As this issue of EXTRA! reaches subscribers, Californians will be going to the polls, voting not only for political candidates but on a variety of ballot initiatives. One of these initiatives, Proposition 188, was placed on the ballot by a group with the healthy-sounding name of "Californians for Statewide Smoking Restrictions."
But don't let the name fool you: These "anti-smoking" Californians are a front for the Philip Morris Company -- displaying the same flair for packaging that it shows when it markets the Marlboro Man.
Philip Morris' initiative would eliminate local smoking ordinances, replacing them with a watered-down statewide standard.
By its own accounting, the tobacco giant spent nearly $400,000 to gather the necessary signatures to put the smoking initiative on the ballot. Opponents of the measure fear that by the time the election is over, the company will have spent millions more on a radio and TV advertising blitz to pass the measure.
These opponents are crying foul -- and are asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to re-instate broadcasting's "Fairness Doctrine" for ballot initiatives, so that Californians will be guaranteed some semblance of a balanced presentation of contrasting viewpoints on this and all other ballot measures.
The Fairness Doctrine has two components. First, and most importantly, it affirmatively requires that each broadcast licensee carry some coverage of controversial issues of public importance. This ensures that every broadcaster meets its duty to inform the electorate on public issues.
The better-known second prong of the doctrine requires reasonable balance in the coverage of these issues in a station's overall programming. The station has broad discretion on how to provide balanced coverage -- be it through news, talkshow discussions, guest editorials or other programming.
For many years, the Fairness Doctrine was successfully employed by energy, environmental, health and other organizations to obtain reply time in ballot issue cases. The Fairness Doctrine often helped to ensure that voters had the information they needed to make informed decisions at the ballot box. Since most people get their news and public affairs information from the broadcast media, the doctrine gave underfunded parties a fighting chance against a media blitz from well-heeled interests.
In 1987, the FCC stopped enforcing most applications of the doctrine, relying on a 1985 decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The decision, put forth by judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, treated enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine as a matter of FCC discretion, rather than as something legally mandated by Congress. This position departed sharply from 25 years of Fairness Doctrine implementation. It also set the stage for the FCC's decision in 1992 to stop enforcing the doctrine on ballot issues.
To help ensure balanced coverage of Proposition 188 and other initiatives on the California ballot, the Coalition for a Healthy California has petitioned the FCC for an emergency ruling stating that the Fairness Doctrine was mandated by a 1959 amendment to the Communications Act. If the Federal Communications Commission concludes that it is not required to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, the Coalition asks that the FCC still use its discretion to invoke the doctrine when it comes to ballot initiatives and referenda.
The Coalition faces opposition from a phalanx of Fairness Doctrine opponents. The National Association of Broadcasters, the Radio Television and News Directors Association, the Media Institute and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press have jointly called upon the FCC to dismiss the Coalition's petition. As EXTRA! went to press, the Commission had still not acted, with just a few weeks left until the election.
Restoration of the Fairness Doctrine would likely enable the Coalition to obtain free radio and television time to respond to Philip Morris-paid advertising -- perhaps one minute of response time for every three or four minutes of ads. This would also apply to other initiatives where spending is likely to be lopsided, such as the single-payer health care initiative.
Response time could have a critical effect on the outcome of the smoking initiative. A survey taken in July by the Field Poll (San Francisco Chronicle, 7/28/94) found that 52 percent of voters favored Proposition 188, but that more than a third of these changed their minds when told who was behind the initiative -- leaving only 33 percent in support. More recent polls show voters, when not told about Philip Morris' involvement, evenly split on the measure (L.A. Times, 9/14/94).
The outcome will likely depend on whether or not the voters get all the facts. The FCC could help promote speech and debate, or it could continue its policy of allowing the side with money to monopolize the airwaves.