Speculation is increasing that former Republican Senator Fred Thompson will enter the presidential race. Some think his name recognition and star quality could vault him into the top tier of presidential contenders. He also has the support of many intelligent conservatives in the blogosphere, such as Professor Bainbridge.
One potential consequence of a Thompson campaign could be the blackout of "Law & Order" episodes in which Thompson appears. As the Washington Post reports:
Federal campaign law requires broadcasters to give all candidates equal time on the airwaves. That rule applies to entertainment programs like "Law & Order," meaning stations which run the show would be required to give other GOP candidates a like amount of prime time television exposure.This could be a big deal for cable networks such as TNT that broadcast several "Law & Order" episodes every day.With as many as a dozen or more Republican candidates competing for the nomination, that would be prohibitively expensive.
"As a practical matter, [the television stations] would in all likelihood have to pull all of the Fred Thompson shows for the duration of his candidacy," said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project.
An interesting twist, however, is that the FCC's "equal time" provisions have never been applied to cable networks, though cable networks typically comply "voluntarily." This leads the Post story to speculate whether a Thompson campaign could provoke a legal challenge to the application of the rule to entertainment programming on cable TV.
If that is the actual intent of the law, then the law is truly a ass.
Hillary Clinton could be written in as an evil cyborg. Most of the show could be about clues pointing to her, but the police being confused when the DNA testing is inconclusive. Then, in the last 5 minutes, it's revealed that she's an evil cyborg.
Barack Obama could be written in as a rookie police officer who's really idealistic and naive and gets beaten up by a suspect in the first 10 minutes.
John Edwards could be written in as a deranged, confused malpractice plaintiffs' lawyer who keeps appearing at strange points in the show to, e.g. chase ambulances, call up the police to ask for evidence for his malpractice case, stick his head into the screen during crime scene sweeps to say "do you think there was negligence here"?
Fred Thompson didn't get to give campaign speeches or veto the decisions of the writers, and neither should the others.
This is, of course, in the spirit of truly "equal" time.
Couldn't they go the cheap route, and just pack 'em all into a single "reality show"?
I'm with anonVCfan, though: Thompson wasn't giving campaign speeches, he was acting in a TV series, spouting lines somebody else wrote for him. Ofer the other candidates appearances on the exact same terms, and if they refuse, the obligation has been met.
No, most news programs are specifically exempted. See 47 USC 315(a):
"If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any—
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),
shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. "
The only real question, other than the cable / satellite issue, is whether having someone act in a program counts as "permit[ting that] person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station." (emphasis added).
Is there any precedent from Regan? Or were there no Regan movies shown on TV by that time?
If my distant memory serves, broadcasters did voluntarily hold off on such programming during campaigns. I could be wrong.
Not in the article that you link to. Perhaps they dialed back their speculation, as all they mention now is programming over the airwaves.
In any event, it's hard to see how those restrictions on speech could apply to cable tv. The only way congress has gotten away with violating the first amendment with over-the-airwaves programming is with the figleaf that the airwaves are a limited resource belonging to the public; one that has to be regulated, lest it turn into a free-for-all with everyone drowning each other out. It's hard to see how they could make that argument about cable tv.
San Diego Union-Tribune
LA Times
Looks like the L&O episodes will likely be banned from NBC, but not TNT et. al.
NBC, on the other hand, does not have rights to reair any Law and Order episode it wants, due to the nature of the syndication agreement. It would be restricted to more recent episodes, all of which include Fred Thompson. NBC in the summer (as well as on Saturday nights all year round) relies a great deal on Law and Order reruns -- it would have to put more weight on the SVU and Criminal Intent franchises to pick up the rerun slack.
Since I never heard anything more about it, I can only assume that the Bush folks realized that an animated bit about Gore teaming up with Stephen Hawking, the guy who invented Dungeons &Dragons, and Uhura from Star Trek, as defenders of the space-time continuum, wasn't an actual political appearance. How times have changed.
P.S. "I've got a tenth level vice-president!"
I'm not sure how NBC got away with it but there's at least some modern trend away from a hard and fast rule.
But then, surely opponents of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-CA, will want equal time.
It's the one where two people discover a dead body at the beginning of the episode. Then one of the cops says something sarcastic just before the opening credits roll. The cops initially suspect someone, but they wind up arresting someone else. Then the case goes to trial, but there's a dramatic twist at the end of the episode!
Has anyone else seen this episode?
It's not as if the candidate has any control over whether a network chooses to use its intellectual property in a televised broadcast. What's to stop a network with a political agenda to, say, find particularly embarassing programs with a candidate, run them over and over again, and allow the other candidates to access free air time?
As it stands though, my guess is Thompson doesn't have views a whole lot different than the expressed views of Arthur Branch.
This would screw up SVU as well -- Branch shows up on there a fair amount as well from what I've seen (I don't watch any of the L&O's religiously anymore).
I mean it as an only slightly partisan reflection; my side would do it to, if we had the dedicated AM stations to do it with. I don't watch a lot of TV news so I can't tell ... maybe there are some liberal hosts out there doing the same thing but I don't get exposed to them.
The most egregious example I recall was on the Michael Savage show during the Bush-Kerry run-off. He leads in with something like, "the Bush campaign came out with a new ad today ... it's pretty interesting ... I'd like to play it for you." Plays the ad. "I think that was pretty good." Not even a cursory, "does someone out there disagree with me?" I can't imagine a way of doing anything about it, but it really makes the "Law and Order" episode thing kind of a joke.
Imagine if Thompson were running in the general election and the network execs wanted to support his opponent. By this reading of the law the execs could run L&O to provide Thompson air time and then allow "equal time" for speeches/commercials by his opponent.
I'm not saying that this would happen. Just saying that it's plausible under a reading of the law where a TV show counts against a candidates "equal time".
It's not as if the candidate has any control over whether a network chooses to use its intellectual property in a televised broadcast. What's to stop a network with a political agenda to, say, find particularly embarassing programs with a candidate, run them over and over again, and allow the other candidates to access free air time?
During our California recall election, I thought they should play and replay the scene from Terminator III where Arnie strides across a nighttime street stark naked, seen from the rear, to snatch some clothes from a night club. Voiceover like "California's got problems and the government isn't doing anything about it. Who can we look to for help?" Long pause while he comes into the frame. "Hmmm ... any other ideas?" Nobody took the idea up, though.
More seriously, I think the intent of the law is not to limit what the candidate does to try to get elected ... The candidate can get as much airtime as he likes to himself, if he pays for it. It is to limit the ability of broadcast owners to influence elections without coming under campaign limitations by simply guaranteeing that candidates have equal access based on whatever terms the broadcasters are offering. Can't have "$10,000 a minute Republicans; $1 million a minute Democrats." Or in the case of law and order, "Free for our pal Fred; pay big if you're his opponent."
Air America was just as blatantly partisan as Hannity. The only difference is that few people tuned in to listen. If there were a big market for left talk radio I think there would be plenty of air time for it.
I don't see anymore problem with partisan political commentary on TV or radio. With the large number of choices these days it's not like anyone is forcing you to watch a particular partisan show. (It doesn't bother me in terms of fairness. Whether it improves political discourse is a different question.)
I agree. You can't count entertainment even if on a broadcast channel against a candidate. The candidate was on TV (and in reruns) as a part of his or her job (actor / actress) not as a candidate for office. Did they have to suspend Love Boat reruns when Fred Gandy ran for office? The Sonny and Cher show when Sonny Bono ran for office?
Now, if Thompson were to request that one of the episodes were aired, granting that request would be permitting him to use the station.
I don't know... It's an argument, not an airtight case.
Unfortunately for him, he would have to give all that up for an iffy run for President. I don't think he will do that
Wow, does Thompson do that bizarre "Page two!" thing, too?
Side note: Thompson runs, he wins. And I think many people know it. I wish I were in the opposition research business right now. A lot of money to be made.
And Ship Erect, yes he does that Page 2 thing. I hear Mr. Thompson every day.
I do miss Paul Harvey doing it because of the last story he does every day, "For what it's worth." I am still laughing at the story Mr. Harvey told of how the Carrie Nation statue was destroyed by a runaway beer truck. (Nation was a big-time member of the temperance movement)
The movie "The Right Stuff" came out when John Glenn was running for President. The movie clearly told younger voters why people thought Glenn was a hero. But that's not TV so it doesn't count? What is the rational basis again?
One could argue that the rule affects certain professions, especially actors, creating a barrier to political candidacy. Surely if a rule tended to make it difficult for, say, lawyers to run it would be deemed unconstitutional before the ink was dry.
Now I have to admit I'm a bit confused about what's going on with the whole colon thing. However, it seems clear that congress could have easily used the word 'appear' instead of 'use' in the first sentence. Now it seems clear this choice was partially motivated by a desire to capture others sorts of use besides mere appearances but then why not use the word 'mention' or phrase this in a way that doesn't seem to require intentional direction? The word use seems carefully chosen to indicate purposeful control.
On it's own this point might be dismissed as mere legislative sloppiness but consider the examples given by the above commentators. By interpreting 'use' to mean every appearance not in a news show one creates a mile wide loophole in the law. Broadcasters could just show old movies with one candidate in it while letting the other candidate use their 'equal time' to advocate their views.
So in one interpretation we must assume that congress intended 'use' to cover any appearance not specifically exempted despite the tension with the common language understanding of 'use' as requiring some purpose or intent by the one using. We must also assume that they were too dumb to see the obvious loopholes the above commenters saw immediately thus undermining the obvious public policy objectives. While on the other we take congress to have intelligently picked the word 'use' in it's common language use and given a sensible law.
Maybe there is some FCC regulation interpreting the law that gets deference or some other reason not to use the obviously better interpretation but I don't know what it is.
Broadcasters definitely do have the power of censorship over regular programming such as L&O, so does this mean that the section does not apply.
Does anyone remember and/or have a citation?
Are you saying that broadcasts of Bedtime for Bonzo swept Reagan into the White House?
Is there a movie where Thompson plays the president? He could always do commercials "I'm not the president, but I play him on TV".