It’s remarkable to think that an old regulation enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would become a significant issue in the final days of the 2024 presidential campaign. This presents an opportune moment to discuss the abolition of the equal time rule.
Recently, the Constitution Party’s Randall Terry utilized FCC regulations to compel broadcasters to air his anti-abortion ads during his presidential campaign, as reported by Reason last month. The equal time rule, also known as the equal opportunities requirement, mandates that if a candidate for public office appears on a licensed broadcast station, the station must provide equal opportunities to all other candidates for the same office, with exceptions for legitimate news coverage.
Despite Terry’s lack of serious competition for votes, his status as a “legally qualified candidate” obligated licensed broadcasters to air his ads at the same rate as other candidates, without the ability to censor the content.
Another equal time controversy arose closer to election day when Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, made an appearance on NBC’s Saturday Night Live.
Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr raised concerns about potential bias and partisanship in violating the FCC’s Equal Time rule. The rule aims to prevent licensed broadcasters from using public airwaves to influence elections in favor of specific candidates.
The FCC issues broadcast licenses to TV and radio stations to operate on public frequencies, requiring them to serve the public interest as trustees of the public’s airwaves.
Carr later shared an FCC filing in which NBC acknowledged Harris’s free appearance on Saturday Night Live, potentially entitling other presidential candidates to free airtime as well. To address this, NBC aired former President Donald Trump’s ads for free during specific broadcasts.
The equal time rule, originating from the Communications Act of 1934, has been subject to various amendments over the years. With the decline of traditional TV viewership and the rise of streaming services, the rule’s impact is diminishing.
In practice, the rule imposes complex requirements on broadcasters, necessitating equal time for all candidates who appear onscreen. However, the rules are inconsistently applied, as evident in past instances involving Arnold Schwarzenegger and Saturday Night Live.
Given the changing media landscape and the rule’s limitations, it is time to abolish the equal time rule before the next election cycle begins.
