Broadcasters group opposes ad-rate language in Dems’ campaign finance bill

The powerful lobbying arm of TV and radio broadcasters opposes
language tucked into the Senate Democrats’ campaign finance bill
unveiled earlier this week.

The measure is an attempt to blunt the impact of the Supreme Court’s
Citizens United decision, which lifts limits on corporate and union
spending on political advertisements.

{mosads}While most of the bill is devoted to forcing corporations, unions and
other groups to disclose any spending on political advertising,
another provision would force television broadcasters to sell
advertising to political parties at the lowest rate available for the
particular media market where they are purchasing the ads.

Federal candidates already have the right to the lowest broadcast
advertising rates available during the time they want to purchase. The
new campaign finance bill would allow political parties to take
advantage of the same rate guarantees as long as they spend at least
$50,000 on airtime to run ads on broadcast, cable or satellite
television that support or oppose a candidate.

Under the law, the broadcaster would also ensure that the candidate or
political entity has “reasonable access” during “non-preemptible”
airtime.

“NAB is reviewing the bill introduced…,” said spokesman Dennis
Wharton. “We would have concerns with provisions in the legislation
that would expand the lowest unit rate discounts now afforded federal
candidates to political parties and political committees.”

The bill’s authors argue the ad rate language would help candidates
respond to attack ads.

A press release issued by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the lead Senate
sponsor of the bill, said the broadcasting rate provisions would
“strengthen a candidate’s ability to respond to corporate attack ads
by ensuring they can purchase air time at the lowest possible rate in
the same media markets where these attacks ads are airing.”

While the latest summary of the Senate version of the bill includes
the language, the House version left it out because its authors felt
it fell under another committee’s jurisdiction.

“As we worked through drafting the legislation, it was deemed that
Energy and Commerce was the best committee to deal with this,” said a
House Democratic aide.

The House Administration and Senate Rules Committee have jurisdiction
over campaign finance reform bill while the House Energy and Commerce
and Senate Commerce panels deal with laws governing broadcasting.

Even before the bill was officially introduced, members of Congress
were expressing caution about any new burdens it would impose on
broadcasters.

When asked if he supported the Democratic response to Citizens United
a week and a half ago, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told The Hill in a
brief interview that he had reservations about the campaign finance
reform bill because of concerns he had heard about how it might impact
the broadcasting industry.

Local television stations are just emerging from the deepest
advertising recession felt in 50 years, broadcasters argue, and
expanding the lowest unit rate guarantees to federal parties would
result in a significant loss in revenue and may subject the
legislation to difficult court challenges.

In the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in CBS v. Democratic National
Committee, the Supreme Court made a comment that appears to bolster
broadcasters’ case.

“[W]e see no principled means under the First Amendment of favoring
access by political parties over other groups and individuals,” the
court commented.