Use of BroadcMt Facilities by Candidates for Public Office 463
FCC 6e-386
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
IYASllIXGTON, D.C.
PCBLIC NOTICE
April 27, 1966
USE OF BROADCAST FACILITIES BY CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE
By THE CO)OIlSSION: CO::\Il\IISSIOXER LOEYIXGER ABSEXT.
This public notice is a compilation of the Commission's interpretiYe
rulings under section 315 of the Communications Act of H)0,t, as
amended, and the Commission's rules implementing that section of
t he act and brings up to date and supersedes all prior public notices
issued by the Commission entitled "Fse of Broadcast Facilities by
Candidates for Public Ollic€." The Commission has reTie,ved both its
public notice (Oct. 9, 1962; FCC 62-1019) and its supplement theTeto
(,Tuly ;n, 196,t; FCC ()J-7:,;l) ,vhicheontained section :)15, as amended,
the.Conllnission~srules, additional rulings, and reeoHllnended C0111 
plaint proc€dures. Significant rulings made subsequent to the 19G,t
supplement have been added, and editorial and other l-e"isions lu"'e
been made ,vith respect to some of the int€rpretations previously pub 
lished. "-here appropriate, cumulative rulings haYe been cited. In 
cluded herein are the determinations of the Commission ,vith respect
to problems ,vhich have been presented to it and which appear likely'
to be im"olved in futnre campaigns. IYhile the information contained
herein does not purport to be a discussion of every pratlenl that lllay
arise in the political broadcast field, experiem'e has shown that these
documents JUlYe been of assistance to candidates and broadcasters in
understanding their rights and obligations under section 315.
The purpose of this notice is to apprise licensees, candidates, and
other interested persons of their respective responsibilities and rights
under section 315, and theCommission~£rules, when situations silniIar
to those discussed herein are encountered. In this 'Yay, resort to the
Commission may be obviated in many instances and time--which is of
great imJlortance in political camplligns-will be saved. lYe do not
mean to preclude inquiry to the COlllmission when there is a geuuine
doubt as to licensee obligations and responsibilities to the publicinterest
under section 315. Procedures for filing complaints are set out below.
But it is belieyed that the following document will, in many instances,
re1110ye the need for inquiries, and that licensees will be able to take
the necessary prompt action in accordance with the interpretations and
positions set forth below.
This discussion relates solely to obligations of broadcast licensees
toward candidates for public ollice under section 315 of the act. It
1 A few of the questions taken up within have been presented to the Commission in 
formally~thatis, through telephone conversations or conferences with station representa 
tiw'::,;. They are set out in this public notice because of the likelihood of their recurrence
and the fact that no extended Commission discussion is necessary to dispose of them; the
answer in each case is clear from the language of sec. 315.
3 F.C.C, 2d
lOG-:]36-6H....- ........ l
464 Federal Oommunicatio-ns Oommission Reports
is not intended to include the question of the treatment by broadcast
licensees of political or other controyersial programs not ';overned by
the':egual opportunities':provision~of that section. As t;the respOll 
slbIlItIes of broadcast lIcensees wIth respect to controversial issues
of public importance included in political broadcasts, licensees are re 
ferred to the Commission's "fairness doctrine," and the current public
notlce entltled "ApplIcabIlItyof the FaIrpess Doctrine in the Handlin"
of Controversial Issues of Public Importance." "
'Ve have continued the question-and-answer format as an appro 
priate means of delineating the section 315 problems. 'Vherever pos 
sible, reference to Commission's decisions or rulings are made so that
the researcher may, if he desires, review the. complete text of the Com 
mission's ruling. Copies of rulings may be found in a "Political
Broadcast" folder kept in the Commission's reference room. Cita 
tions in "RR" refer to Pike & Fischer, radio regulations. To facili 
tate future additions a new numberingsystem for question and answers
has been inaugurated with tlus public notice. A correlation table in 
dicating the new numbers of question and answers retained from the
1962 public notice and supplement thereto is found in appendix A.
RECOJ.\.rMENDED C01rfPLAIXT PROCEDURES
Complaints relating to 315 matters are given priority consideration
by the Commission. Compliance with the following recommended
procedures will further greatly assist in the orderly and expeditious
disposition of such complaints. However, we do not mean, of course,
to preclude in any way inquiry to the Commission when there is a
genuine question as to licensee rights and obligations under section
315. We set out these recommended procedures in order to expedite
and permit timely consideration of complaints in this important area.
Failure to follow these procedures may result in unnecessary delays in
resolution of section 315 complaints.
First, barring unusual circumstances, a complaint should not be
made to the Commission until the licensee has denied the candidate's
request for time after opportunity for passing on the essential claims
raised by the candidate. Further, it has been the Commission's con 
sistent policy to encourage negotIations between licensees and can 
didates seeking broadcast time or having questions under section 315,
looking toward a disposition of the request or questions in a manner
which is mutually agreeable to all parties. A complaint relating to
a section 315 matter thus should be filed with the Commission alter
an effort has been made in good faith by the parties concerned to
resolve the questions at issue. In this way, resort to the Comnlission
might be obviated in many instances and time-which is of great im 
portance in political campaigns-might be saved.
'Vhere a complaint is filed with the Commission, (i) the complain 
ant should simultaneously send a copy to the licensee, (ii) the licensee
should respond, as promptly as possible, and not await COmnllssion
lllquiry regardmg the complaint, and (iii) the complainant and li 
censee should furnish each other with copies of all correspondence sent
to the Commission.
3 F.C.C. 2d
Use of Broadcast Facilities by Oandidates /01' Public Office 465
A complaint filed with the Commission should be in written form
and should contain: (i) the name and address of the complainant,
(ii) the call letters, and location (city~dState).of the station against
whom the complamt IS made, and (Ill) a detaIled statement of the
factual basis of the complaint which shall include, but not necessarily
be limited to: the public office involved, tl,e date and nature of the elec 
tion to be held, whether the complainant and his opponentes) are
legally qualified candidates for public office, the date(s) of prior ap 
pearances by opponents if any, the time of request for equal opportu 
nities sublllltted to t1le licensee, and the licensee's stated reasons for
refusing to satisfy the complaint.
Ifat any time the licensee satisfies the complaint, the licensee should
so notify the Commission, setting forth when and how the complaint
has been satisfied and furnish a copy of such notification to
complainant.
I. THE STATUTE
Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, pro 
"ides as follows:
SEC. 315. (a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legallyqual~
Hied 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 stations: Provided, That such licensee shall
have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provi 
sions of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed 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,
(B) 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-spotcoverage of bona .fide news events (including bnt
not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),
shall not 00 deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within themean~
ing of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be con 
strued 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 Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable op 
portunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public
importance.
(b) The charges made for the use of any broadcasting station for any
of the purposes set forth in this section shall not exceed the charges made
for compara!J.le use of such station for other purposes.
(c) 'The Commission shall prescribe appropriate rules and regulations to
carry out the provisions of this section.
II. THE CmIMISSION'S RULES AND REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO POLITICAL
BROADCASTS
The Commission's rules and regulations with respect to political
broadcasts coming within section 315 of the Communications Act are
set forth in §§73.120 (AM), 73.290 (FM) , 73.590 (noncommercial edu 
cational FM), and 73.657 (TV), respectively. These provisions are
identical (except for elimination of any discussion of charges in
3 F.G.C. 2d
'8e of Broadea->t Facilities by Candid'fte, fOI' Public Offle(' 467
Intid for. or furnished. either in whole or in part, amI by ,,,bom or on \Those
behalf such c-ollsiderntioll was supplied: Proridcd. II 0 were-r, That "ser"ice
oro~hervaluable consideration" shall not include any seryice or property
funnsbed without charge or at a nominal charge for nse all or ill conuec 
tion with, a broadcast unless it is,~·ofurnil:ihed in('on~idf'ratiol1'for au identifi 
cation in a broadcast of any perSOll, prOduct. s1?r"dee, trademark. .or brand
name beyond an identification \yhieh is reasonably related to the m::e of
such serviee or proVetty on the broadcast.
(b) The licensee of each telexision broadcast station shall e:xerch:;e rea 
sonabl~diligence. to oota.in fromit~employees. and from otherper,,:,on~with
whom It deals dIrectly III connectIOll with anv program matter for broad 
cast. information to enable such licensee to make the-announcement requi;ed
by this section.
(c) In any case 'where a report (concerning tIle providing or uc('epting
of valuable consideration by auy lWrl:'Oll for in<.'1nsl0n of any matter in a
program intended for broadca:-;ting) has upen made to a tele\'ision broad 
cast station. as required by section 3M of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended. of circumstaneE's which "would ha\"e requirf-'d an anUOUU('eHH.nt
under this l')E>ction had the consideration been reeein'd by such television
broadcast station, an appropriare announcement~hallbe made bv slwb
station. .
(d) In the case of any politieal program or any programinYolvin~tlie
discussion of public controversialis~mes.for "\yhich any films. records, tran 
e;criptions, talent, scripts, or other material or services of any killd are
furnished. either directly or indirectly, to a stationa~an inducement to the
broadcu::.'ting of such program, an annOuncement shaH bE' made both at the
beginning and conclusion of snch prug-ram on which such material or sel'V 
iees are used that such films, rt:'cords. transcriptions, talpllt, scripts, 01"
other material or ser\"ices han> been furnisheD. to such station in COlJllPC 
tion with the broadcasting of such program: Prodded, flo/ecrer. That only
one such announcement need he made in tIle case of any s-uch prog-ram of
;, minutes' duration or It.>ss. 'whieh annOUnCemE'llt may be made either at the
);eginning or conclusion of the program.
,
• •
*
*
* *
(f) ThE' announcement rE>fluired by this Jo;pction shall fully and fairly dls 
do"e the trm' identity of the ppr:'ion or versons by \ybOUl or in whose bpha.Jf
~uchpaynwnt is made or promised, or from wbom or in whose behalf Rueh
;;;er\i('es or other nl.luable consideration is received, or by "'hom the material
or serviees rE'ferred to in paragraph (d) uf this l"E'ction are fnrnished.
",Vhere an agent or otber pprson ('untrae-ts or otbprwise makes arrange 
ments with a station on bf'lllllf of another, and sur:h fa('t is ImmYll to the
:-:tation. the announcement shall dif;close the identity of thE' person or persolls
in 'whose behalf such agent is acting' instead of the name of such agent.
(g) III the case of any program. other than a program advertising com 
mercial products or services. which is sponsored. paid for, or fUrIlisllf'd,
either in whole or in part, or for \vhieh material or sen'ices referred to in
paragraph (d) of this sf'ction fire- furnished. by n corporation, committpe,
ass-ociation, or other unincorporated group. the annouu('ement rf'lluirf-d by
this section shall disclose the name of :such corporation. committe-eo,aR~od­
ation, or other uniucorporated group. In each such CaRe the station shall
require that a list of the chief executh'e officers or me:r:nbers oft~eexecutiv.e
committee or of the board of directors of the corporatIOn. commIttee,a~soCl­
ation or other unincorporated group shall be made available for publicint-:p~­
tion at the studios or ge-nenll offices of one of the tl::'leYi1':ion broadeust sta 
tiow;; carrying the program in each comlllunity in which the program is
broadcast,
* *
* * * * *
(i) Commission interpretations in connection with the foregoing rules
may be found in the Commission's public notice entitled "Applicability of
Spon,o"hip Identification Rules" (FCC 63-4(19; 28 F.R. 4732, May 10, 19(3)
and f::UC'l1 supplementf' thereto UR are if':'.ued from time to time. (Sec. 317,
4k Stat.l0SB, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 317.)
3 F.C.C 2d
466 Federal Comm·unicatio118 Gom,]nission llepo-rts
§ n.f>f)() relating to noncommercial educationalF~Istations) and read
as follows:
BroadcQ.,'its b'y oondidatcs for public oDlce-(a) Dcjinifi.on:? A. "leg-ally
qualified candidate" means any person whoh~'lspublicly announee-d that
he is a candidate for nomination by a convention of a political party or for
nomination or election in a primary. sp£'Cial. or general eleetion. municipal.
county, State or Xational. and who meets the qualifications prescribed by
the applicable laws to hold the officE' for which he is a eandidate. so that he
may be voted f.or by the electorate directly or by means o-f delegates or €'lec 
tors, and who:
(1) Has qualified for a place on the ballot or
(2) Is eligible under the applieuble law to be voted for by sticker. by
writing in his name on the ballot, or other method. and (i) has !:H.>en
duly nominated by a poUtieal party \Yhich is commonly known and re 
garded as such, or (ii) makes a substantial showing that he is a bona
tide candidate for nomination or office, as the case may be.
(b) General rcquirernent8. :Ko stationlicens~is required to permit the
use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for publie office. but if
any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall
afford equal opportunities to all such other candidates for that office to use
such facilities: Provided, That snch licensee shall have no power of censor 
ship over the material broadcast by Rll;\T such candidate.
(c) Rates ,and practices. (1) The rates. if any. charged all such candi·
dates for the same office shall be uniform and shall not be rebated by any
means direct or indirect. A candidate shall. in each case, be charged no
mOre than the rate the station would charge if the candidate were a commer 
cial advertiser whose advertising was directed to promoting its business
within the same area as that encompassed by the particular office for which
Ruch person is a candidate. All discount privileges otherwise offered by a
station to commercial advertisers shall be available upon equal terms to all
candidates for public office.
(2) In making- time available to candidates for public office no licensee
shall make any discrimination between candidates in eharg-es, pradices, regu 
lations, facilities. or sen-ices for or in connection ,'dth the .se-rvice rendere-d
purf;uant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for
public OffiN> or sullject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantag-e:
nor shall any lieensee make any contract Or other agreement which shall
have the effect of permitting- any legally qualified candidate for any pu})!ic
office to broadcafit to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the
same public offiee.
(d) Records; 1n:·rpection.~Jver~\"licensee shall ke£>p and permit public in·
spection of a completE> record of all reqnestf; for broadcast time made by or
on behalf of candidates for public office. together with an appropriate nota 
tion showing the disposition made by t.he lic€'nsee of such requests. and
the charges made. .if any, if reQuest is granted. Such records shall be re 
tained for a period of 2 years.
NOTE.-See § 1.526 ,of this chapter.
(e) '1
1
i-1ne ot rcquc8t. A request for equal opportunities must be sub 
mitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the prior use
occurred.
(f) Burden ot proof. A candidate requesting such equal opportunities of
the licensee. or complaining of noncolllpliance to the Commission shall have
the hurden ofproYiD~that he and his opponent are legally qualified candi 
dates for the same public office.
In addition, the attention of the licensees is directed to the follow 
in(f pro\-isions of~~72.119, 7i3.28D, and 7a.6:,)4, relating to sponsorship
id~ntifieationwhieh provide in pertinent part:
(a) "When a television broadcast station transmits any matter for which
money. services, or other valuable consideration iii either directly orin~
directlv paid or promised to, or charged or received by, such station, the
station" shall broadcast an announcement that such matter is sponsored,
3 F.e.e. 2<1
468 Federal Communwations Commission Reports
TIL"LSES,'~IN GEXER..<\.L
In general, any use of broadcast facilities by a legally qualified
candidate for public office imposes an obligation on licensees to afford
"equal opportunities" to all other such candidates for the same office.
Section 315 of the act was amended by the Congress in 1959 to pro 
vide that appearances by legally qualified candidates on specified
news-type programs are deemed not to be a "use" of broadcast facilities
within the meaning of that section. In determining whether a par 
ticular program is within.the.scope of one of these specified news-type
programs, the basic questIOn IS whether the-program meets the stand 
ard of "bona fides" To establish whether such a program is in fact a
"bona fide" program, the follo"ing considerations, among others, may
be pertinent: (1) The format, nature, and content of the programs;
(2) whether the format, nature, and content of the program has
changed since its inception and, if so, in what respects; (3) who initi 
ates the programs; (4) who produces and controls the program; (5)
when the program was initiated; (6) is the program regularly sched 
uled: and (7) if the program is regularly scheduled, specify the time
and day of the week "hen it is broadcast. Questions have also been
presented by the appearances on ne"-s-type broadcast programs of sta 
tion employees who are also legally qualified candIdates. In such
cases, in addition to the abore, the following considerations, among
others, mav be pertinent to a determination of the applicability of
section 315': (1) TVhat is the dominant function of the employee at the
station?; (2) what is the content of the program and who prepares
th program?; and (3) to "hat extent is the employee personally
identified on the program? In the rulings set forth below, wherein
the Commission held that the "equal opportunities" prorision was ap 
plicable, it should be assumed that the news-type exemptions contained
1II the 1959 amendments were not inrolved.
lILA. TYPES OF USES
lILA. 1. Q, Does section 315 apply to one speaking for or on be 
half of the candidate, as contrasted with the candidate himself?
A. No, The section applies only to legally qualified candidates.
Candidate A has no legal right under section 315 to demand time
"here B, not a candidate, has spoken against A or in behalf of another
candidate. (Felix v, Westinghouse Radw Stations, 186 F, 2d 1 (3d
Cir, 1950), cert. den. 341 U.S, 909.)
2. Q. Does section :l15 confer rights on a political party as such?
A. No. It applies in favor of legally qualified candidates for pub 
lic office, and is not concerned "ith the rights of political parties, as
such. (Letter to 11ational Laugh Party, May 8, 1957; see also in re
lYPRO-TV, letter of Oct. 20, 1964.)
3. Q. Does section 31G requ'ire stations tv afford "equal opportuni 
ties" in the use of their facilities in support of or in opposition to a
public question to be voted on in an election?
A. No. Section 315 has no application to the discussion of politi 
cal issues, as such, but is concerned with the use of broadcast stations
by legally qualified candidates for public office. In the 1959 amend 
ment of section 315, relating to certain news-type programs, Congress
3 F.e.e. 2d
Use of Bl'oadcIMt Facilities by Oandidates fol' PubUc Office 469
stated specifically that its action was not to be construed "* * * as re 
lie,-ing broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts,
news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news
eYents, from the obligation imposed upon them under tlus Act to
operate inth~public interest and to aJ!ord reasonable opportunity
for the dISCUSSIOn of confhctmg VIews on Issues of pubhc Importance."
The Commission has c{lllsidered this statement to be an affirmation of
its "fairness doctrine," as enunciated in its report on editorialiZing by
broadcast licensees. '
IILB. ·WIL'!.T CONSTITUTES A'~LSE~~OF BRO.ADCAST FACILITIES EXTITLIXG
OPPOSrXG CAXDIDATES TO ''::EQuALorpORTCKITIES~:?
III.n. 1. Q. If a legally qualified candidate secures air time but
does not discuss matters directly related to his candidacy, is this a use
of facilities under section 316 I
A. Yes, Section 316 does not distinguish between the uses of broad 
cast time by a candidate, and the licensee is not authorized to pass on
requests for time by opposing candidates on the basis of the licensee's
e,-aluation of whether the original use "'as or waS not in aid of a
candidacy. (Letter to lYMCX, Inc" May 15, 1952,7 ll.ll. 1132.)
:!, Q. Must a broadc"ster giYe equal time to a candidate whose op 
ponent has broadcast in some other capacity than as a candidate 'I
A, Yes. For example, a ,yeekly report of a Congressman to his
constituents\~iaradio or television is a. broadcast by a legally qualified
candidate for public ollice as soon as he becomes a candidate for re 
election, and his opponent must be given "equal opportunities" for
r.inle on the. air...:-~nY"use" of a station bv a candidate, in ,,,hatever
capacity, entitles his"opponent to "equal opportunities." (Letter to
station KXG::i, May 15, 195:2, 7 RR 1130; see Q. and A. IILC. 1, for
a joint congressional report: see also letter to Senator Joseph S. Clark,
Jan. :i1, 1H6:2: and for a judge's report, see also telegram to station
KSHO-T\~,e'epr. 24, l[Hi1: see also Q.'s and A.'s IILB. 10, III.C. 4;
for recent rulings see Q's and A.'s III.B. 11, 12, and 13.)
:j, Q. If a candidate appears on u ,-ariety program for a very brief
bow or statement, are his opponents entitled to "equal opportunities"
on the basis of this brief appearance?
A. Yes, All appearances of a candidate, no matter how brief or
perfunctor:v, are a "11se" of a, station's facilities 'Yithin section 315.
4. Q. If a c'mdidate is accorded station time for a speech in con 
nection with a ceremonial actiyity or other public service, is an op 
posing candidate entitled to equal utilization of the station's facilities?
~\...~~es. Section 315 contains no exception with respect to broad 
casts by legally qualified candidates carried "in the public interest"
or as a' "public service." It follows that the station's broadcasts of
the candidate's speech was a "use" of the facilities of the station by a
legally qnalified candidate giving rise to an obligation by the station
uncleI' section 31:, to afford "equal opportunities" to other legalIy quali 
fied candidates for the same office. (Letter to CBS (IVBBM), Oct.
31,1952; letter to KFI, Oct. 31, 1962.)
3 F.e.e. 2d
470 Federal Commnnwati=gCom11li~sionReports
*5. Q. The United Community Campaigns of America advised the
Commission that dating back to the early thirties it had "kicked off"
its United Fund and Community Chest campaigns with a special mes 
sage broadcast by the President of the United States each fall. For
the past several years the broadcast has consisted of a 5-minute pro 
gram filmed on video-tape in advance at the 'White House and later
carried on the three television networks and the four radio networks.
\Vould the candidate opposing the President be entitledto eqnal op 
portunities if the Inessug-e were carried?
A. The Commission held that se<>tion 315 contains no exceptions
with respect to broadcasts by legally qualified candidates carried "in
the public interest'· or as a "public service" and that a candidate's
speeeh in connection with a ceremonial activity is a section 815'';use.~'
It is immaterial whether or not the candidate uses the time to discuss
matters related to his candidacy, and the fact that the appearance of
the candidate is nonpolitical is not determinative of whether his ap 
pearance is a "use.·' 'Whether the presentation of the special mes 
sage in connection with a particular news-type progranl would Jl1eet
the criteria for exemption specified in the 1959 amendment is a ques 
tion initially for the exercise of the good faith judgment of the broad 
cast licensee. (In re United Community campaigns, letter of Sept.
2, 1964, 3 R.R. 2d 320; but see Q. and A. III.B. 14.)
,6. Q. ,Vhere a candidate delivers a nonpolitical lecture on a
program which is part of a regularly scheduled series of lectures
broadcast by an educational FM station, is that station required to
grant equal time to opposiuO" candidate?
A. Yes. Unless the candidate's appearance comes \vithin the cate 
gory of broadcasts exempt from section 315's "equal opportunities"
provision, equal time must be granted. The use to which the candidate
puts this broadcast time is immaterial. (See Q. and A. III.R. 1,
supra.) (Telegram to station ,VFUV-FM, Oct. 27, 1961.)
7. Q. Are acceptance speeches by successful candidates for nomi 
nation for the candidacy of a particular party for a ginn office, a
use by a legally qualified candidate for election to that office!
A. "There the successful <>andidate for nomination becomes legally
qualified as a candidate for election as a result of the nomination, his
acceptance speech constitutes a use. (Letter to Progressive Party,
.T uly 2, 1952, 7 R.R. 1300.) However, after 1959, acceptance speeches
in connection \yith politicalcon~'erdionsare governed by sectIOn ;)15
(a) (4). (For rulings after the 1959 amendments see telef!,Tam in re
CBS and NBC, .Tuly 7, 1960, Q. and A. III.C. 22; and let.ter to
Deberry-Shaw Campaign Committee, Sept. 11, 1964, Q. and A. III.C.
23.)
8. Q. Does section 315 apply to broadcasts by a legally qualified
candidate where such broadcasts originate and are limited to a foreign
station whose signals are received in the United States1
A. No. Section 315 applies only to stations licensed by the FCC.
(In re CKLW-TV, letterof July 19, 1955.)
"'An asterisk denotes a new question and answer.
3 F.e.e. 2d
Use of Broadca.st FadZitie8 by Candidatps /01' Public Office 471
9. Q. A candidate for the Democratic nomination for President
appeared On a net"ork variety shOYL A claimant for "equal oppor 
tunities" showed that his name had been on the ballots in the Demo 
cratic presidential primary elections in two States: that the network
had shown him in a film on a program concerned with the various
1960 presidential candIdates: and that he "as continuing: his efforts as
a candidate for the Democratic nomination. .,,-ould the claimant be
entitled to "equal opportunities"?
A. Yes, since the appearance of the first candidate was on a program
,,,hich "as not exempt from the "equal opportunities" requirement
of section 315 and the claimant had shown that he was a "legally
qualified" candidate for the nomination for the same office. (Telel-,'Tam
to KBC, July 6, 1960.)
10. Q. If a station o,,:ner, or a station adnrtiser, or a person regu 
larly employed as a statIOn announcer were to make appearances onr
a station after having qualified as a candidate for public office, would
section 315 apply?
A. Yes. Such appearances of a candidate are a "use" under section
:11i5. (Letters to KFGK, Apr. 9, 1958; to KTTV. ,Tan. 23, 1957, 14
ll.ll. 1227: in re WCVS, letter of N oY. 19, 19.16, 14 ll.ll. 1226b, respee 
ti,-ely: and letter to Georg-ia Association of Broadcasters, May 18, 1962.
See also Q's and A.'s IILE. 11, 12, and 13. But d. letter to K,YTX
Broadcasting Co., ?lIar. 16, 1960; Br'iqham Y. FCC, 276 F. 2d 828
(C.A. 5), Apr. 19, 1960, and Q. and A. IlLC. 4.)
*11. Q. .1-\ television station ell1ploys an announcerwho~"oft'
camera" and unidentified, supplies the audio portion of required sta 
tion identification announcements, public seryice amlouncements, and
C'Olumereial announcements. The announcer is not authorized to make
C0111111ents or statenlEmts concerning politica.l matters, and he has no
control onr the format or content of any program material. In the
event that this employee announced his candidacy for the city council,
would his oppone.nt be entitled to equal opportunities?
A. No. The employee's appearance for purposes of making com 
n1ercial, noncOlnmercial, and station identification announcen1ents
would not constitute a "use" "here the announcer himself "as neither
shown nor identified in any way. (In re ,VNEP, letter of Mar. 16,
1965.)
*12. Q. The station employee mentioned in Q. and A. IILE. 11,
supra, also hosts a "eekly dance party on which he is identified but
during which he appears or is heard only a portion of the time. He
has some discretion "ith respect to the program's content insofar as he
conducts brief conversations "ith teenagers appearing on the pro 
gram. In the e,-ent he becomes a candidate for the city COlIllCil,
~vouldhis oppouent beentitled to "equal opportunities"?
A. Yes. The emplovee's appearance as host of the dance party
program would entitle"other candidates for the same office to "equal
opportunities" for the amOtmt of time he appeared on the program.
The deletion of the announcer's identity would not exempt his appear 
ances from the "equal opportunities" provision, since in the case of
television it is the appearance itself which constitutes the "use" of the
facilities without regard to the format of the program. Ifan appear-
.' An asterisk denotes a new question and answer.
3 F.e.e. 2d
472 Federal COJn1lwnwations Commission Reports
ance of this nature were made, other candidates would be entitled to
free time since the announcer would not have paid for the time he
appeared. (In re WNEP, letter of M:ar.16, 1965.)
*13. Q. An employee of a radio station who had been for a number
of years the station's news director and is responsible for preparing the
news material and presenting it on regularly scheduled news programs
announced his candidacy for the school board. Prior to becoming a
candidate the employee was identified on the news programs he an 
nounced, but he will not be identified during his candidacy. 'Would
the appearance of the employee while he was a legally qualified candi 
date on the r>articular news-type programs constitute a "use" of the
station entitlmg the employee's opponents to "equal opportunities"?
A. Yes. In cases where the newscaster is identified up to the date
of his candidacy and prepares and broadcasts the news, including that
of a local nature, the general line of rulings prior to the 1959 amend 
ments to section 315 would be applicable and such appearances would
constitute a "use" of the station's facilities. (In re 1VMAY, letter of
Mar. 31, 1965,4 RR 2d 849.)
14. Q. 1Vhen a station, as part of a newscast., uses film clips show 
ing a legally qualified candidate participating as one of a group in
official ceremonies and the nmvseaster, in commenting on the cere 
monies, mentions the candidate and others by name and describes
their participation, has t.here been a "use" under section 315 '(
A. No. Since t.he facts clearly showed t.hat the candidat.e had in
no way directly or indirectly initiated either filming or presentation
of the event, and that the broadcast ·was nuthing ll10re than a routine
newscast by the station in t.he exercise of its judgment as to ne'Ys 
worthy events. (Letter to Allen Blondy, Feb. 6, 1957, 14 R.R 1199;
d. CBS, Inc. (Lar Daly case), 26 FCC 715, 18 RR 701 [1959], and
letter to Lar Daly, Sept. 9, 1959, 18 RR 750; see also rulings
in IILC., infra, concerning the 1959 amendment.s.)
III.C. WHAT COKSTITUTES AN APPEARANCE EXE){PT FROl\! THE EQUAL
OPPORTUNITIES PRO'VISIOSS OF SECTION 315?
IILC. 1. Q. Does an appearance on a program subject to the equal
opportunities proyision of section 315 such as a Congresslnan's weekly
report attain exempt stat.us when the weekly report is broadcast as
part of a program not subject to the equal opportunities provisions,
such as a bona fide newscast. ?
A. No. A contrary view would be inconsistent with the legislat.ive
intent. and recognit.ion of such an exemption would in effect sub 
ordinate substnnce to form. (Letter to Congressman Clark 1V.
Thompson, Feb. 9, 1962, 23 R.R. 178.)
2. Q. Are appearances by an incumbent candidate in film clips pre 
pared and supplied by him to the st.ations and broadcast as part of a
station's regularly scheduled newscast, "uses" within the meaning of
seotion 315?
A. Yes. Broadcasts of such film clips containing ap.l;'earances by
a candidate const.itute uses of the statIOn's facilities. :Such appear 
ances do not attain exempt stat.us when the film clips are broadcast as
• An asterisk denotes a new question and answer.
3 F.e.e. 2d
Use of Broadcast Facilities by Candidates j07' Publw Office 473
part of a program not subject to the equal opportunities provision
for the reasons set forth in question and answer III.C. 1, above:
(Letter to Congressman Clem~fIller,June 15,1962.)
3. Q. A sheriff ,vho was a candidate for nomination for U.S. Rep 
resentative in Congress conducted a daily proo-ram, reo-ularlv sched 
uled since 1958, on which he reported on thebactiviti~of his office.
He termmated each program with a personal "Thought for the Day."
vVouldlus opponent be entitledto "equal opportunities"?
A. Yes. In light of the fact that the format and content of the
program were determined by the sheriff and not by the station, the
program ,vas not of the type intended by Congress to be exempt from
the "equal opportunities" requirement of section 315. (Letter to sta 
tion WCLG, Apr. 27, 1960.)
4. Q. A local weathercaster ,vho was a candidate for reelection for
representative in the Texas Legislature was regularly employed bv an
AM and TV station in Texas. His weathercasts contained no reter 
ences to political matters. He was identified over the air while a
candidate as the "TX vVeatherman." vVould his opponent be entitled
to "equal opportunities"?
A. No. The Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, ruled that the weather 
caster's appearance did not involve anything but a bona fide effort
to present the news; that he was not identified by name but only as
the "TX vVeatherman"; that his employment did not arise out of
the election campaign but was a regular job; and that the facts did not
reveal any fayoritism on the part of the stations or any intent to dis 
criminate among candidates. (Letter to K1VTX Broadcasting Co.,
~Iar.16, 1960; Brigham v. FCC, 276 F. 2d 828 (C.A. 5), Apr. 19,
1960; butsee Q.'s and A's IILB. 11, 12, and 13. )
*5. Q. vThere the facts are the same as those set forth in Q. and A.
IILB.13, supra, would the appearances of the employee while a legally
qualified candidate on news-type programs constitute a "use" exempted
from the provisions of 315 by reason of the 1959 amendment?
A. No. The main purpose of the amendment was to allow greater
freedom to the broadcaster in reporting news to the public, that is to
say, in carrying news about and pictures of candidates as part of the
contents of news programs. The amendment did not deal with the
question of whether the appearance of station employees who have
become candidates for office should be exempted on a news-type pro 
gram where such -enlployees are announcIng the news (rather than
being a part of the content of the news), any more than it dealt with
the general question of such appearances (e.g., on a variety program
or as a commercial continuity announcer), and the legislative history
indicates that the appearance of the candidate on a news-type pro 
gram in which he has participated in the "format and proriuction"
would not be exempt. (In re vVM.A..Y, letter of }Iar. 31,1965,4 ll.ll.
2d849.)
6. Q. A Philadelphia TV station had been presenting a weekly pro 
gram called "Eye on Philadelphia." This program consisted of per 
sonalities being interviewed by a station representative. Three can 
didates for the office of mayor of Philadelphia, representing different
"'An asterisk denotes a new question and answer.
3 F.C.C. 2d
474 Federal Communications Commission J{cf!(})·t"
political parties, appeared on the program. ,rould a ,,·rite·iu ('au·
dIdate for mayor be entitled to "equal opportunities"?
A. No, since it was ascertained that the appe.arances of the three
mayoralty candidates were on a bona fide, regularly scheduled uews
mtervIew program, and that such appearances were determined by the
station's news director on the basis of newsworthiness. (Telegram in
re ,VCAU-TV, Nov. 2, 1959; see also in re ,YTMJ-TV, telegram of
Nov. 2, 1964.)
7. Q.. A New York television station had been presenting a weekly
program called "Search Light." This program consisted of persons,
selected by the station on the basis of their ne\vswOlthiness, inter 
viewed by a news reporter selected by the station, a member of the
Citizens Union (a permanent participant initially selected by the sta 
tron), and a statIOn newsman \vho acted as moderator. T\vo candi·
dates appeared on the program and were intervie\ved. Is a third op 
posin" candidate entitled to "equal opportunities"?
A. 110. The format of the program was such as to constitute a bona
fide news interview pursuant to section 315 (a ) (2), since the program
was regularly scheduled, was under the control of the licensee, and the
particular program had followed the usual program format. (Tele 
gram in re1VNBC, Nov. 1, 1961.)
8. Q.. A ,Yashington, D.C., television station had been presenting
a weekly program called "City Side." This program consisted of
persons being interviewed by a panel of reporters. The panel was
selected by the station and the persons interviewed were selected by the
station on the basis of newsworthiness. Three candidates for the
Democratic nomination for the office of Governor of Marvland were
invited to appear on the program and one of them accept,;'d. 1Yould
a fourth candidate for the same nomination, not invited by the station
to appear, be entitled to "equal opportunities" 1
A. No. It was determined that "City Side" was a regularly sched 
uled, weekly, live, news-interview program on the station for approx 
iUUltely 6 years; that the normal format of the program consisted
of the inten'iew of a newsworthy guest or guests by a panel of re 
porters; that the appearances on the program were determined by the
station on the basis of newsworthiness; and that it was on this basis that
the three candidates \vere invited to appear. Such a program con 
stitutes a bona fide news-interview prog-ram pursuant to section 315
(a) (2). (Telegram to Charles Luthardt, Sr., }fay 12, 1962.)
9. Q., A New York television station had been presentinO' a weekly
half-hour program series for over 2 years. The program, dNew York
Forum," was presided over by a station moderator and consisted of
interviews of currently newsworthy g-uests by a panel of three lawyers.
The guests were selected by the statIOn in the exercise of its bona fide
ne\vs judgment and not for the political advantage of any candidate
for public office. The local bar association suggested the lawyer in 
terviewers to be used on a particular program but their final selection
remained subject to the station's approval. The Democratic and Re 
publican candidates for the office of Governor of New Jersey had
appeared on separate programs in the series. 1Vould a third party
candidate be entitled to "equal opportunities" 1
3 F,C.C. Zd
Use of Beoadr,"s! Fadlities by Candidates fOT Public Office 475
A. Xo. Such a program is a bona fide news interview and, as such,
appearances on,the program are exempt 12ursuant to section 315 (a) (2).
(Telegram to Socuihst Labor Party of~ew Jersey, Nov. 2, 1961.)
10. Q. Certain networks had presented over their facilities various
candidates for the Democratic nomination for President on the pro 
grams "Meet the Press," "Face the Xation," and "College Kews Con 
ference." Said programs were regularly scheduled and consisted of
questions being asked of prominent individuals by newsmen and others.
'Vould a candidate for the same nomination in a State primarv be
entitled to "equal opportunities"? •
A. Ko. The programs were regularly scheduled, bona fide news
inten'iews and were of the type which Congress intended to exempt
from the "equal opportunities" requirement of section 315, (Letter
to Andrew J. Easter, Apr. 28, 1960; in re Lar Daly, letters of May
12 and June 13, 1960; and letter to Congressman Frank Kowalski, July
10, 1962.)
11. Q. On September 30, 1962, one of the networks inten-iewed two
Congressmen, one presenting the Republican Party view aud the other
presenting the Democratic Party view concerning legislative Rchieve 
ments of the current congressional session. The program in which
the Congressmen appeared, "Direct Line," was initiated in April 1959,
and its format, nature, and content had not materially changed since
its inception; it was produced and controlled by the network and was
regularly scheduled on Sundays as a half-hour program, although the
particular program had been expanded to an hour because of preelec 
tion interest in the subject lllutter. The persons interviewed were
asked questions submitted by vie\Yers of the program, supplemented by
questions prepared in cooperation with the League of 'Vomen Voters.
The questions to be asked were selected exclusively by employees of the
network and propOlUlded bya moderator, also a network employee,
although on some occasions, an additional person such as a news re 
porter assisted the moderator in asking questions. 'Vould the oppo 
nent of one of the Congressmen running for reelection be entitled to
"equal opportunities"?
A. Xo. On tbe basis of the information submitted, the Commission
was of the yiew that the program_ "Direct Line" was a "bona fide news
inten'iew" w-ithin the meaning of section 315 (a) (2) and, therefore, the
Congressmen's appearances were exempt. (Telegram to Martin B.
Dworkis, Oct. 10,1962; see also telegram to Aaron M. Orange, Kov.
3, 1962; letter to Aaron M. Orange, July 25, 1963, FCC 63-721.)
12. Q. One of the networks had been presenting a program called
"Issues and Answers" each Sunday since November 27, 1960, and the
format, nature, and content of the program had not changed since its
inception. The program, originated, produced, and controlled by the
network in question, consisted of one or more news correspondents in 
terviewing one or more nationally or internationally prominent indi 
viduals such as Government officials, L.S. Senators, U.S. Congressmen,
foreign ambassadors, etc., on topics of national interest. The minority
leaders of the Senate and House, one of whom was a candidate for re 
election, were interviewed on the program as the official Republican
congressional spokesmen. The following week the official Democratic
congressional spokesmen appeared and were interviewed on the pro-
3 F.C.C. 2d
476 Federal 001nmunications Oommi"sion Reports
gram. Would the opponent of the Republican spokesman who was
running for reelection be entitled to "equal opportunities" 1
A. No. The Commission ruled that the program "Issues and
Answers" was 'a bona fide news interview program of the tYl.'e which
Congress intsnded to be exempt from the "equal opportumtles" pro 
visions of section 315. (Telegram to Mr. William S. Flanagan, Oct.
23,1962.)
13. Q. A candidate for the Democratic nomination for President was
interviewed on a network program known as "Today." It was shml"n
that this was a daily program e-mphasizing news coverage, news
documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events; that the
determination as to the content and format of the interview and the
candidate's participation therein was made by the network in the exer 
cise of its news judwnent and not for the candidate's political advan 
tage; that the questIOns asked of the candidate were determined bv the
director of the program; and that the candidate was selected because of
his newsworthiness and the network's desire to interview him concern 
ing current prdblems -and events. Would the candidate's opponent be
entitled to "equal opportunities" 1
A. No, since the 'appearance of the candidate was on a program
which was exempt from the "equal opportunities" requirement of sec 
tion 315. (Telegram to LarDaly, July 6, 1960.)
14. Q. Does the appearance of a candidats on any of the following
progrRills -constitute a "use" under the "equal opportunities" provisions
of section 315:"~1:eetthe Press," "Youth IVants to Know," "Capitol
Cloakroom," "Tonight," 'and "PM"?
A. The programs "Meet the Press" and "Yonth IVants to Know"
were specifically referred to during the Senate debates on the 1959
amendments as being regularly scheduled news interview programs of
the type intended to be exempt from the "equal opportunities" provi 
sion of section 315. Thus, if the format of these programs 18 not
changed in any material respect, appearances by a candidate on such
programs would not constitute a "use" under section 315. (Letter to
Senator Russell B. Long, June 13, 1962; see also Q. and A. III.C. 10;
as to the "Tonight" program, see Q. and A. III.B. 9.)
15. Q. A candidate for Governor of the State of New York appeared
on "The Barry Gray Show," a nightly news and discussion program
which had been broadcast by the station, using the same format, for
it period of at least 4 years. The program consisted of a series of inter 
views of indeterminate length with persons from all walks of life con 
cerning newsworthy events. The show was interrupted five times
nightly for 5-minute newscasts, two of which were given by Barry
Gray. Barry Gray, an independent contractor, exercised day-to-day
control over the program subject to overall and ultimate control by the
station. Candidatss appearing on the program ,,-ere selected, not for
their own political advantage, but on the basis that they were bona fide
candidates and would serve to inform the audience on issues on which
the audience would have to make a decision in order to vote. The
station allowed Barrv Gray the maximum latitude for initiative and
editorial freedom. Barry Gray determined, on the basis of the interest
value of the guest and the articulate manner in which he expressed
himself on the topic under discussion, the amountoftime to be allocated
3 F.C.C. 2d
Use of Broadcast Facilities by Oandidate8 f01> Public Office 477
to any. particular inten:iel>, and either actinly participated in the
dIscussIOn, acted as an lmpartlal moderator in the interview or on
occasion,. "talked the show" out if the guest was of little interest value.
In some mstances, the program consisted of an exchanooe of views and
in the other instances, constituted a paneldiscussio~.Would the
opponent of the candidate for Governor of New York be entitled to
"equal opportunities" 1
A. Yes. The Commission held that the definition of a bona fide news
i~lten:iewmust .bed~rive~from the specific examples of such programs
CIted m the legIslatIve history of the 1959 amendment to section 315.
On the basis of the information submitted, the Commission could not
determine that the Barry Gray Show was a bona fide news interview.
(Telegram to "l\fCA, Inc., O"ct. 20, 1962, FCC 62-1133.)
16. Q. A Xew Jersey television station had been presenting for
<tpproxlmately 2% years a ,,'eekly program called "Between the Lines."
This program consisted of interVIews by a station moderator ofyer 
sons involved with current public events in New Jersey and Xew r ork.
The incumbent, candidate f.or reelection to the State assembly, ap 
pe>1red on the program. "ould his opponent be entitled to "equal
opportunities" ?
..::"-. Ko. The Commission ruled that "* * * the prograln in question
is the type of program Congress intended to be exempt from the equal
time requirements of section 315." (Letter to George A. Katz, Esq.,
X mo. 2. 1960.)
17. Q. The "Governor's Radio Press Conference" is a weekly 15 
Ininute program which has been broadcast approximatelv 2 yearS em 
ploying essentially the same format since its inception." In the pro 
gTam, the Governor-candidate is seated in his office and speaks into
;t microphone; each of the participating stations has selected a news 
man, ,vho, while located at his respective station, asks questions of
the Governor which the newsman considers to be newsworthy. The
questions are communicated to the Governor-candidate by telephone
from the respective stations and the questions and the Governor's
answers are cOlnulunicated to the stations by the means of a broadcast
line from his office to the stations. The questions and answers are
taped both by his office and e.ach of the participating stations, and no
tapes are supplied by the Governor to the statIOns. Questlons asked
of the Governor and all of the material, including his answers,ar~not
screened, or edited by anyone in his office or on his behalf. The pro 
gram is unrehearsed and there is no prepared material of any kind used
bv the Governor or by anyone on his behalf. The newsmen are free
t~ask any question they wish and each program is under the control
of the participating stations. Does the appearance of the Governor 
candidate on said program constitute a "use" under the "equal oppor 
tunities" provision of section 315?
A. No. Since the program involves the collective participation of
the stations' newsmen, is prepared by the stations, is under their sole
supervision and control, has been regularly scheduled for a period of
time, and was not conceived or designed to further the candidacy of
the Governor, it was held to be a bona fide news interview program
and, therefore, exempt from the "equal opportnnities" provision of
section 315. (Letter to Governor Michael DiSalle, June 8, 1962.)
3 F.e.e. 2d
478 FedemlCommuni()ation~Commission Reports
18. Q. The "Goyernor's Forum" program has been broadcast for
approxlInately 8 months by seyer'll participating stations. In this
program, the Governor-candidate is seated in his office and speaks into
a microphone. The program consists of his answers to and questions
submitted by the listening public. Questions asked are either tele 
phoned or written to the stations or directly to his office. The ques 
tions "'hich are telephoned or written to the se.veral stations are for 
warded to the principal participating station, which then selects the
questions, edits the questions, and accumulates them on a tape. The
questions telephoned or "'ritten to the Governor's office are likmvise
selected and edited by his office for taping. The tape or tapes contain·
ing the questions are played in his office and the questions and the
Goyernor's answers are then recorded on a master tape prepared by his
office. Additional questions are asked of the Goyernor by the pdnci 
pal station's newsman, present in the Goyernor's office, to amplify anY
prior question and answer. On occasion, further editing of tlu, tape
has been made by the Goyernor's office or by the stations. The tape
is sent to each of the participating stations by the Go.-ernor·s office.
There is no prepared material or rehe,"rsal by the Governor's office.
",",'ould the appearance by the Governor-candidate on the above pro 
gram constitute a."use~'under the "equal opportunities" proyision
of section 31:,)?
___:t. Yes. Such a progranl is not a news-interview progranl ascon~
templated by section 315(a) (2). This conclusion has been reached
since the selection and compilation of the questions, as well as the
production, supervision, control, and editing of the progrmn are not
functions exercised exclusively by the stations. (Letter to Goyernor
Michael DiSalle, June 8, 1962.)
19. Q.~~Congressman who was a candidate for reelection appeared
in ft news interview on a station and was interyiewed by the station~s
public affairs clepart111ent regarding his experiences as a fresllluan
Congressman. The program was described by the licensee as a "bona
fide special news interyiew" and the licensee stated that it had sought
the interview on the basis of its news judgment. The inteniew was
conducted by a station employee and the questions asked related to
current ne"'sworthy events. The licensee stated further that although
the program was a "special news interyiew" (the station did not
broadcast regularly scheduled newS interviews but presented special
news interviews a.s the occasion arose and this was deemed by the
licensee to be such an occasion), the interview itself and the format
and nature of the questions were the same as in news interview pro 
grams of other newsworthy individuals and that the program was
initiated, produced and controlled by the licensee. ",Vould the Con 
gressman'£ opponent be entitled to "equal opportunities" 'I
. A. Yes. The Commission pointed out that the legislative history
of the 1959 amendment to section 315 clearly indicated that a basic
element of a "bona fide news interview" IS that it be regularly
scheduled. Accordingly, it held that the Congressman's appearance
did not occur in connection with a "bona fide news interview" within
the meaning of section 315(a) (2) and that his appearance, therefore,
constituted a "use" entitling his opponent to "equal opportunities."
(Telegram to station KFDX-TV, Oct. 26, 1962.)
3 F.e.e. 2d
esc of Broadca.st Facilities by Candidates fOI' Public Offlcc 479
20. Q. CBS Tele,-ision Xetwork presented a I-hour proO"ram
entitled "The Fifty Faces of '62." The program consisted of a~'011l­
prehensiye news report of the current. off year elections and calnpaigns.
It included a brief review of the historv of off Tear elections. indi 
vidual and group interviews, on-the-spot cOI·era!!:e of conYentions and
campaigns, and flashbacks of currently newsworthv aspects of the
current eanlpaif.lTIsa~ndelee.ti.ons. In addition to the appearances on
the broadcast of prIvate CItIzens, voters, college students, and can 
didates, there were approximately 25 political figures, none of whom
,"'\us on camera for more than approximately 2 or 3 minutes. Smne
of the candidates appearing on the program mentioned their can 
didacJ'; others, includin!!: the minority leader of the House of Repre 
sentatives, who appeared III that capaCIty and discussed the prospect
of his party in the fall elections, did not discuss their candidacies.
The determination as to who was to appear on the program was made
solely by CBS news on the basis of its bona fide news judgment
that their appearances were in aid of the coverage of the subject of
the programs and not to favor or advane"" the candidacies of any of
those W1'0 appmlred, such appearances being incidental and subordi 
nate to the subject of the documentary. Is the appearance on the
program of a candidate, in his capacity as 111inorlt-y leader of the
House of Representatives, a "use" within the "equal opportunities"
provision of section 315?
A. No. Such a program is a bona fide news documentary pursuant
to section 31;") (a) (3). The appearance of the candidate therein is
incidental to the presentation of the subject covered by the docu 
mentary and the progrmll is not designed to aid his candidacy.
(Tele/!ram to Judge John .J.~furray,.June 12, 1962.)
21. Q. A television station had been presentin/!, since 1958, a
weekly 3D-minute progrmn concerning developlnents in the State
legislature with principal Democratic and Republican Party leaders
of both houses of the legislature participating. At the close of each
legislntiY6 ternl, the station teleyised a I-hour SU1l1111ury of the legis 
lature'sacti'i~ities,using filnl and recordings 1l1ade during its lneetings.
Is the appearance, in the latter pro/!ram, of an officer of the State
legislature, who is also a candidate, in which he and others express
their views on the accomplishments of the legishltive session a "use"
under the "equal opportunities" provision of section il15?
A. Ko. For the reasons stated in Q. and A. III.C. 19, supra.
22. Q. A former President expressed his vie',s with respect to a
forthcoming national convention of his party. A candidate for that
partv's nomination for President called a press cDnference at the
cOll\:ention site ancI immediately prior to the convention to comment
on said views which conference 'vas broadcast by two networks.
IVauld saidca~didate'sopponent for the same nomination be entitlecl
to "equal opportunities"? . ..
A. K 0 since the appearance of the first candIdate InCIdental to a
political' convention was on a progran;. which constitute.d "on-the 
spot coverage of 1:ona fide new, events,·pur~uantto seetwn31~(a)
(4). (TeleO"ram III re CBS and NBC, July i, 1960: see see. 31D(a)
(4), and Q.~ndA. III.C. 23, infra; but see <1. and A. III.B. 7, supra.)
3 F.C.C. 2d
106-536-00------2
480 Federal Oortlllnunwatiow Oommusion Reports
*23. Q. Are acceptance speeches made at a nominating conYention
by successful candidates for a political party's nomination for Presi 
dent and Vice President uses which entitle other parties' candidates
for those offices to "equal opportunities" under section 315?
A.~o.Prior to 1959 any use of a station's facilities by a candi 
date for public office required the station to afford "equal oppor 
tunities" to other candidates for the same office. However, one of the
specific types of newS programs exempted by Congress was "on-the 
spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to
political conventions and activities incidental thereto)" in the lan 
guage of 315(a) (4). The broadcast of an acceptance speech made
at a political convention is an aspect of the coverage of the political
convention. (Letter to Deberry-Shaw Campaign Committee, Sept.
11, 1964. See also Q. and A. III.C. 22, supra;. but for a ruling pnor
to the 1959 amendments see letter to ProgresslVe Part,, July 2, 1952,
7 R.R. 1300, Q. and A. III.B.7.) •
'24. Q. A Chicago televisiou station covered the annual Saint
Patrick Day parade in that city. During the broadcast, the mayor, a
candidate for reelection, appeared for 2 minutes. tVould the mayol"s
opponent be entitledto "equal opportunities"?
A. No. Broadcast cOYerage of a parade is the type of bona fide newS
event contemplated by CDngress in enacting the 1959 amendments to
section 315. Therefore, such a broadcast would appear to constitute
"on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events" pursuant to section
315 (a) (4) and any appearance by a candidate during the course of
such a broadcast would not constltute a "use" of broadcast facilities
entitling opposing candidates to "equal opportunities." (Letter to
Lar Daly, Mar. 28, 1963.)
25. Q. An Indiana station presented the county court judge, who
was a candidate for the Democratic mayoralty nomination in Gary,
Ind., on a program entitled "Gary Oounty Court on the Air." The
program had been broadcast live by the station as a public service for
the past 14 years, each Monday, 'Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday
from 9 :05 a.m. to 10 a.m. One of the programs was taped for broad 
cast 1 day prior to the actual broadcast. The station had met with the
presiding Judge some 14 years prior to the election in question to
arrange for the broadcasts and each succeeding judge had ap:reed to
wnti,.'ue the program because of its public interest value. For 71,6
years prior to the election in question, the judge who was a candidate
for the mayoralty nomination had a,Pl?eared on the program. Persons
appearing in the court had the prIVIlege of declining to have their
cases heard during broadcast time to prevent invasion of privacy. If,
in the opinion of the presiding judge, certain cases did not lend them 
selves to broadcast, they were heard at times when the proceedings
were not being covered by the station. The court was the usual type
of city court, handling a variety of cases and was not solely a traffic.
court, and it was, generally, impossible for the judge to control the
content and/or persons who did appear. The program could not he
by its nature and was not, by licensee insistence, tailored to suit the
judge who was a candida:te. The fonnat of "Gary County Court on the
• An asterisk denotes 8. new Question llnd answer.
<I F.e.e. 2d
['se of Broadcast Fadldies by Candidates fol' Public Office 481
.~ir"had remained unchanged since the inception of the pro;rram.
The station used city court case decisions on its regularly scheduled
newscasts !!,ndS~clldecisions alsoapp.ear~din Gary newspapers.
Would the Judge'S opponent for the nommatlOn for mayor be entitled
to "equal time" t
A. No. The Commission concluded that the program fell within
the '"news event" exemption of section 315(a) (4) because the pro;rram
covered the operation of an official governmental body and because the
court proceedings were newsworthy. The Commission held that the
program was "bona fide" in view of the fact that it had been presented
bv the station for 14 years, with this particular judge for 7% years,
aild inasmuch as the appearance of the candidate was incidental to the
on-the-spot coverage of a news event rather than for the purpose of
advancing his candidacy. Therefore, the Commission ruled that
"Gary County Court on the Air" fell within the reasonable latitude
aUowed to licensees for the exercise of good faith news judgment and
was exempt from the "equal time" requirement of section 315. (Letter
to Thomas R. Fadell, Apr. 10, 1963 (FCC 63-331) : affirmed by order
entered Apr. 29, 1963, Th.OInas R. Fadel! v. U.s., FCC, and lVTVCA
Radio Station, case No. 14142 (USCA,7th).)
26. Q. On September 30, 1962, two candidates for the office of Gov 
ernor of California held a I-hour debate which was given coverage on
eve.ry major television station in California, the time being donated by
the stations carrying the debate. The debate was held in San Fran 
cisco as part of the annual convention of United Press International
",hich had invited the two candidates to appear and had invited all
news media to cover the event. The debate was not arranged by the
stations but was broadcast by them as a public service and in the
exercise of their bona fide news judgment. No other aspect of the
tiPI convention was broadcast other than the joint appearance of the
tWO candidates. A third candidate for the same office requested
"equal opportUllities" and the stations denied the request on the basis
that the prior appearances constituted "on-the-spot" coverage of a
bona fide nev.s event" pursuant to section 315 (a) (4) of the Com 
nmnications Act. ,Vas the third candidate entitled to "equal
opportunities" '1
A. Yes. The Commission held that neither the language of the
amendment, the legislative history, nor subsequent congressional
action indicated a congressional intent to exempt from the "equal op 
portunities" provision of section 315 a debate qua debate between
Jeaally qualified candidates. The Commission pointed out that the
b~nafide news event" pursuant to section 315 (a) (4) of the Com 
not the sale criterion to be used in determining whether section
315 (a) (4) had been properly invoked. It was concluded that where
the appearance of the candidates was designed by them to serve their
own political advantage and such appearance was ultimately the sub·
ject of a broadcast program encompassing only their entire appear 
ance, such program cannot be considered to be on-the-spot coverage of
a bona fide news event simply because the broadcaster deems that the
candidates' appearance (or speeches) will be of interest to the general
public and, therefore, newsworthy. (Telegrams to NBC and KFMB-
3 F.C.C. 2d
482 Federal Communicatiom Commission Reports
TV, Oct. 19, 1962; letterto NBC and CBS, Oct. 26, 1962, FCC G2-UH2:
see also letter to the Goodwill Stations, Inc. (W.TR), Oct. 1\), 1PG=!.)
*27. Q. The Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., advised the Com 
mission that over the years it had beeome the practice of the President
to hold press conferences; that President .Tohnson had held such con 
ferences on a periodic, though irregular, basis in the past lUld would
undoubtedly hold press conferences prior to election dlly, llS would his
opposing candidate, Senator Goldwater. CBS stated tlult it considered
Presidential press conferences important news events and had o-iven
them such broadcast coverage as it in its newsjUdgn1~nthadth~uO"ht
WllS WlllTanted llnd thllt it believed it would be In the public interesr to
continue to co"\'er these press eonferences, as well as those of Senator
Goldwater, or some of them, in whole or in part, pro\-ided this would
not require it to afford equlll time to all other persons 'V11O miO"ht a1,0
be candidates for the .presidency. \Vould such press confer,';;lces be
exempt from the reqmrements of sectIon H15 on the o-round that the
appearances were considered to be either "bona fiden~,,'sinterviews"
or "on the spot coverage" of "bona fide news events"?
A. No. The broadcast of press conferences, such as the one described
in the inquiry, \youJd not be exempt from the provisions of section ill;)
either as "bona fide news interviews" or "on the spot corerage of
bona fide news erents." The press conference could not qualify as a
·;'boua fide newsinterriew~'exelnption inasilluch as it was not a reg 
ularly scheduled program, within the recognized and accepted mean 
ing of that term, but rather was one that could be called by the
candidates solely in their discretion and at times they themselves
specify. Such a press conference could not, in any event, qualify for
exelllptiol1; since the scheduling and in significant part the content
and format of the press conference was not under the control of the
network. In addition the broadcast of the press conference could not
be deemed to be an "on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news e,-ent,"
since prior Commission rulings issued on October 19 and 26, 1962 (see
Q. and A. III.C. 26) pointed out, inter alia, "* * * that if the sole test
of the on-the-spot coverage exemption is simply whether Or not the
station's decision to cover the event and put it on a hroadcas! program
constitutes a bona fide ne1YS judgment, there wonld be no meaning to
the other three exemptions in section 315 (a) since these, too, aU in 
volve a bona fide news j udi"l1nent by the broadcaster." Such a test
would, in effect, amount to a repeal of the "equal opportunities" pro 
vision'of section 315 (a)-something Congress dearly did not intend,
as shown, for example, by the necessity for the suspension of that pro 
rision for the 19l>0 debates between the two major presidential can 
didates. (Letter toeBS, Sept. 30, 1964, 3 R.R. 2d 623.)
*28. Q. The President of the United States during a presidential
campaign used 15 minutes of radio and television time to address the
Nation with respect to an extraordi';lary international situation in the
Middle East (the so;called Suez CrJS1S). Would the!l~t\;~rkscarrylllg
this address be obhged to afford "equal opportullltJeS' to the other
presidential candidates?
A. No. On the basis of the legislative history of section 315 the
Commission concluded that Congress did not intend to grant equal
*"An asterisk denot€s a new question and answer.
;) F.C.C. 2d
Use of Broadcast Facilities by Candidates fO!' Public Uffice 483
tirne to all presidentia1candidates "When the President uses the airwa\-es
in reporting to the Nation on an international er-isis.(Tele~Tan1to
XBC, CBS, and ABC, Xo,'. 5, 1956, public notice 38387,14 ll.ll. 720.)
*29. Q. The President of the United States, upon the recommenda 
tion of the National Security Council, went on the air to deliver a
report to the Xation with respect to an important aIlllouncement by
the Soviet. Government as to change in its leadership, and the explo,
sion bv Communist China of a nuclear device. 'Would the President's
opponents for the Presidency be entitled to "equal opportunities"?
-"-~.No. The net,,,"orks carrying the report, in deternlining t.hat. such
a report by the President. on specific, current international events
a!feeling the country's security falls within the "on-the-spot coverage
of a bona fide news event" exemption of section 315 (a) (4), a.cted
within their "reasonable latitude for the exercise of good faith news
judgment." The Commission also discussed its previous ruling of
}f),i6 (Q. and A. III.C. 28, supra), and noted that this ruling had been
fully reported to the Congress and that Congress had reexamined the
concept of "use" in connection with extensive amendments in 1959 to
section 315, but did not alter or COllllllent adversely upon the 1956
ruling. The decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
(D.C. Cir.) and was affirmed by a vote of 3 to;j without opinion. A
petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was denied. (Letter to
Dean Burch, Oct. 21, 1964; cert.. denied, 379 U.S. 893 (1964),3 ll.ll.
2d 647, 3 ll.ll. 2d 2025.)
IV. \VHO IS A LEGALLY QUALIFIED CANDIDATE?
IY. 1. Q. How can a station know which candidates are "Iegallv
~ali&~'?. .
A. The determination as to who is a legally qualified candidate for
a particular public office ,,'ithin the meaning of section 315 and the
Commission's rules must be determined by reference to the law of
the State in which the election is being held. In general, a candidate
is leo-ally qualified if he can he Yoted for in the State or district in
,,'hicll tl;e election is heing held, and, if elected, is eligible to serve in
the office in question.
2. Q. Xeed a candidate be on the ballot to he legally qualified'?
A. Xat always. The term "legally qua.lified .candidate" is not re 
stricted to persons whose names appear on the prlllted ballot; the term
may embrace persons not listed on the ballot if such persons are mak 
ing' a bona fide race for the. office lIlvolved and the names of such per 
soiis~or their electors can, under applieable la\y, be wTitten in by voters
so as to result in their yalid election. The Commission recognizes,
howpyer. that the mere fact that any name may he written ill does
not entitle all persons who miLy publicly iLnnounce thmnselyes as can 
didates to demand time under section 315; broadcast statIOns may
rna.ke suitable and reasonable requirements with respect to proof of
the bona fide nature of allY candidacy on the part of appliciLnts for the
use of facilities under section 315. (§§ 3.120, 3.290, 3.657, especially
par. (f); letters to Socialist Labor PiLrty, NO',. 14,19~1,~7ll.ll. 766;
CBS Inc.,~hv28, 1932. 7 ll.ll. 1189; press release of ]\iOY. 26, 1941
(mimeo 55732)'; see also Q.'s and A.'s IV. 11, 12, and 13. )
*An asterisk denotes a new qUNltion and answer.
3 F.C.C.~(\
484 Federal Oommunications 001l1711i$8ion Rep0J'ts
3. Q. :\Iay a person be considered to be " legally qua.lified candidate
where he has made only a public announcement of his candidaey and
has not yet filed the required forms or paid the required fees for seeUl' 
ing a place on the ballot in either the primary or general elections!
A. The answer depends on applicable State law. In some States
persons m,,,y be voted for by electorate whether or not they hnve "one
throughth~procedures required for getting their names placed on
the ballot Itself. In such a State, the announcement of a person's
candidacy-if determined to be bona fide-is sufficient to bring him
within the purview of section 315. In other States, however, candi 
dates mav not be "legally qualified" until they have fulfilled certain
prescribed procedures. The applieable State iaws and tlw particular
facts surrounding the announcement of the candidacy are determina 
tives. (Letter to Senator Earle C. Clements. Feb. 2, 1954; and see
also par. (f) of §§ 3.120,3.290,3.657.) .
4. Q. Maya station deny a candidate "equal opportunities"bec<~use
it believes that the candidate has no possibility of being elected or
nommated1
A. No. Seetion 315 does not permit any such subjective determina 
tion bv the sta:tion with respect to a candidate's chances of nomination
or election. (Letter to CBS Inc., May 28, 1952, 7 R.R. 1189.)
5. Q. When is a person a legally qualified candidate for nomination
as the candidate of a party for President or Vice President of the
United States?
A. In view of the fact that a person may be nominated for these
offices by the conventions of his party without having appeared on the
ballot of any State having presidential primary elections, or having
any pledged Yotes prior to the convention, or even announcing his
willingness to be a candidate, no fixed rule can be promulgated in
answer to this question. Whether a person so claiming is in fact a bona
fide candidate will depend on the particular facts of each situation, in 
cluding consideration of what efforts, if any, he has taken to secure
delegates or preferential votes in State primaries. Itcannot, however,
turn on the licensee's evaluation of the clailuant's cha.nces for success.
(Letter to CBS Inc., May 28, 1952,7 R.R. 1189; and See also par. (f)
of sees. 73.120, 73.290, 73.657.)
6. Q. Has a claimant under section 315 sufficiently established his
leo-al qualifications when the facts show that after 'qualifying for a
pl~ceon the ballot for a particular office in the primary, he notified
State officials of his withdrawal therefrom and then later claimed he
had not really intended to withdraw, and where the facts further
indicated that he was supporting another candidate for the same office
and was seekin/1: the nomination for an office other than the one for
which he claimed to be qualified!
A. No. "There a question is raised concernin" a claimant's legal
qualification. it is incumbent on him to prove that'he is in fact legally
qualified. The facts here did not constitute an unequivocal showing
of legal qualification. (Letter to Lar Daly, Apr. 11, 1956; letter to
American Vegetarian Party, Nov. 6, 1956.)
7. Q. Ifa candidate establishes his legal qualifications only after the
date of nomination or election for the office for which he was contend-
3 F.C.C. 2d
Use of Broadca.st Facilities by Oandidates fo!' Public Office 485
mg, is he entitled to equal opportunities which would have been
available had he timely qualified?
A. K0, for once the date of nomination or election for an office
has passed, it cannot be said that one ,,-110 failed timely to qualifv
therefor is still a "candidate." The holding of the primarv or gell 
eral election terminates the possibility of affording "equal oppor 
tunities," thus mooting the question of what rights the claimant
might have been entitled to under sedion 315 before the election.
(Letter to Socialist 1Vorkers Party, Dec. 13, 1956; letter to Lar Daly,
Oct. 31, 1956, 14 R.R. 713, appeal sub nom. Daly v. U.S., case~o.
11946 (C.A. 7th Cir.) dismissed as moot Mar. 7, 1957; cert. den.
355 U.S. 826.)
8. Q. Under the circumstances stated in the preceding question,
is any postelection remedy available to the candidate, before the Com 
111i8sion, under section 315 '?
A. Kone, insofar as a candidate may desire retroactive "equal
opportunities." But this is not to suggest that a station can avoid its
statutor}' obligation under section 315 by waiting until an election
has be,en held and only then disposing of denlands for '"equal
opportunities." (See citations in Q. and A. IV.7.)
9. Q. A, a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for
President, appeared on a variety program prior to the nominating
com-ention because of the prior appearance of B, his opponent. After
the closing of the convention, A claimed he \'ms entitled to additional
time in order to equalize his appearance ,,-ith that afforded B. \1'ould
A be entitled to additional time?
A. Ko. A licensee may not be required to furnish the use of its
facilities to a candidate for nomination for President after the con 
vention has chosen its nominee. (Telegram to Lar Daly, K0\-. 3,
1960. )
10. Q. 1Vhen a State attorney general or other appropriate State
official having jurisdiction to decide a candidate's legal qualification
has ruled that a candidate is not legally qualified under local election
laws, can a licensee be required to afford such "candidate" "equal
opportunities" under section 315?
..:-t. In sneh instances, the ruling of the State attorney general or
other official will prevail, absent a judicial determination. (Tele 
gram to R>tlph~Iuncy,~ov. 5, 1954: letter to Socialist 1Yorkers
PartT, X0\-.23,1956.)
*11. Q. A television station afforded time to the Democmtic can 
didate from the State of California for the U.S. Senate. The station
subsequently turned down a request from the Socialist Labor Party
for time for their candidate for the same office, on the baSIS of a tele 
([ram which it had received from the secretary of state of the State
of California which declared that he did not consider the Socialist
Labor Party candidate a legally qualified candidate under proyisions
of the California election code. The candidate in question was duly
nominated and had accepted the nomination at the party State con 
vention; the seeret"lry of state's office \vas officially notified of his
nomination; notification of his candidacy was sent to all news medIa
'" Anasieri~kdenotes a new question and answer.
3 F.e.e. 2d
486 Federal C01nmunicatiollB COJrI/lnission Reports
and was published in the metropolibn newspapers: he had ;Hldre"ed
public meetings in four large California cities on behalf of his can 
didacy. rpon request of the secretary of state the deputy attorney
genera] advised the Commission that under California election Jaw
write-in votes may be cast and counted for an individual seekin""
the office of r.s. Senator and if the indiyidua] recei.-ed a plurality
of the yates cast for the office the secretary of state would certify
the indi\-idual as haYing been elected. 'Would the candidate be cOll 
sidered lega]]y qualiiied so as to be entitled to "equal opportunities"
for the use of the station's facilities?
A. Yes. The, Commission's rules define a legally qualified candi 
date, in part, as any person who has publicly announced that he is a
candidate: meets the qualifications prescribed by the applicable h1\'1"8
to hold the office for \,hich he is a candidate so that he may be Yoted
for by the electorate; is eligible under the law to be yoied for by
l'TitinQ.' in his naUle on the ballot; and nmkes a substantinI sho"\"ing
that h'e is a bona fide candidate for nomination or office. On tIle
basis of the facts recited it was determined that the candidate \vas a
legally qualified candidate and as such was entitled to "equa] oppor 
tunities." (Letter to Metromedia, Inc., Oct. 28, 1964.)
*12. Q. An inclmlbent county clerk haying publicly announced his
intention to run for renOlllination in an upcoming priulary continued
to broadcast sports eYents and otherwise speak on radio. It appeared
that he had not filed his notification and declaration papers with the
appropriate State official. Is a legally qualified candidate for the
same nomination entitled to "equal opportunities" in response to the
broadcast by the incumbent?
A. Ko. The State attorney general indicated that a person does not
become a legally qualified or "bona fide" candidate in the primary
nnti] his notification and deelaration papers ha'-e been received and
accepted by the applicable State officer. Since the incumbent county
clerk had not filed these required papers, he was not a leg-ally qualified
candidate under section 73.120 (a) of the Commission rules at the time
of his broadcasts. His opponent, therefore, was not entitled to "equa]
opportunities" to respond to these broadcasts. (In re vVDOC; letter
of ,June 4, 1965.)
*13. Q. 'When a State secretary of state has ruled that an individual
has not follo,ypd the procedures required by State law for becoming a
legal!V qualified candidate for U.S. Senator from that State, can a
licensee be required to afford that individual "equal opportunities"
under section 315?
A. Ko. 'When it appears that a State secretary of state has ruled
that an individual is not a legally qualified candidate under the State
election law and that individual has presented no further information
regarding his claimed candidacy, he has failed to meet the burden
imposed by section 73.120 (f) of the Commission's rules of proving
that he is it legally qualified candidate for public office under section
73.120 (a) of those rules. (Letter to Socialist 'Workers Party, in re
KNX, Oct. 28, 1964.)
*14. Q. An individual seeking a U.S. Senate seat requested time
from a station equal to that afforded his opponents. The individual's
'" An asterisk denotes n. new question and answer.
3 F.C.C. 2d
Use of Bl'Oadead Faci7ities by Candidates for Public Office 487
request IUld been refused by the station on the grounds that he "ms not
a bona fide candidate. The candidate informed the Commission that
he had been advised by the local election board that he possessed the
necessary requisites to be a write-in candidate and claimed that he was
thus entitled to equal time. IVould the individual be entitled to equal
opportunities under these circumstances?
A. Ko. The Commission found that the individual had not com 
plied with the Commission's rules for establishing one's self as a legally
qualified candidate. He had failed to submit any proof other than
his O\vn statements relating to whether he was "eligible under the
applicable law to be ,-oted for * * * by writing in his name on the
ballot." Therefore, he had not met his burden of proof under section
73.657(f) of the rules. (In re WNHC-TV, letter of Nov. 4, 19M.)
v.\VIIE~~ARE CANDIDATES OPPOS!XG CANDIDATES?
V.l. Q. IVhat public offices are included ,vithin the meaning of Sec 
tion 315 ?
A. Under the Commission's rules, section 315 is applicable to both
primary and general elections, and public offices include all officeS filled
by special or general election on n. 111unlC'ipal, county,State~or na 
tional level as well as the nomination by any recognized party of a
candidate for such an office.
2. Q.~faythe station under section 315 make time anlilable to all
candidates for one office and refuse all candidates for another office?
A. Yes. The "equal opportunities" requirement of section :31il is
limited to all legally qualified candidates for the same office.
3. Q. If the station makes time availnble to candidntes seeking the
nomination of one party for a particular office, does section 31" require
that it make equal time available to the candidates seeking the nomina 
tion of other parties for thesameoffice ?
A. K0, the Commission has held that ,vhile hoth primary elections or
110lninating conventions and general elections are comprehended "ith 
in the terms of section 315, the primary elections or conventions held by
one party are to be considered separately from the primary elections or
eon-rent-ions of other parties, and, therefore, insofar ,18 SP('tioll in;) is
concerned, "equal opportunities" need only be afforded legally qualified
candidates for nomination for the same office at the same party's pri 
mary or nominatinO' convention. The, station's actions in this regard,
hmvever, would be"governed by the public interest standards encom 
passed within the"fa.~rness.doctrine." (Letters to KIVFT, Inc., Oct.
22, 1948, 4 ll.R. 885; boclahst Labor Party of AmerIca, May 13, 1952,
11 ll.R. 234: vVCDL, Apr. 3, 1953: Senator .Toseph S. Clark, .Tan. 25
and Apr. 13, 1962: telegram to Dr. Edward J. Leuddeke, Oct. %, 1961;
letter to E. C. Freneh, Oct. 28, 1964,3 R.R. 2d 811, Q. and A. Y. 5; and
in re IVCBS-TV, telegram of Oct. 29, 196:1.)
4. Q. If the station makes time anilable to all candidates of one
party for nomination for a pa,rticularoffi~e,i~cludingthe successful
candidate, rnav candidates of other partles 1ll the general electIOn
demand an equal amount of time under section 3151
A. No. For the reason given above. (Letter to KWFT, Inc., Oct.
22,1948,4 R.ll. 885.)
3 F.C.C. 2d
488 Federal Cmnmunicatiom Commission Reports
*5. Q. On May 3, 1964, an incumbent Congressman from New York
was afforded time to appear on a television program. At that time
he was the only person who had been designated by petition under
New York law as the Republican nominee for his congressional seat.
The complainant at that date was the only designated Democratic-Lib 
eral nominee. Primaries for both parties were due to be held on June
2,1964. However, if no further nominees were designated byApril 28,
1964, and if no petitions for write-in nominees were filed by May 5,
1964, no primary would be held, since the incumbent and the complain 
ant each would have the uncontested nomination of his respective
party. In fact, no further petitions, either "designating" or "write 
in," were ever filed. Was the licensee correct in refusing "equal op 
portunities" to the complainant in response to incumbent's .May 3
broadcast on the ground that on that date each was merely a candidate
for his respective party's nomination, and thus they were not opposing
candidates for the same office 1
A. Yes. The issue must be determined under the Kew York Smte
election laws and should be resolved by appropriate State or local au 
thorities. Since neither the complainant nor the Conunission wa.s able
to obtain an interpretation of that law from the New York authorities,
the Conunission of necessity interpreted the law. An "uncontested
position" as defuled by the New York statute is one as to which (1)
the number of candidates designated for the particular office does not
exceed the number to be nominated or elected thereto by the partv in
the primary, and (2) no valid petition requesting an opportunity to
write in the name of an undesiguated candidate has been filed. Ifboth
conditions are fulfilled when the period for filing such petitions is over
(May 5), no primary is required. Since condition (2) of this defini 
tion could not be fulfilled until May 5, 1964, 2 days after the Re.publican
incumbent's broadcast, neither designated candidate here lllvolved
could be considered the nominee of his respective party until May 5,
and, therefore, they were not opposing candidates for Congress at the
time of incumbent's broadcast. (Letter to E. C. French, Oct. 28, 1964,
3 ll.ll. 2d 881.)
''"1. "'-HAT CONSTITLTES EQ"C..\L OPPORTUNITIES?~A.IN GENERAL
VI.A. 1. Q. Generally speaking, what constitutes "equal op 
portunities"1
A. Under section 315 and §§ 73.120, 73.290, and 73.657 of the
COlnn1ission's rules, no licensee. shall nlake -any discrimination in
charges, practices, regulations, facilities, or services rendered to
candidates for a particular office.
2. Q. Is a licensee required or allowed to give time free to one candi 
date where it had sold time to an opposing candidate1
A. The licensee is not permitted to discriminate between the candi 
dates in anY ,my. 'With respect to any particular election it may adopt
a policy of selli'.'g time. or of giving time to the candidatesfre~of
charo'e, or of givlllg them some tIme and sellmg them addltronal tlme.
But~,hateverpolicy it adopts it must treat all candidates for the same
office alike with respect to the time they may secure free and that for
which they must pay.
'*' An asterisk denotes a new question and answer.
:3 F.e.e. 2d
Use of Broadcast Facilities by Oandidates for Public Office 489
3. Q. Is it necessary for a station to advise a candidate or a political
party that time has been sold to other candidates 1
A. No. The law does not require that this be done. If a candidate
inquires, however, the facts must ,be ginn him. It should be noted
here that a station is required to keep a public record of all requests for
time by or on behalf of political candidates. together with a record of
the disposition and the charges made, if any, for each broadcast.
{§§ 73.120 (d), 73.290 (d), 73.657 (d) ; and telegram to Norman William
beemann, Esq., May 18, 1962.)
4. Q. Ifa station desires to make its facilities ayailable on a particu 
lar day for political broadcasts to all candidates for the same office, is
one of the candidates precluded from requesting "equal opportunities"
at a later date if he does not accept the station's initial ofler?
A. This depends on ull of the circumstances surrounding the
station's offer of time and, particularly. whether the station has giyen
adequate adyance noticB. The Commission has held that a 4-day notice
by a Texas station to a Congressman while Congress is in session does
not constitute adequate advance notice and the Congressman is not
foreclosed from his right to request "equal opportunities." (Letter to
Jack 1'1eil, station KTRM, Apr. 18, 1962.)
5. Q. With respect to a request for time by a candidate for public
office where there has been no prior "use" by an opposing candidate,
must the station sell the candidate the specific time segment he
requests~
....~.Xo. Keither the act nor the Conllnission'8 rules contain any
provisions which require a licensee to sell a specific time segment to a
candidate for public office. (Letter to Mr. Bill 1'1eil, station KTRM,
:\Iar. 9, 1D62.)
6. Q. Is " station required to sell to a candidate time which is un 
limited as to total time and as to the length of each segment1
A. 1'1either the act nor the Commission's rules contain provisions
requiring stations to sell unlimited periods of time for political broad 
casts. Section 315 of the act illlposes no obligation on any licensee to
allow the use of its station by any candidate. Commission's program 
ing statement contemplates the use of stations for political broadcast 
ing. 1Vhere the station showed that sale of limited time segments to
eandidates was based on its experience and the interests of viewers in
progranling diversification, no COlll111ission action was required.
(Telegram to J. B. Lahan, :\Iay 18, 1962; and telegrams to GroYer C;.
Do!!O'ette, Esq., Mav 22 and 23, 1962. Cf.letter to statIon 1VLBT-Tv ,
Apr~17, 1962, and'letter to station 1VROX, :\Iay 3, 1962, where the
Commission indicated that a public interest question would be raised
if the station failed to provide any broadcast time to candidates in a
major election being held within .the station's ?oyerage.area.)
7. Q. If a station offers free tlme to opposmg candIdates and one
candidate declines to use the time given him, are other candidates for
that office foreclosed from availing themselves of the offer 1
A. 1'10. The refusal of one candidate does not foreclose other candi 
dates wishing to use the time offered. However, whether the candidate
initially declining the offer could later avail himself of "equal oppor 
3 F.C.C. 2d
490 Fedeml Communication" Commi.,8ion Rep0J'ts
tunities" would depenu on all the facts and circumstances. (Lett el"
on offers of free time, June 13, 1956, 14 RR 65.)
8. Q. If one political candidate buys station facilities more heayily
than another, is a station required to call a halt to such sales because
of the resulting imbalance?
A. So. Section 315 requires only that all candidates be afforded
"equal opportunities" to use the facilities of the station. (Letter to
Mrs. M. R Oliver, Oct. 23, 1952, 11 RR 239.)
9. Q. Can a station contract with the committee of a political party
whereby it commits itself in advance of an election to furnish sub 
stantial blocks of time to the candidates of that party?
A. Neither section 315 nor the Commission's rules prohibit a licensee
from contracting with a party for reservation of tilne in advance or an
election. However, substantial questions as to a possible violation of
section 315 would arise if the effect of such prior commitment were to
disable a licensee from meeting its "equal opportunities" obligations
under section 315. (Letter to Cougressman Frank M. Karsten, Noy. 25,
1955.)
10. Q. ·Where a television station had previously offered certain
specified time segments during the last week of the campai/-,,,) to
candidate A, who declined the purchase, and then sold the same seg 
ments to A's opponent, was the station obligated under section :31" to
accede to A's subsequent request for particular time periods imme 
diately preceding or following the time segments previously offered
to him and refused by him and subsequently sold to his opponent?
A. No. But the time offered to candidate A must be generally com 
parable. The principal factors consi dered in this situation were: (a)
the total amount of time presently scheduled for each candidate: (b)
the time segments presently offered to candidate A; (c) the time seg 
ments presently scheduled for candidate A's opponent and previously
rejected by candidate A; (d) the time se/puents now scheduled for
candidates for other offices, if any, and previously rejected by camli 
date A; and (e) the station's possible obligations to other candidates
for office. (Telegram to Maj. Gen. Harry ,Johnson, Nov. 1, 1961.)
11. Q. If a station has a policy of confining political broadcasts to
sustaining time, but has so many requests for political time that it
cannot handle them all within its sustaining schedule, may it refuse
time to a candidate whose opponent has already been granted time,
on the basis of its established policy of not canceling commercial
prozrams in favor of political broadcasts?
1(. Xo. The station cannot rely upon its policy if the latter conflicts
with the "equal opportunities" requirement of section 315. (Stephens
Broadcasting Co., Sept. 4, 1945, 11 F.C.9. 61, 3 RR~.)
12. Q. If one candidate has been nommated by partIes A, B, and C,
'Yhile a second candidate for the same office is nominated only by party
D how should time be allocated as between the two candidates?
'A. Section 315 has reference only to the use of facilities by persons
who are candidates for public office and not to the political parties
which may have nominated such candidates. Accordingly, if broad 
cast time IS made available for the use of a candidate for public office,
the provisions of section 315 require that "equal opportunities" be
3 F.C.C. 2d
[-'Be of Broadcast Facilities by Oandidates jor FilMic Office 491
afforded each person who is a candidate for the same office. without
regard to the nUlllber of llOlninations that any particular candidate
may have. (Letter to Thomas IV. IVilson, Oct. 31, 1946.)
YI.B. COMPAU_ABILITY
\'I.B.l. Q. Is a station's obligation under section 31:", met if it offers
a candidate the same amount of time an opposing candidate has re 
ceind, where the time of the. day or week afforded the first candidate
is supeEior to that offered his opponent 1 ..
A. :Ii o. The statlOn m proVldmg "equal opportumtles" must con 
sider the desirabilitv of the time segment allotted as well as its lenoth.
.~~
And while there is no requirement that a station afford candidate B
exactly the same time of day on exactly the same day of the week as
candidate~\,the time segulents offered Dlllst be comparable as to
desirability.
2. Q. If candidate A has been afforded time during early morning,
nOOll, and e\7ening hours, does a station cOlllply with section 315 by
offering' candidate B tillle only during early lllornillg and noon periods?
A. X o. However, the requirements of comparable time do not
require a station to make available exactly the same time periods, nor
the periods requested by candidate B. (Letter to D. L. Grace, July 3,
1D58. )
;\. Q. If a station broadcasts a program sponsored by a commercial
adrertiser ,,,hich includes one or more qualified candidates as speakers
or guests, what are its obligations with respect to affording" "equal
opportunities" to other candidates for the same office 1
A. If candidates are permitted to appear without cost to themselves,
on prograuls sponsored by conunercial advertisers, opposing candi 
dates are entitled to receive comparable time also at no cost. (Letter
to Senator A. S. :Mike Monroney, Oct. 9, 1952, 10 R.R. 451; and tele 
gram to W,VIN, May 3, 1D62; but see Q. and A. YI.B. 4, infra.)
*4. Q. ,Vhen a station broadcasts an appearance by a candidate
which constitutes a use and it is paid for by the political campaign
committee of a labor union, is an opposing candidate entitled to compa 
rable free time?
A.. No. 'Vhere a political eOll11nittee of an organization such as
a labor union purchases time specifically on behalf of a candidate,
opposing e,mdidates are not entitled to free time. There is a distinc 
tion between this situation and a case where a candidate is permitted
to appear on a program which is regularly sponsored. (Telegram to
Metromedia in re ILGIVF Campaign Committee, Oct. 2D, 1D64,
~;R.R. 2d 774; but see Q. and A. YI.E. 3, supra.)
5. Q. IVhere a candidate for office in a State or local election ap 
pears on a national neh'vork program, is an opposing candidate for
the same office entitled to equal facilities over stations \vhich earried
the original program and serve the area in which the election cam 
paig11 is oecurring'?
A. Yes. Fnder such circumstances an opposing- candidate would be
entitled to time on such stations. (Letter to Senator A. S. Mike
)10nroney, Oct. D, 1D52.)
*An asterisk denotes a new question and answer.
3 F.e.C. 2d
492 Federal Oommunications Oommission Reports
6. Q. ,Vhere~candidate appears on a particular program-such
as a regular serIes of forum programs-are opposing cmldidates en 
titled tn demand to appear on the same program 'I
A. Not~;cessarily.The mechanics of the problel:' of "equal op 
portumbes' must be left to resolutIon of the partIes. And while
factors such as the size of the potential audience because of the ap 
p~aranceof the first candidate on an established or popular program
mIght very well be a matter for consIderatIOn bv the parties. it cannot
be said, in the abstmet, that "equal opportunities" could onlv be pro 
vided by~ivingopposing parties time on the same program." (Letter
to Harold Oliver, Oct. 31, 1952; letter to CBS Inc., Oct. 31, 1932:
in re ,VPRO-TV, letter of Oct. 20, 1964.) ,
7. Q. ,Vhere a station asks candidates A and B (opposino- candi 
dates in apri~aryelection) to appear on a debatB-typeprog~am,the
format of whIch IS generally acceptable to the candidate. but with no
restrictions as to what issues or matters might be discussed, and can 
didatB A accepts the offer and appears on the program and candidate
B declines to appear on the program, is candidate B entitled to further
"equal opportunities" in the use of the station's facilities within the
meaning of section 315 of the act? If so, is any such obligation met
by offering candidate B, prior to the primary, an oppol·tunity to
appear on a program of comparable format to that on which candidate
A appeared, or is the station obligated to grant candidate B time equal
to that used by candidate A on the program in question unrestricted
as to format?
A. SinCD the station's format was reasonable in structure and the
station put no restrictions on what matters and issues might be dis 
cussed by candidate B and others who appeared on the program in
question, it oiI'ered candidate B "equal opportunities" in the use of its
facilities within the meaning of section 315 of ilie act. The station's
further offer to candidate B, prior to the primary, of its facilities on a
"comparable format" was reasonable under the facts of the case, con 
sistent with any continuing obligation to aiI'ord candidate B "equal
opportunities" in the use of the station which he may have had. (Let 
ter to Congressman Bob Wilson, Aug. 1, 1958.)
8. Q. A licensee offered broadcast time to all the candidates for a
particular office for a joint appearance, the details of which program
were determined solely by the licensee. If candidate "A" rejects the
offer and candidate "B" and/or other candidates 'accepts and appears,
would candidate "A" be entitled to "equal opportumties" because of
the appearance of candidate "B" and/or other candidates on the pro 
gram previously offered by the licensee to all of the candidates?
A. Yes, provided the request is made by the candidate within the
period specified by the rules. The Commission stated that licensees
should negotiate with the affected candidates and that where the oiI'er
was mutually agreeable to such candidates, "equal opportunities" were
being afforded to the candidates. ,Vhere the candidate rejected the
proposal, however, and other candidates accepted and appeared the
Commission stated: "Where the licensee permits one candidate tn use
his facilities, section 315 then-simply by virtue of that use--requires
the licensee to 'afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates
3 F.e,e, 2d
Use of Bl'oadcClBt Facilities by Oandidates faT Puolic Office 493
for that office in the nse of such broadcasting station.' This obli"ation
may not be avoided by: thelicense~'sunilateral actions in picbnl; a
program format, specIfylllg partIcIpants other than and in additIon
to the candidates, setting the length of the program, the time of tap 
ing, the time of broadcast, etc., and then. offering the package to the
candlClates on a 'take It or leave It-tIllS IS my £inal offer' basis. For
,. * * section 315 provides that the station 'shall have no power of
censorship over the material broadcast.' (Cf. Port HuronBI'oadc(~~t­
ing 00., 4 R.R. 1.) Clearly, the 'take it or leave it' basis described
above would constitute such prohibited censorship, since it would, in
effect, be dictating the very format of the program to the candidate- 
and thus, an important facet of 'the material broadcast.' We wish to
make clear that the Commission is in no way saying that one format is
more in the public interest than another. On the contrary, the thrust
of our ruling is that the act bestows upon the candidate the right to
choose the format and other similar aspects of 'thematerial broaJcast,'
with no rightof 'censorship' inthelicensee." Cf. Farmers Educational
and Ooope'l'ati1!e Union of Ameriea, N01'th.Dakota Di1!wion v. WDAY,
Inc., 360 U.S. 525. (Letter to Nicholas Zapple, Oct. 5, 1962.)
9. Q. In affording "equal opportunities," maya station limit the use
of its facilities solely to the use of a microphone?
A. A station must treat opposing candidates the same with respect
to the use of its facilities and if it permits one candidate to use facili 
ties over aud beyond the microphone, it must permit a similar usage
by other qualified candidates. (Letter to D. L. Grace, July 3, 1958.)
V7I. ,"VHAT LIJHITATIONS CAN BE PUT ON" THE rSE OF FACILITIES
BY A CANDIDATE?
YII. 1. Q. Mav a station delete material in a broadcast under
section 315 because it believes the material contained therein is or may
be libelous?
A. Ko. Any such action would entail censorship which is expressly
prohibited by section 315 of the Communications Act. (Port Huron
Bl'Oadcastvng (/0., 12 FCC 1069,4 RR. 1; 1VD8U Broadca8tinq Co.,
.. R.R. 769.)
2. Q. If a legally qualified candidate broadcasts libelou£ or slan 
derous remarks. is the station liabletherefor?
A. In Pm't Huron BroadcaBting (/0., 12 FCC 1069, 4 R.R. 1, the
Commission expressed an opinion that licensees not .directlypar~ici­
pating in the libel might be absolved from any lIabIlIty they mIght
otherwise incur under State law, because of the operatwn of sectwn
315 which precludes them from preventing a candidate's utterances.
In 'a subsequent case, the Commission's ruling in the Port IJuron
case was, in effect, affirmed, the Supreme Court holdmg that Slllce
a licensee could not censor a broadcast under section 315, Congress
could not have intended to compel a station to broadcast libelous state 
ments of a legally qualified candidate and at the sametim~subject
itself to the risk of damag-e suits. (Read: FaPmel'8 Educatwnal and
Coopcmti1!e Union of America v. WDAY, Inc., 79 S. Ct. 1302 (Oct.
1958),89 N.W. 2d 102, 164 F. Supp. 928.)
3 F.e.e. 2d
494 Federal Communication" Commi8s;<Jn Reports
3. Q. Does the same inl111unity apply in a case ·where. the chninnan
of a political party's campaign committee, not himself a candidate,
broadcasts a speech in support of a candidate? .
A. No, licensees are not entitled to assert the defense that they are
not liable since the speeches could have been censored without vIolat 
ing section 315. Accordingly, they were at fault in permitting such
speeches to be broadcast. (Felix v. Westinglwuse Radio Stations.
186 F. 2d 1, cert. den. 341 U.S. 909.) . .
4. Q. A candidate prepared a 15-minute video tape which con 
tained the opinions of sev.eral private citizens with respect to an issue
pertinent to the pending election. If the station broadcast such pro 
gram in which the candidate did not appear, would the immunity
afforded licensees bv section 315 from liability for the broadcast of
libelous or slanderous remarks by candidates be applicable?
A. No. The provision of section 315 prohibiting censorship by a
licensee over material broadcast pursuant to section 315 applies only
to broadcasts by candidates themselves. Section 315, therefore, is
not a defense to an action for libel or slander arisin!! out of broadcasts
by noncllndidates speaking in behalf of another's~candidacy.Since
sec.rion 315 does not prohibit the licensee from censoring such a
broadcast, the licensee is not entitled to the protection of section 315.
(Letter to :'\Ir. WilliamP. Webb, Apr. 24, 1962.)
5. Q. If a candidate secures time under section 315, must he talk
about a subject directly related to his candidacy 'I
A. No. The candidate may use the time as he deems best. To deny
a person time on the ground that he was not using it in furtherance of
his candidacy would be an exercise of censorship prohibited by section
315. (Letter to,YMCA. Inc., May 15,1952, '1 RR 1132.)
B. Q. If a station makes time available to an office holder who is
also a legally qualified candidate for reelection and the office holder
limits his taiks to nonpartisan and informative material, may other
legally qualified candidates "'ho obtain time be limited to the same
subjects or the same tYpe of broadcast? ...
A. No. Other qualified candIdates may use the facIlItIes as they
deem best in their own interest. (Letter to Congressman Allen
Oakley Hunter, May 28, 1952, 11 RR 2C14.)
*7. 'Q. Maya licensee, as a condition to allowing a candidate the
use of its brmldcast facilities, require the candidate to submit an
advance script of his program?
A. Section 315 expressly provides that licensees "shall have no
power of censorship over the material broadcast under the pronSlOns
of this section." Thelicen~eemay request submissiou of an advance
script, to aid in its presentation of the program (e.g.,suggestlOn~as
to the amount of time needed to deliver the script). But nny reqUIre 
ment of an advance script from a candidate violates section 315. A
licensee could not condition permission to broadcast upon receIpt of
an advance script, because "the Actb~st'?wsupon the c,andidate t.he
riaht to choose the format and other sImIlar aspects of the mateTlal
br~aclcast;with no right of 'censorship in the licensee.''' (Letter
to Nicholas Zapple, Oct. 5, 19B2, FCC B2-1031.) (See also Farmers
'* An asterisk denotes a new question and answer.
3 F.e.e. 2d
Use of Broadcast Facilities by (Iandidates fop Public Offle!' 495
Educational and (Ioo1'e1'llti,'e Union of Amniell v. lYDAY, Inc.,
360 FS. 525 [1958], but d. letter to H. A. Rosenberg, Louisville, Ky.,
.Tuly 9, 1952, 11 R.R. 236, for a ruling antedating the WIIAY decision.)
"'8. Q. 'Yhere a candidate desires to record his proposed broadcast,
111ay a station require hinl to 11luke the recording' at his O\YH expense~
A. Yes. Pro\'ided that theJ)roeedures adopted are applied withont
discrimination between candi ates for the same oUice and no('ensor~
ship is attempted.
YIII. \YI-L\.T R..--\'fES CAN BE CHARGEDC\XDIlHTE~ron.l'w)({ux~r::,rxmm
SECTIOX :11,)?
YIII. 1. Q. ?\lav a i'tation charge premin1ll rates for polit ical
broadeasts.~L
~\.Ko. Section :31.1, as <llIH='lldecl. pro\-ides that the ehnTo-es nmde
for the use of a station by a candillate "shall nDt ex('eedth~('har"es
made for comparable nSe 'of snch stations for other pm·poses." .
:2. Q. T)oes the requireUlent that the ehargeR to a candidate ;;':shall
not exceed the charges for C'Olnpnrable use" of a station for other pur 
poses apply to political broadcasts by persons other than ,]ualified
candidates?
A. X o. This requirement applies only to candidates for public
offi('e. Hence, a station may adopt,,,hate,~erpolicy it desires for
political broadcasts by organizations or persons ,dlO are not('andi~
dates for office, consistent with its obligation to operate in the public
interest. (Letterto Congressman Charles C. Diggs,.Tr., Mar. 16, 19;\5.)
;3. Q. }Iay a station 'yith both "nationaF' and "loeaF rates charge-
a. candidate for local ofi.ice its "national"" rate '?
A. Xo. Fnder §§ 7'1.12iJ, 7C3.2nO, and 7'1.G.\7 of the Commission"s
rules a station Illny not chnrQe a eflndidate 1110re than the rate the
station ,yollld('hnr~geif the c'andidnte '''ere a eOl11111ercial adyertispl'
,vhose ,ldvel'tising -was directed to prol1lOting its busine-ss within the
same area as that ,vithin ,"hich persons may "ote for the particular
office. for "'hich such person is a candidate.
4. Q. Considering the limited geographical area which a Member
of the House of ReI)resentativesserYes~111USt candidntes ,for theHon~
be charged the "local~~instead of the~"nntional'~rate '(
L\.. This question cannot be ans,wred c"tegorically. To determine
the nmxinmm rates ,,,hid, could be charged under section a15, the
C011111118Siol1 -wouldlUl\~eto kno,," the criteria a station uses in classi 
fying "locar' versus "nationar' adyertisPI's before- it could deterlnine
,,',.hnt are "cOlllparable charges." In luaking this deternlination, the 
Commission does not prescribe rates but merely requires equality of
treatment as between section 315 broadcasts and commercialu(lver~
tising. (Letter to Congressman Richard M. Simpson, Feb. 27,1957.)
6. Q. Is a political candidate entitled to receive discounts!'
A. Yes. Under §§ 73,120, 7:3.290, and 73.657 of the Commission's
rules politi('ul candidates are entitled to the same discounts that "'ould
be accorded persons other than candidates for public office under the
conditions specified, as well as to such special dlScOlmts for programs
COlllinO" within section 315 as the sta60n 11lav choose- to give on a non-
e •~
discriminatory basis.
* An flHterisk denotes a new question and answer.
10~-536--66----3
3 F.C.C. 2d
496 Federal Communications CommMsWn RepoTts
6. Q.. Can astati~mrefuse to sell time at discount rates to a group
ofcandId~tesfor dIfferent offices who have pooled their resources to
obtam a dISC?Unt, even though as a. matter of commercial practice, the
statron permIts commerCIal advertIsers to buy a block of time at dis 
count rates for use by various businesses ownedby them?
A. Yes, section 315 imposes no obligation on a station to allow the
us.e~fits facilities by candidates, andnei~herthat section northe Com 
mIssIon's rules reqUIre a statIOn to sell tIme to a group of candidates
on a pooled basis, even though such may be the practICe with respect
to commercial advertisers. (Letter to WKBT-vVKBH, Oct. 14,
1954.)
7. Q. If candidate A purchases 10 time segments over a station
which offers a discount rate for purchase of that amount of time, is
candidate B entitled to the discount rate if he purchases less time than
the minimum to which discounts are applicable?
A. No. A station is under such circumstances only required to make
available the discount privileges to each legally qualified candidate
on the same basis.
8. Q. If a station has a "spot" rate of $2 per "spot" announcement,
with a rate reduction to $1 if 100 or more such "spots" are purchased
on a bulk time sales contract, and if one candidate arran<res with an
advertiser having such a bulk time contract to utilize five ofthese spots
at the $1 rate, is the station obligated to sell the candidates of other
parties for the same office time at the same$1 rate?
A. Yes. Other legally qualified candidates are entitled to take ad 
vantage of the same reduced rate. (Letter to Senator A. S. Mike
Monroney, Oct. 16,1952.)
9. Q. Where a group of candidates for differeut offices 'pool their
resources to purchase a block of time at a discDunt, and an mdividual
candidate opposing one of the group seeks time on the station, to what
rate is he entitled?
A. He is entitled to be charged the same rate as his opponent since
the provisions of section 315 run to the candidates themselves and they
are entitled to be treated equally with their individual opponents.
(Report and order, docket 11092, 11 R.R.1501.) (Cf. Q. and A. VI.B.
3; and telegram of WWIN, May 3,1962.)
10. Q. Is there any prohibition against the purchase by a political
party of a block of time for several of its candidates, for allocation
amonO' such candidates on the basis of personal need, rather than on
thea~ounteach candidate has contributed to the party's campaign
fund?
A. There is no prohibition in section 315 or the Commission's rules
against the abovepracti~.It.would be reasoll>rble to ass.ume thatthe
group time used by a candIdate IS, for the purposes of sectIon 315, tlffie
paid for by the candidate through the normal device of ar~cognized
political campaign committee, even though part of the campaIg:I1 funds
was derived from sources other than the candidates' contrIbutions.
(Letter on distribution of time among candidates, Oct. 14, 1954.)
11. Q. When a candidate and his inlInediake family own all the
stock in a corporate licensee and the candidate is the president and
general manager, can he pay for time to the corporate licensee from
3 F.e.e. 2d
Use of Broadcast Facilities by Candidate8 for Publie Otficc 497
which he derins his income and have the licensee make a similar
charge to an opposing candidate!
A. Yes. The fact that a candidate has a financial interest in a cor 
porate licensee does not affect the licensee's obligation under section
315. Thus, the rates which the licensee may charo-e to other leo-ally
qualified candidates will be governed by the rate which thestockh~lder
candidate actually pays to the licensee. If no charge is made to the
stoclillo.lder candidate,it follows that otherlegally qualified candidates
are entItled to equal tlme wIthout charge. (Letter to vVKOA,~Iar.
18, 1957.)
12. Q.. A station adopted and maintained a policy under which com 
lllissions weTe not paid to advertising" agencies in connection with
political advertising although it did pay such commissions in connec 
tion with commercial advertising. Further, in the case of commercial
advertisers 'who did not use advertising agencies, the station per 
formed those functions which the advertising agency would normally
perform, but in the case of political advertisers, the station performed
no such services. An agency which had placed political advertising
over the station in a recent election made a demand of the station for
payment of the agency commission. ,Vas the station's policy consist 
ent with section 315 of the CommunicationsAct?
A. No. The Commission held that such a policy violated both sec 
tion 315 (b) of the act and § 73.120 (c) of the rules; that the benefits
accruing to a candidate from the use of an advertising agency were
neither remote, intangible, nor insubstantial; and that while under the
station's policy, a commercial advertiser would, in addition to broad 
cast time, receive the services of an advertising ao-ency merely by pay 
ing the station's established card rate, the politicaladvertiser, in return
for payment of the same card rate, would receive only broadcast time.
The Commission held that such a resultant inequality in treatment
vis-a-vis commercial advertisers is clearly prohibited by the act and
the rules. (In re KNOE-TV, letter of May 13, 1964, FCC 64--430).
*13. Q. The Commission received a complaint on behalf of a mem 
ber of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives running for reelec 
tion claiming that a local station was charging him more for his polit 
ical spot announcements than it had charged him for commercial
announcements on behalf of his business in the past. The station
stated that the rates normally charged to the complainant for his
commercial spot announcements on behalf of his business were based
on an existing contract between the station and the complainant which
had been entered into 8 years previously. The provisions of the con 
tract had apparently been renewed with unchanged rates and the
rates set at the time the contract was entered into were less than the
present rates the local station charged to other commercial advertisers.
The rates being charged to the complainant for his political announce 
ments were the same rates the station currently charged to other com 
mercial advertisers for a comparable use of the station's facilities.
Under these circumstances is the stationaetin~in compliance with the
provisions of section 315 (b) of the Commumcations Act and of the
Commission's rules?
*An asterisk denotes a new (]uestion und answer.
3 F.C.C. 2d
lO6-5~6-66--4
498 Federal OOJnlltunicatio1l8 GOllunt.'5siort- Reports
A. Yes. If the station were to allo,,' the complainant to purchase
political spot announcen1ents at the, rates charged to hin1 for his eOll1 
me-reial spot announcements, then the station would either begi\~ing'
him treatment preferential to that giYen to his opponents or it "'oulel
have to charge all candidates this lesser rate. This "'as not the intent
of either section 315 (b) of the ConID1Unications Act or the Commis 
sion's rules. In charging the complainant the rate for a political ad 
yertisement that was normally charged other commercial advertisers
for a comparable use, the station ,vas acting in compliance with both
the act and the rules. (In re ,YCBG, letter of N OY. 3, 19&±.)
*14:. Q. The. C01111nission reC'eived a C'Olnplaint alle¥ing: that severnl
stations 'were charging the national rate to a candidate for election to
Congress uut were c11arging a candidate. for local oflice a local rate.
,vhich was less than the nation"l rate. The stations informed the Com 
l11is8ion that this classification of national as H2:ainst local rat.es for
political broadcast purposes paralleled their commercial r"te policv
which proyided that the local retail raXe was applicable only to strictly
local concerns ,vhose products or services were confined to the immedI 
ate metropolitan area and that all other advertisers taking advantage of
the station circulation and coyerage outside and beyond the metro 
politan area must pay the gene,ral or national rate. Is the stations·
practice with respect to rates charged to political candidates consistent
"'ith the act and the Commission rules '1
A. Yes. The stations' action was not inconsistent with either the
act or its rules, since the rates charged to candidates (both for the local
office and Conaress) were the same as the rates charged to commercial
advertisers \"';l~oseadvertising was directed to pr01l10ting their busi 
nesses within the same area as tlmt encompassed by the political office
for "'hich such person is a candidate. (In re \VSAV, letter of Sept.
11,1964.)
IX. PERIOD ,YITHIX 'VIneHRl~QeESTMUST BE ::\IADE
IX. 1. Q. ,Vhen must a candidate make a request of the station for
opportunities equal to those afforded his opponent '(
A. ,Vithin1 week of the day on "'lnch the prior use occurred. (Par.
(e) of §§ 73.120, 73.290, and 73.657 of the Commission rules; and tele-
gram to W,VIN, May 3, 1962.) .....
2. Q. A U.S. Senator, unopposed candIdate ill Ins party s prill1ary,
had been broadcasting a ,veekly .program en!itled "Your Senato!, Re 
ports."' If he becomes opposed ill lns party s prImary, would lllS op 
ponent be entitled to request "equal opportunities" with respect to all
broadcasts of "Yonr Senator Reports·' since the time the incumbent
announced his candidacy?
A. No. A legally qualified candidate announcing his candidacy
for the above nomination ,vould be required to request "equal oppor 
tunities" concerning a particular broadcast of "Your Senator Reports"
not later than 1 "'eek after the date of such broadcast. Thus, any of
the incumbent's opponents for the nomination who first al11louncecl
his candidacy on a particular cby would not be in a position to request
*An asterisk denotes a new Question and answer.
3 F.C.C. 2d
3 F.C.C. 2d
"(,(pUll opportunities" \yiOl respect to allY showing of '-Your~f'nator
He-ports" w11i('h \yashI'()~ld('a.'~tmore thali. 1 -\Yi:'f'k 'prior to the ctlte of
such anllOUneel1lf'nt. (Letter to Selwtor .Tospph~.Clark, _\pr. Hi,
li)(j:!.) .
3. Q.~lcamlidate forl~.;-).:-'enator in the Democratic primary. who
\ms also the parI owner and ]Jl'e.,]()e])1 of "L\[ amiF~I"ralimb ill the
~tate,wrotr, to his oppollenL the incumbent :--;ellatol'. and stated. in
substance, that he W,-lS using- :l cert,lin :llliOllnt of timE' daIh- on his
statiom and that the inenl1llJenl \\"as "entitled to e(lual tinie. at no
l'harge" and\y~,-Surged to take ac!Y,-lntaFe, of tIlE' tina".~\('ouple of
\yeeks Inter, the ineullIbent. bylE'tter~thallkpLl the :"t<.Hioll 0\1'111:'1' for
rtcl\'ising hinl ';;0£ the acclunnlatioll of time" 011 each station and stnted
that the station owner would be llotified when illcumbent decided to
startusin~tIle accumulated time. The starion ownpl' dill not respond
to the incumlwllt"s letrer. ..About () \yeeks lntf'l'. IIH'lllnllPllt requested
equal opportunities. ,Yere the stations correct- inn(h'isin~in(,111n 
~)entthat the~;Olnmission's'/-day l:u}e~:'a~app1i('ahle~tlH.:'Teby' prednd 
mg' requests for "e(llUl! opportnllllIes· for any hro;Hlcnsts Ill'lor to 7
days before the request 1
A. K o. The Commission stressed that 'Yhere, as here, the licensee,
or a prine-ipal of the Jice-nsee
l
was also the cantlidate, then:, is a special
oblip.-atioll upon the licensee to ill.sure fair dealings in such circunl 
stances and held that the licensee ,vas estopped jn the eireumstances
from relying' upon the 7-day rule. The COlllmission hel(1 that the
inculllbent:s letter reasollably constituted a llo6ticntion as requiTed
under the rules: that the hc-Pllsee knew that equal opportunities -were
requested; and that he could have made, jf he ,yished, reasonahle
scheduling plans. (Letter in re KLIF, Apr. 22, IH6±, FCC 64--;)63.)
x.ISSr~\XCEOF IXTERPRETATIOXS OF SECTION 31:1 BY THE COl\Il\IISSION
X. 1. Q, rnder what circumstauces will the Commission consider
issuing declaratory orders, interpreti,'e rulings, or ndyisory opinions
\yith respect. to section 31.,)?
A. :-'ection fJ (d) of the Administrati\"e Procedure Act, title 5,
l-:-.S.C.A.. , proyides that "The agency is authorized in its sound dis 
cretion, with like effect as in the case of other orders, to issue n declar 
ntorv order to ternlina-te a~olltrOYersyor renlOye ullcertainty."
Ho\~e\-er,auellcies are not required to issue such orders luerely
beeanse a recrlest is nIade therefor. The grant of authority to ageDcies
to issue tlec1aratory orueTs is linliteu, and snch orders are authorized
only \yith respeet to matters \vhich are required by statute to be deter 
luilied ;'011 the record after opportunity for an agency hearing." (See
.:\J-torneY General's~Ianunlon the~.:\drrlinistrativeProcedure 1\Ct,
Pl'. fJg, GO; also, In re Goodman: 12 FC:C (j78,.± Pike & Fischer R.R.
fI8.) In !renernl, the CommIsslOn lImIts lts mterpretlVe rnlmg's or
adyisOlT opinions to situations ,yhere the critical facts are explicitly
stated\;~ithoutthe possibility that subsequent events 'Yill alter them.
It prefers to issue such rulinp:8 or opinions "'here the specific facts ?f
n particular case in controversy are before it for deCISion, (Letter lJl
!'P 'IYDSU, .Tune 18,1~J;)8.)
500
Fede1'lil Cornmunication" Cornmission Rcpor1s
ApPEI\;DIX A.-Correlation Table
Letter to E. C. French.
Letter to Mctromedia.
Inre WDOC.
InreKNX.
Inre WNHC.
Letter to CBS on Presidential press conferences.
'l'elegram on "Suez crisis" speech_
Letter to D. Burch.
Debarr;y-Shaw Campaign Committee.
In re enited Community Campaigns.
In re \Y1IAY.
5
4
6
7
8
1
2
42 _
43
44
45
29
30
31 _
32 _
33
24
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
24
25
14 _
i1 ::::::::::::1
28
19
20
21
22
23
15 _
16
17
18
III'L
1
%6PUbHClloti~I,"t~,_,_~_r_\;_lf_'_1 N_'_"_._W_l_ill_g_S _
2 I:' I
Illi~::::~~:~·~··~~~~~~~~···~~li;I.:..:::::]
; I :::::::::1
:::::::::::::. ':::'::1,i~j ::::::::1
i --__~1 lU I
~=====------=====---------!1i~ii'~=.-=.:.:.-=.:.:.:.:.:.:.I
10_____________ "
11 ---------------. ·.·.·.:·.1·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·..· In reD'Wo.·~EP.
12. . . _
13 . ._ In rc ""MAl",
14 . __ ._._
III.C.:
1 _
2__~_
3 _
4 _
5____ _ • __
6 .
7_~_____ _
8 _
9 _
10 _
11 . _
12 _
13___ _ _
14 _
15~_
16 _
17 _
18____ _ _
19___ _ _
20 _
21 __~___ _
22 _
2:3 _
24 _
25 _
26 _
2i _
ZS _
29 ------------
IV.:
1______ ------------
2_______ _ _
3 _
4 _
5 _
6 _
7 _
8________ ----------
9 ------------
10 _
11 -
12 _
13__________ ------ --------- -
14 ------------ ------------
V.:
1 _
2 _
3 _
4 _
5 ----
VI.A.:
1__________________________ 46~_
2.~__________________47 ------------
3 •.~___________4S ----
t Deleted (reversed by 1959 amendments, and superseded by Q. and A. IILC. 25).
3 F.e.C. 2d
Use of BJ'oadw8t FacildiG8 by CaNdidates t01' Public Otilt/'
501
ApPENDIX A.-Correlaticn Table-Continued
In re WCBG.
Inre'VSAV.
1962 I 19(4 :1
__l9£_'J_P_U_b_li_,_n_ot_i'_'_,__i~~ti~IS~~t1 N_'t'_"_-_m_l_ill_
g
_' _
L::::::::::::::::::::::I i! I::::::::::::'
7 1~I::::::::::::
~================ ==========
i~~~~======================1~I~===========
YI.~~~~_____----------- ---,I~:I~~~~~~~~~~~~
!~~====-=================-==J_------~~-I==========JIn fP ILGWr.
~::::-:::::::::I!! C:::::: I
~:-: __:_::_]
55 ::::j
~6----I
it _
:ml,::::::::::
Hypothetical,
Ll.
s__ _ _
9 _
YIL I
i::::~:~:::-:::-:-~~~~::---I
,'L___ _ _
6 _
!
7 ---------- 1 _
8 _
VIII.:
1_____________________ 74
2____ 75
3______ 76
4____ 77 _
5_____________ 78~_
(j---~---------------------- I 79
7~~____80
8~__~__81 I
9~~~____82 _ _
lO __~~__83 i----------
IL::::- ::-_--_;;:1:-:---:~~l:\:~f~-1-
Ix'i 1----~;i:_::-:
2____ 8(j '~II
3~'I IX.l
x. 1 87 _
2 Deleted (updated by Q. and A. VII. 7).
3 Deleted (replaced by Q.and A. VII.S).
3 F,C_C_ 2d