VOUCHERS PAID BY TV-RADIO SPECTRUM FEE BACKED FOR FREE POLITICAL TIME
Four members of Congress and dozen public interest groups held jam-packed news conference in Washington Wed. to call for mandatory free radio and TV time for House and Senate candidates. Time would be provided through “vouchers” provided to candidates and paid for through annual spectrum fee levied against TV and radio stations. Proposal will be introduced later this year, supporters Sens. McCain (R- Ariz.), Feingold (D-Wis.), Torricelli (D-N.J.) and Rep. Meehan (D-Mass.) said at news conference hosted by New America Foundation and Alliance for Better Campaigns.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
During presentations by legislators -- and following panel of 4 spokesmen for vouchers, 2 against -- many attacks were made on broadcasters’ strong opposition to free time in any form, with charges TV and radio were “profiteering” and “gouging” candidates. NAB, which declined to participate on panel, immediately released statement “Myth vs. Reality” responding to claims at news conference and in earlier release by Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.
Voucher system is designed to replace current lowest unit charge (LUC) in campaign law and would work thusly: Each station’s spectrum usage fee to pay for vouchers would equal “roughly” .05% of licensee’s gross annual revenue -- predicted to raise $640 million based on 2001 revenue. House or Senate candidate would qualify for vouchers after raising $25,000 in donations of not more than $200 each. House candidates could receive vouchers on 2-for-1 (money raised) basis, up to limit of $250,000. Candidates could spend vouchers for broadcast time for their own campaigns and/or assign some to another candidate.
Limits for Senate candidates would vary, based on population of state and multiple of number of state’s House seats. As example, Senate candidate in state with 10 representatives would qualify for up to $2.5 million in vouchers. Two major political parties also would receive “large block grants” of broadcast vouchers for general elections only. Minor party candidates could receive vouchers by meeting undetermined qualifying thresholds. Cable systems wouldn’t be included in voucher system because they weren’t “constrained by the scarcity of the electromagnetic spectrum,” according to position paper.
In addition to time allocated to vouchers, legislation would require TV and radio stations to air 2 hours weekly of “candidate discussion of issues” 4-6 weeks before every congressional election. At least half of time must be in prime time or drive time.
McCain said since passage of Telecom Act in 1996, values broadcasters gave in form of public interest obligations had become “grossly distorted” because of “70-billion-dollar rip- off of digital spectrum” allocated free to TV stations. He said transition to DTV “has been a grave disappointment for American consumers, nothing short of a spectrum heist… The broadcasters have not only missed the May 1 deadline, [they] have broken their promise to Congress and the American public.” In Q&A, McCain said Federal Election Commission proposal, under campaign finance reform bill, to permit candidates to use “soft money” to purchase TV time “is absolutely inconceivable to me… We will not take that lying down.”
“The present system of campaign financing is unsustainable,” Torricelli said. He said cost of campaign for Senate had increased 500% since 1996 and bipartisan support for voucher system “shows our determination.” He and other supporters predicted proposal eventually would become law -- “no matter how long it takes.”
In panel discussion, Norman Ornstein of American Enterprise Institute charged broadcasting public service model was “absolutely bankrupt… It’s time for a new model.” He accused broadcasters of breaking their promise on digital transition. He said Telecom Act “is broken,” and spectrum should be returned to govt. with TV stations reimbursed for money they had spent converting to DTV.
James Snider of New American Foundation attacked NAB’s claim that TV-radio stations had donated $9.9 million in public service time last year (CD June 11 p3) as “unreliable” since NAB released no supporting documents. “Personally, I can’t believe any medium has done more harm to the First Amendment” than broadcast industry, he said: “The broadcasters have a large motive for distorting the facts.” In American political system, “we have an election without campaigns” since most races “are a blowout” for incumbents because challengers lack enough funding, said Paul Taylor of Alliance for Better Campaigns.
Panelists who opposed mandatory free time -- attorney Robert Corn-Revere of Hogan & Hartson and Adam Thierer of Cato Institute -- did so mostly on constitutional grounds. Thierer called proposal “McCain’s soapbox… I certainly don’t want [my tax money] used to support [onetime Presidential candidates] Ralph Nader or Lyndon LaRouche.” Lost in public interest debate, Corn-Revere said, is fact over-air broadcasting is free to public and Supreme Court has ruled in past that First Amendment is not “content based.” Other panelists, however, said mandatory free time would survive constitutional scrutiny.