Iowa Broadcasters Likely First to Feel Impact of SCOTUS Ruling

Don’t like political advertising? Better find and hide under a very big rock. With its first-in-the-nation status, Iowa stands on the front lines in a national debate over campaign finance reform.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in a 5-4 decision that, by passing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as “McCain-Feingold” for its sponsors), Congress overstepped its authority to regulate political speech. The case, Federal Elections Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, focused on the portion of the law that prohibits organizations such as WRTL from using corporate funds to broadcast advertisements targeted at a specific candidate within 60 days of a general election and within 30 days of a primary or caucus.

Readers should not be distracted by WRTL being a party in the suit. The issue of free speech was being pressed from both sides of the political spectrum. Organizations and agencies supporting WRTL in this effort included the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, the American Federation of Labor and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, among others.

The AFL-CIO filed a brief supporting the challenge in this case, according to the organization’s President John Sweeney. Five years ago the group was a plaintiff in the “McConnell” litigation, opposing the “electioneering communications’ ban.

“[The ban] criminalized an important and effective means of our public communications and silenced the collective voices of working people to a degree almost without historical precedent,” he said. “We look forward to the occasion when the last vestige of this unjustified prohibition is invalidated or repealed.”

For better or worse, Iowa broadcasters, viewers and advertisers will soon feel the brunt of the landmark decision.

“The influx of political advertising can definitely cause customer service issues for us,” said Steve Lake, national sales manager for Iowa-based ABC affiliate KCRG-TV. “While no two stations plan out their advertising schedule in the same way, we all only have a certain amount of time to sell. That is, the amount of advertising I have available on the evening news — the spot most political advertisers want — doesn’t change.”

Despite the court’s decision, there are still differences between issue advertisers and political advertisers, says Lake. Political advertisements are created by candidates and have certain protections under the law. Issue advertisements are created by groups and are not afforded such protections.

“Broadcasters don’t have a choice when it comes to political ads,” Lake said. “We are required by federal law to run them and to offer our lowest possible rate. Issue ads are a different story. We can charge higher rates and we are not legally required to accept them.”

That last sentence is good news for Iowa viewers and advertisers.

“I doubt we’d bump any local advertisers,” Lake said. “But those who buy in at the lowest rate do so with the risk of getting replaced with premium rate advertisers. The worst part is that we rarely know when an order for political or issue advertising is going to come.”

Political campaigns and issue groups often make ad buys in advance that vary in duration and size. Key ad placement — during the coveted evening newscasts, for example — can be purchased for a price.

“We know who has bought ad time, but we don’t know when an ad is going to come in at the last minute and need to be run the next day,” he said. “When that happens — and considering our limited ad time each day — another advertiser has to be pulled from the schedule.”

In general, political advertising isn’t the economic boom some viewers may view it to be.

“Are we going to make money?” Lake asked. “Sure. At the end of the day, when you take a political ad at the lowest rate and mix in an issue ad at the higher rate, it’s just a wash.”

One thing is for sure, with their muscles restored to the strength of years past, organizations are going to be flexing in the weeks prior to the Iowa caucus.

“We welcome the Supreme Court decision upholding the rights of unions and other groups to broadcast messages that influence public debate and legislative decisions, even though these messages might also influence voters’ choices in an upcoming election,” Sweeney said. “A majority of the court has finally and emphatically embraced the simple truth that the First Amendment abides no law that suppresses independent speech about legislators and candidates, at least absent an explicit call for their election or defeat.”