Dec 11, 2003 -- Press Release: The Lion Still Roars

Supreme Court campaign finance decision gives nod to broadcasting fairness; public interest obligations

In yesterday's landmark Supreme Court decision on campaign finance, the justices also sent a message to broadcasters - and in language that will give new momentum to the push to ensure that stations meet their public interest obligations.

The Court yesterday upheld provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require broadcasters to maintain public files on candidate requests for ad time, and other requests for time for ads about elections or important public issues. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the Court recognized the need for both regulatory agencies and the public to evaluate broadcasting fairness.

Favorably citing the Act and the controversial Red Lion case, the Court reasoned that the public file requirements "seem likely to help the FCC determine whether the broadcasters are carrying out their 'obligations to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance' . . . and whether broadcasters are too heavily favoring entertainment, and discriminating against broadcasts devoted to public affairs."

As a result of the strong opposition to the FCC's relaxation of its media ownership rules, senators, some FCC commissioners, and public interest groups have called for rigorous evaluation of broadcaster's "localism" efforts. The FCC has responded by launching a series of localism hearings in select communities as broadcast licenses come up for renewal.

"The Supreme Court's language arguably supports the push to keep a watchful eye on what broadcasters are doing - or failing to do - to serve their local communities," said Amy Wolverton, Associate Legal Counsel and Media Program Director of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. "There's a real public and congressional move afoot to take license renewal hearings seriously, and the Court seems to support the idea that public interest obligations still exist."