The Forfeiture Policy Statement establishes a base fine of $7,500 for violating the cable broadcast carriage rules, and the FCC asserted that the alleged violations continued for 10 days (the time period from first proposing the terms at issue and the signing of the agreement without them), yielding a base fine of $75,000.  The FCC then exercised its discretion to upwardly adjust the proposed fine to $150,000, asserting that the increase was justified based on the licensee’s financial relationship with a large TV company, its prior rule violations, and the FCC’s view that a larger fine was necessary to serve as a meaningful deterrent against future violations.

Repeated Violations of Sponsorship ID and Political File Rules Lead to $500,000 Consent Decree

A large radio station group entered into a consent decree with the FCC’s Media Bureau, agreeing to pay a $500,000 civil penalty for two of its stations’ violations of sponsorship identification laws and the Political File rule.

Section 317(a)(1) of the Act and Section 73.1212(a) of the FCC’s Rules require broadcast stations to identify the sponsor of any sponsored content broadcast on the station.  This requirement applies to all advertising, music, and any other broadcast content if the station or its employees received something of value for airing it.  The FCC has said that the sponsorship identification laws are “grounded in the principle that listeners and viewers are entitled to know who seeks to persuade them . . . .” Continue reading →

Published on:

By

With the Iowa Republican Caucus happening in mid-January and dozens of additional primaries and caucuses to follow before the 2024 general election, broadcasters need to be aware of the use of artificial intelligence (AI), deepfakes and synthetic media in political advertising and the various laws at play when such content is used. These laws seek to ensure that viewers and listeners are made aware that the person they are seeing or the voice they are hearing in political advertising may not be who it looks like or sounds like. Campaigns, political committees, super PACs, special interest groups and other political advertisers are using AI, deepfakes and synthetic media in advertisements, making it easier to mislead and misinform viewers and listeners.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • More Stations Settle with FCC Over Political File Violations
  • FCC Fines Drone Retailer Nearly $3 Million for Marketing Unauthorized Devices
  • California FM Translator Fined for Operating Above Power Limits

Political Ad Troubles Continue: Dozens of Radio Stations Settle With FCC Over Political File Violations

As election season heats up, the FCC remains focused on broadcasters’ Political File recordkeeping.  In the past month alone, the Media Bureau has entered into scores of consent decrees with radio broadcasters stemming from violations of the Commission’s Political File rules.  This barrage of enforcement actions follows similar settlements reached last month (covered here).

This month’s consent decrees continue to involve obligations under Section 315(e)(1) of the Communications Act, which requires broadcasters to place in their Political File records of requests to purchase political advertising time made: (1) by or on behalf of a candidate for public office (i.e., federal, state, or local candidates); or (2) by a non-candidate third party whose ad communicates a message relating to a “political matter of national importance.”  Section 73.1943 of the FCC’s Rules requires stations to upload this documentation “as soon as possible,” which the FCC considers to be “immediately absent unusual circumstances.”  The FCC has repeatedly emphasized that these recordkeeping requirements are essential to a candidate’s ability to assert a right to equal time over the airwaves, as well as to keep the electorate informed so that they can evaluate the validity of political messages and hold political interests accountable.

The investigations arose from issues identified in each of the affected stations’ license renewal applications.  The license renewal application form requires stations to certify compliance with the FCC’s Public Inspection File rule, and the Political File is part of the Public Inspection File.  For stations that were unable to make this certification, further investigations uncovered deficient Political File records in a number of cases.

In particular, FCC staff indicated that failures to timely upload political file materials has been a recurring problem, and that when the rules say that records of a request to purchase airtime must be uploaded to the Public File “as soon as possible,” the FCC interprets that to mean within one business day of the date of the request.

The recent flood of consent decrees has increased awareness of broadcasters’ Political File obligations and has brought recordkeeping and other related compliance issues to the forefront for broadcasters both large and small.  While last month saw settlements involving six large radio broadcasters operating roughly 1,900 stations nationwide, recent actions have targeted licensees controlling just a handful of stations.

While the settlements to date have not included monetary payments, by entering into consent decrees, the licensees are now on the hook for additional compliance measures, including preparing and implementing comprehensive compliance plans, along with filing periodic FCC compliance reports.

Political File obligations continue to be some of the most nuanced and complicated rules the FCC enforces, and the FCC’s guidance in this area continues to evolve.  Stations are therefore advised to work closely with counsel to understand their obligations and develop procedures to ensure compliance.  Additional information on the political broadcasting rules is also available in our Advisory on the subject.

Drone Retailer Hit with Nearly $3 Million Fine for Marketing Unauthorized Devices

The FCC recently issued a $2,861,128 fine against a large online drone retailer for marketing unauthorized drone equipment and failing to fully respond to a Commission request for information in the course of the investigation.

Section 302 of the Communications Act restricts the manufacture, import, sale, or shipment of devices capable of causing harmful interference to radio communications.  In addition, under Section 2.803(b) of the FCC’s Rules, devices that emit radiofrequency (RF) energy must first undergo the Commission’s equipment authorization procedures before being marketed for sale in the United States.  Such devices must also adhere to strict identification and labeling requirements.

Following several complaints about the company’s marketing of noncompliant RF transmitters intended for use in operating drones, the FCC’s Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Letter of Inquiry (“LOI”) in January 2016 seeking information and documents related to the allegations. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others. This month’s issue includes:

  • FCC Settles with Six Major Radio Groups Over Political File Violations
  • Texas Radio Stations Face Proposed Fines for Contest Rule Violations
  • $15,000 Fine Proposed for LPFM Station Airing Commercial Ads

Continue reading →

Published on:

By , and

More than fifteen years after the adoption of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”) of 2002, popularly known as “McCain-Feingold,” Congress’s and the Federal Communications Commission’s interest in political broadcasting and political advertising practices remains undiminished.  Broadcast stations must meet a broad range of federal mandates, and must therefore familiarize themselves with this regulatory area, ensuring they have adequate policies and practices in place and that they monitor legislative, FCC, and Federal Election Commission developments for changes in the law.

Stations must adopt and meticulously apply political broadcasting policies that are consistent with the Communications Act and the FCC’s rules, including the all-important requirement that stations fully and accurately disclose in writing their rates, classes of advertising, and sales practices to candidates.  This information should be provided to candidates and their agents in a station’s Political Advertising Disclosure Statement.

Many of the political broadcasting regulations are grounded in the “Reasonable Access,” “Equal Opportunities,” and “Lowest Unit Charge” provisions of the Communications Act.  These elements of the law ensure that broadcast facilities are available to candidates for federal office, that broadcasters treat competing candidates equally, and that stations provide candidates with the same rates offered to their most-favored commercial advertisers during specified periods prior to an election.  As a general rule, stations may not discriminate between candidates for the same office as to station use, the amount of time given or sold, or in any other meaningful way.

These rules are enforced through fairly stringent recordkeeping requirements, with a station’s political advertising documentation required to be kept in its political file—a file that is now available online to the public as part of a station’s Public Inspection File.  Political files must contain a station’s political documentation for the past two years.  As of the publication of this Advisory, all TV political file documents going back two years and most radio political file documents going back two years are online.  However, the FCC allowed certain smaller, small market, and noncommercial radio stations a longer period of time to move their pre-March 1, 2018 political documents online.  For these stations, their political files are not required to be completely online until March 1, 2020.

Because of the transition to online political files, broadcasters must be even more diligent to ensure that all political documents are timely created and uploaded.  The past few years have seen an uptick in political complaints from watchdog organizations which now have convenient around-the-clock access to stations’ political files.  Unfortunately, many of those who have suddenly gained ready access to stations’ political files do not understand the political rules and may allege that a station’s political file is missing required information when the political file is in fact complete. It is therefore important for stations to understand their obligations so they are able to quickly respond to such allegations before they generate formal FCC complaints.  Even where the station is completely in the right, responding to FCC complaints and investigations can be expensive, and diverts the attention of station staff from operating the station and serving the public.

While this Advisory outlines the political broadcasting rules in general terms, application of the rules can be quite fact-specific and there are many additional aspects of the rules too numerous to address within this Advisory. Accordingly, stations should contact legal counsel with specific questions or problems they encounter.

The Advisory continues at 2020 Political Broadcasting Advisory.

 

Published on:

By

Pillsbury’s communications lawyers have published FCC Enforcement Monitor monthly since 1999 to inform our clients of notable FCC enforcement actions against FCC license holders and others.  This month’s issue includes:

  • North Carolina FM Translator Station Hit With $2,000 Proposed Fine Over Primary Station Change
  • FCC Admonishes Georgia TV Stations for Insufficient Political File Disclosures
  • FCC Proposes Historic Fine Against Massachusetts Pirate Radio Operation

Carolina On My Mind: FCC Proposes $2,000 Fine Over Raleigh FM Translator’s Primary Station Confusion

A Raleigh FM translator briefly rebroadcast a station that was not its primary station and which was already being rebroadcast by another commonly-owned translator in the area.  In response, the FCC proposed a $2,000 fine for the licensee’s failure to notify the Commission or to provide any justification for such redundant operations.

An FM translator station rebroadcasts the signal of a primary AM or FM station on a different frequency.  Translators are often used to provide “fill in” service in poor reception areas due to distance or terrain obstructions.  Section 74.1251(c) of the FCC’s Rules requires an FM translator station to notify the FCC in writing if it changes its primary station.  Pursuant to Section 74.1232, an entity may not hold multiple FM translator licenses to retransmit the same signal to substantially the same service area without first demonstrating “technical need” for an additional station, such as a signal gap in the service area.

The Raleigh licensee originally applied for a construction permit to build facilities for an FM translator in July 2018 and shortly thereafter amended the application to change the translator’s proposed primary station.  The FCC’s Media Bureau granted the application a few weeks later.  After completing construction, the licensee filed, and the Media Bureau granted, a license for the translator.

Throughout this process, the licensee of a nearby low power FM station filed multiple petitions–one challenging the FCC’s grant of the construction permit, and a later one challenging the grant of the license itself.  Though the first petition was dismissed by the FCC as “procedurally defective”, the latter became the basis of an investigation into the new station.  The petitioner claimed that since initiating service, the new translator station had been rebroadcasting a nearby AM station rather than the FM station specified as the primary station in its construction permit application.  According to the petitioner, the translator only “returned” to its authorized primary station when the primary FM station began simulcasting the AM station.

The petitioner also asserted that the translator licensee failed to show any “technical need” to rebroadcast the AM station since the AM station was already being rebroadcast to substantially the same area by another translator licensed to an entity that was commonly-owned with the FM translator.

The FCC concluded that the new translator had violated its rules by failing to notify the FCC when it commenced rebroadcasting the AM station during its first month of operation.  The FCC further determined that the licensee should have first submitted a “technical need” showing to support this change due to the presence of the nearby commonly-owned translator station rebroadcasting the same programming.

As a result, the FCC issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability against the licensee, proposing a $2,000 fine.  While FCC guidelines set a base fine of $3,000 for failure to file required forms or information, and a $4,000 base fine for unauthorized emissions, the Commission may adjust a fine upward or downward after considering the particular facts of each case.  Acknowledging the brief duration of the licensee’s violations and finding no history of prior offenses, the FCC proposed a total fine of $2,000.  Additionally, the Commission determined that the licensee’s actions did not raise a “substantial or material question of fact” regarding the licensee’s qualifications to remain a licensee, and affirmed its decision to grant the translator license application.

Political Ad Nauseum: FCC Admonishes Georgia TV Stations Over Political File Defects

In a recent Order, the FCC’s Media Bureau admonished the licensees of two Georgia television stations in response to complaints alleging violations of the FCC’s political file rules.  According to the FCC, the stations failed to sufficiently comply with record-keeping obligations in response to several political ad sales made in 2017.

Pursuant to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (often referred to as “BCRA” or the “McCain-Feingold Act”), broadcasters are required to keep and make available extensive records of purchases and requests for purchases of advertising time if the advertisement communicates a message relating to a “political matter of national importance”.  Section 315(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, which was amended by BCRA, states that ads that trigger such disclosure include those that relate to legally qualified federal candidates and elections to federal office, as well as “national legislative issues” of public importance. Continue reading →