MSM and FCC violations???

[coastie]

Taken from a thread in Bad Media, I putting it here so its actually seen, does the campaign have a case here?

Section 76.205 [47 CFR §76.205] Origination cablecasts by legally qualified candidates for public office; equal opportunities.



(a) General requirements. No cable television system is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any system shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such system shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any:

(1) Bona fide newscast;

(2) Bona fide news interview;

(3) Bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary); or

(4) On-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including, but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto) shall not be deemed to be use of a system. (section 315(a) of the Communications Act.)



(b) Uses. As used in this section and § 76.206, the term "use" means a candidate appearance (including by voice or picture) that is not exempt under paragraphs 76.205 (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section.



(c) Timing of Request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the system within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred: Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.
(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the system or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.


(e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no system shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any system make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to cablecast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.


[43 FR 32796, July 28, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 76179, Nov. 18, 1980; 57 FR 210, Jan. 3, 1992; 59 FR 14568, March 29, 1994]

CNN for the last hour during their "Ballot Bowl" has had full speeches, most of them LIVE from ALL the other "major" candidates running: Clinton/Obama/Edwards/Ghoul/Romney/McCain and Huckabee is coming on next I just heard in the background. I think it's quite safe to assume at this point that they will NOT have Ron Paul on. And if they do, according to this, it must be equal time.

The bolded parts of the code is exactly what's been happening all damn year!

Section (c) in italics: Has the campaign provided the request the law says must be submitted any such thing since this has blatantly happened to RP from the start?

Or am I just seriously confused and mad over nothing?:p

[NoPants]

I have no idea. I have 2 lawyers in the family and one is a Dr. Paul supporter. I'll see what he thinks.

[BeFranklin]

I think so. If you ask a lawyer, I'd like to know this too (because it explains events in the past)

a) If the Fox news debate was an official NH GOP event, they would not be in violation if he was excluded, correct? But it wasn't an official event.

b) The GOP has rules against making events against exclusion - I'd like to see those again, someone posted them.

The NH GOP tried to make it seem like fox's fault, and fox, the NH GOP's fault. Basically, I think both organizations tried to blame the other to avoid breaking the rules they operated under. When the NH GOP pulled out, Fox news was open to this litigation when they kept it going, tampering with the NH primary and the perception of "who was viable".

Also would like to know if you can sue on behalf of a candidate, like a class action lawsuit from grassroots.

[Ex Post Facto]

You have a major concern as do this rest of us that support RP. I'm by no means a lawyer, but I am pre-law and have spent many years reading law reviews, case laws, and law journals. In this regard I believe, it's not a matter of IF RP has a case. It's a matter of is RP willing to take action against the media. While there seems to be some case law on elections, I haven't found any controlling, authorities, that say what the media is doing violates this law. So RP could sue for something like interfereing with an election process, but might not be able to attack media on a violation of governmental regulation.

"Equal Opportunites" phrase and the term "USE" are what define this regulation. My interpretation of this means that any media outlet must allow for equal paid spots on their network, and would not include just news coverage of an event.

[BeFranklin]

Ron Paul must have been jisted out of 50 million dollars in equal time at least by now.

How is THIS for an alternative.

Ron Paul sues. Uses all that free time to run as an independent (if they mess up his chances here with all this crooked stuff)

[BeFranklin]

You have a major concern as do this rest of us that support RP. I'm by no means a lawyer, but I am pre-law and have spent many years reading law reviews, case laws, and law journals. In this regard I believe, it's not a matter of IF RP has a case. It's a matter of is RP willing to take action against the media. While there seems to be some case law on elections, I haven't found any controlling, authorities, that say what the media is doing violates this law. So RP could sue for something like interfereing with an election process, but might not be able to attack media on a violation of governmental regulation.

"Equal Opportunites" phrase and the term "USE" are what define this regulation. My interpretation of this means that any media outlet must allow for equal paid spots on their network, and would not include just news coverage of an event.

There have been some other threads with information that it might also be an FEC violation - donating time to a candidate far in excess of 2,500. When it isn't part of a news story, that could have merit. Would like to see those threads revived too, and put with this one.

[Ex Post Facto]

Hmm...So you think, when these candadites staff have volunteered their time for lack of campaign contributions, they are in violation of FEC? This is interesting indeed. Huck, and Gulianni would need to be fined immediately.

[Dr.3D]

Yes, news coverage should be valued by the time it is on the air just the same as if a candidate had payed for it.
The FEC should make it illegal to give more time to one candidate than to another. They all should have equal time by the media.

[CareerTech1]

exactly

[PennCustom4RP]

From what I gleaned in section a) that no cable tv system(read channel, network) is required to cover any candidates, but once it covers one candidate, it must cover all...equally...
These rules are why Fred Thompson left Law n Order...as he would be on TV more than the other candidates...
The burden of proof could be easily satisfied by RP ... if he chose to do so...

[ClayTrainor]

reading threads like this reassures me that we will take down the media one of these days :D

[NoPants]

That's really interesting. I'm seriously going to check into this.

[Cyclone]

I think this was abolished by case law some time ago. Can't remember where I read it. But this no longer applies. It was a case on the first amendment.

[BarryDonegan]

someone who opposes the FCC would have a problem idealogically with using it to his advantage.

[itshappening]

aren't the debates considered 'news casts' if so FOX surely has violated with censorship on the Fox forum and especially when editing the re-broadcast of the debate

[Ex Post Facto]

I honestly think the media's actions are considered treason to the American public. They obviously support an agenda, and through that censor those that do not promote their agenda. Manipulation under false guise would seem to me to meet the standard for treason.

[BeFranklin]

I honestly think the media's actions are considered treason to the American public. They obviously support an agenda, and through that censor those that do not promote their agenda. Manipulation under false guise would seem to me to meet the standard for treason.

It was definitely better when independent groups such as the league of women voters were running the debates.