The “reasonable access” and “equal time” laws give political candidates a legal right to use the broadcast airwaves, so they may speak to their fellow citizens and ask for their vote. More importantly, they ensure that members of the public have unfettered access to candidate speech so that they can make intelligent choices at the ballot box. (These principles are written into law at title 47, sections “312″:http://www.cmcnyls.edu/public/USLAWS/SEC312.HTM and “315″:http://www.cmcnyls.edu/public/USLAWS/SEC315.HTM of the United States Code.)

In 1996, MAP won its challenge to an FCC “decision”:http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/News_Releases/nrmm4073.txt which had allowed broadcasters to refuse to carry advertising by candidates for federal office at times of the candidate’s choosing. Under this decision, broadcasters only needed to show that, in their judgement, the ad might be harmful to children. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with MAP that the equal time and reasonable access laws, and a properly functioning democracy, prohibit such a result. The court recently denied the FCC’s request to reconsider its decision.

In a related matter, MAP has asked the FCC to reconsider its “determination”:http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1994_Orders/ormm4018.txt that broadcasters need only sell time to candidates in the same lengths that they sell to commercial advertisers. Longer form candidate advertisements would combat sound-bite negative advertisements.