CBS, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
1981 U.S. LEXIS 40, 453 U.S. 367, 69 L. Ed. 2d 706 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act creates an affirmative, enforceable right of reasonable access to broadcast stations for legally qualified candidates for federal office. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is empowered to define this right and determine whether a broadcaster's denial of access is reasonable based on the specific circumstances of a candidate's request.
Facts:
- On October 11, 1979, the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee requested to purchase a 30-minute time slot from each of the three major television networks (CBS, ABC, NBC).
- The requested time was for a program to be aired in early December 1979, in conjunction with President Carter's formal announcement of his candidacy for re-election.
- CBS declined the 30-minute request, citing the large number of candidates and potential for massive programming disruptions, but offered to sell two 5-minute segments instead.
- ABC replied that it had not yet decided when it would begin selling political time for the 1980 presidential campaign.
- NBC also declined the request, stating that it was too early in the political season for nationwide broadcast time to be made available for paid political purposes.
- At the time of the request, ten candidates had announced for the Republican nomination and two for the Democratic nomination, and national campaign activities were already receiving prominent media coverage.
Procedural Posture:
- The Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against CBS, Inc., American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., and National Broadcasting Co., Inc.
- The FCC, a federal administrative agency, ruled by a 4-3 vote that the networks had violated their statutory obligation to provide 'reasonable access' under 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7).
- The FCC denied the networks' petitions for reconsideration.
- The networks (petitioners) appealed the FCC's orders to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the FCC's orders.
- The United States Supreme Court granted the networks' petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Federal Communications Commission's interpretation of 47 U.S.C. § 312(a)(7) as creating an affirmative right of access for federal political candidates, and its finding that the television networks violated this right, impermissibly intrude upon broadcasters' editorial discretion in violation of the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. Section 312(a)(7) creates a new, affirmative right of access to broadcast media for individual candidates for federal office, and the FCC's application of this statute does not violate the First Amendment. The statute's plain language and legislative history show that Congress intended to go beyond the pre-existing general public interest standard and grant federal candidates a special, enforceable right to purchase reasonable amounts of broadcast time. The FCC's framework, which requires broadcasters to consider individual candidate requests in good faith and provide tailored responses, is a reasonable implementation of this congressional mandate. This limited right of access properly balances the First Amendment rights of candidates and the public to be informed with the editorial rights of broadcasters, who operate on the public airwaves under a license burdened by public obligations.
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes. The FCC seriously misconstrued the statute by assuming it had the authority to substitute its own judgment for the reasonable editorial decisions of broadcasters. Congress did not intend to negate the longstanding policy of deferring to broadcasters' editorial judgments so long as they are within a range of reasonableness. The FCC's new standard, which forces broadcasters to prioritize the individual 'needs' of a candidate and engages in de novo review of timing decisions, is an arbitrary and vast expansion of its oversight authority not supported by the statute's text or legislative history. This approach creates an inflexible, administratively created right of access far broader than Congress intended, resulting in an unwarranted government intrusion into the journalistic freedom of broadcasters.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The reasonableness of a broadcaster's grant of access should be evaluated in the context of the entire political campaign, not by focusing on a single rejected request. The FCC's approach creates an impermissible risk that its decisions will be biased by the political office of the candidate making the request. Given the extensive media coverage all presidential candidates receive, it is difficult to see how any candidate could be denied 'reasonable access' over the course of a campaign. I join Justice White's compelling analysis.
Analysis:
This decision solidified a specific, candidate-triggered right of access to the broadcast media for federal candidates, distinct from the general 'public interest' standard. It significantly empowered the FCC to oversee and second-guess the editorial decisions of broadcasters regarding political advertising, thereby limiting their journalistic discretion in this area. The ruling established that broadcasters cannot apply 'across-the-board' policies (e.g., 'it's too early') to federal candidates but must instead engage in an individualized assessment of each request. This holding carves out a notable exception to the general principle that the government cannot compel media outlets to carry specific speech, justifying it based on the unique, licensed nature of broadcasting and the paramount public interest in informed elections.
