Bill Targets Campaign Ad Rates
Broadcasters could face tighter FCC rules on how they price candidate ad spots under campaign finance legislation unveiled Thursday by Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Their bills, to be introduced in both chambers after the recess, aim to mitigate potential fallout from the Supreme Court's decision last month in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which allowed corporations to make independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections. Many predict the ruling will result in heightened corporate spending on election ads.
The Democrats' proposal addresses that possibility by helping candidates and political parties gain access to the airwaves. The legislation would force broadcasters to sell ads to candidates, political party and political party committees at the lowest market rate in instances when a corporation buys ads supporting or opposing the candidate. The proposal would benefit candidates by granting campaigns the cheap rates corporations receive when they buy ads in bulk. It also aims to ensure candidates can afford airtime if ad prices rise due to heightened corporate spending.
A similar rule has been on the books since the Communications Act of 1934, but the new proposal extends the allowance to party advertising and attempts to strengthen what reformers say is a diluted rule. Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, who have advocated for stricter broadcast rules, argue that the current FCC regulation has become weaker over the years because candidate ads can now be bumped to the middle of the night. The cheapest available rates, they contend, are for ad slots that can be preempted, which can be pushed off to strange hours in favor of higher-value ads. For this reason, reformers say the law was much stronger before the emergence of the 24-hour broadcast cycle when even the cheapest ad slots ran during waking hours.
Broadcasters counter that the current rule already confers a considerable benefit to candidates. Further, groups opposed to strict campaign finance rules, such as the Center for Competitive politics, question the constitutionality of a regulation that could appear aimed at leveling the playing field, a rationale for election money regulation that the Supreme Court has rejected.
Join the Discussion
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus