News

Political Broadcasting

library.cqpress.com · last updated December 15, 2025 – 3:41 PM

<div> <a></a> An article from CQ Almanac 1967 The Senate Commerce Committee in 1967 considered the effects that broadcast projections of election winners had on voters yet to cast their ballots and concluded that no legislation was needed to curb broadcasting of election returns and projections until all polls were closed. The subject arose during subcommittee hearings on bills to ease the restrictions of Section 315(a), the equal time provision of the Communications Act of 1934, governing broadcasts by political candidates. No action was taken on the equal time bills. <a href="https://library.cqpress.com/#"><img src="https://library.cqpress.com/images/back_to_top.gif" alt="Back to Top" width="71"></a><h2><a></a>Background</h2> REFERENCES – For history of Section 315(a), see Congress and the Nation p. 1539. In the Communications Act of 1934, Congress included a provision – Section 315(a) – which stipulated: “If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station….” In 1959, Congress passed a bill (S 2424 – PL 86-274) amending Section 315(a) to exempt certain types of news broadcasts from the equal time restrictions. The action resulted from a complaint by Lar “America First” Daly, a perennial candidate for mayor of Chicago, who demanded as much time on news broadcasts as was given to Republican and Democratic candidates. The amendment stated that appearances by legally qualified candidates in bona fide newscasts, news interviews, documentaries and on-the-spot coverage did not fall within the meaning of the equal time provision. In 1960, Congress passed S J Res 207 (PL 86-677) suspending Section 315(a) as it related to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates for the period of the 1960 campaign, thus making possible the “great debates” between Sen. John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon. Congress next considered, but did not act on, amendments to the equal time provision in 1962, when the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications heard testimony on a number of proposals. The question of suspension of Section 315(a) arose in 1963 and 1964 in view of the impending Presidential campaign. Similar bills suspending the equal time provision for Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates had been passed by both houses in 1963. on Aug. 18, the Senate, apparently at the request of the White House, adopted, by a 44–41 roll-call vote, a motion tabling (killing) the conference report (H J Res 247). Bills amending the equal time provision were introduced in 1965 and 1966, but no action was taken. <a href="https://library.cqpress.com/#"><img src="https://library.cqpress.com/images/back_to_top.gif" alt="Back to Top" width="71"></a><h2><a></a>Senate Hearings</h2> COMMITTEE – Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications. HELD HEARINGS – July 18–20 on three bills, S 1548, S 1859 and S 1926, easing restrictions of Section 315(a), the equal time provision of the Communications Act of 1934. The Subcommittee also heard testimony on the effects that early projections of election winners had on voters yet to cast their ballots. Other equal time measures before the Subcommittee included S 2090 and S 2128. Details of Bills. S 1548, sponsored by Joseph S. Clark (D Pa.), required that broadcast stations provide free radio and television time to federal, state and, where feasible, local candidates on a fair and equitable basis. S 1859, offered by James B. Pearson (R Kan.), permanently exempted candidates for President and Vice President from the equal time provision. S 1926, introduced by Subcommittee Chairman John O. Pastore (D R.I.), permanently suspended the provision for Senate, House and gubernatorial, as well as Presidential and Vice Presidential, candidates. S 2090, introduced by Hugh Scott (R Pa.), granted equal time to major party candidates but stipulated that minor party candidates receiving less than 10 percent of the vote cast in the preceding election be allocated free time commensurate with the vote in the preceding election. S 2128, sponsored by Vance Hartke (D Ind.), provided for repeal of Section 315(a). On July 13, Sen. Jacob K. Javits (R N.Y.) introduced a bill (S 2110) which provided a uniform poll-closing time across the country for Presidential, Congressional and gubernatorial elections. TESTIMONY – July 18 – Rosel H. Hyde, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission supported legislation similar to that proposed by Scott. Hyde also said that a uniform poll-closing time was “substantially preferable” to restricting early dissemination of election results. Julian Goodman, president of the National Broadcasting Corp. (NBC), advocated repeal of Section 315(a) but said NBC would agree to suspension of the provision “as an imperfect alternative.” “In short,” he testified, “we would welcome any relief we can get, believing that with even a limited or temporary suspension, broadcasters would demonstrate that complete and permanent deletion of this restriction is desirable in the public interest.” He also said <a></a>NBC saw no necessity for a uniform poll-closing time but had “no objection in principle” to such legislation. Vincent T. Wasilewski, president of the National Assn. of Broadcasters, said S 1548 raised “grave doubts as to the constitutionality of mandatory free time provisions,” and agreed with earlier testimony that the equal time provision should be suspended, if not eliminated. July 19 – Leonard H. Goldenson, president of the American Broadcasting Corp. (ABC), told the Subcommittee, “We are now inclined to the belief that the flexibility and discretion afforded broadcasters in 1960 in their coverage of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates should be extended on a trial basis for all candidates” in 1968. He said such a trial run would give Congress a basis for deciding whether to repeal Section 315(a) permanently. Warren E. Miller, program director for the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan, presented a report concluding that the broadcasting of projections of election winners based on early election returns had no influence on voters going to the polls after they had heard the projections. He added, however, that there was “reluctance” to say that the projections would “never” affect election results. Defending his own bill, Clark said that “Congress must either enact a law providing free broadcast time for political candidates or risk turning our political system into an oligarchy where only the rich can successfully win elective office.” July 20 – Frank Stanton, president of the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), urged repeal of Section 315(a) “in its entirety.” In lieu of repeal, he said, CBS favored S 1926. He indicated that prohibition of voter projections might be “an unconstitutional suppression” of freedom of the press. Nathan Karp, speaking for the Socialist Labor Party of America, objected to suspension or deletion of the equal time provision. “Section 315 has already been mutilated to the point where…it permits a minority party candidate to claim no more than an infinitesimal percentage of the time and exposure given major party candidates. The result has been a virtual blackout by the broadcast media of new ideas.” <a href="https://library.cqpress.com/#"><img src="https://library.cqpress.com/images/back_to_top.gif" alt="Back to Top" width="71"></a><h2><a></a>Committee Report</h2> The Senate Commerce Committee Aug. 30 issued a report (S Rept 561) concluding that “no legislation restricting the broadcast of election returns and predictions is warranted.” The Committee report stated that the “upshot” of several private studies and “of all of the testimony presented to the Committee is that there is no evidence to show that exposure to broadcast election returns and predictions resulted in any discernible impact on voter behavior either as to how they voted, or whether they voted.” Restriction of the broadcasting of election returns and projections until all polls are closed “is too drastic a step and raises grave constitutional questions of free speech,” the report said. The Committee said it was “satisfied that the networks and broadcasters will take appropriate steps to clearly label voting projections and predictions in a manner that the public will not be misled.” The report further stated that the Committee expected to exercise continued surveillance of network developments in this area. The report concluded that there was “no immediate emergency and no qualified experience” that would justify establishing a uniform poll closing time across the country “at this time.” In supplemental views, Sen. Vance Hartke (D Ind.) urged the Federal Communications Commission, to undertake its own study of the impact of election projections upon those who had not yet voted. “This study should continue as long as is necessary to determine whether there is any effect whatever and should include suggested remedies if it is concluded there is any effect,” Hartke said. <a href="https://library.cqpress.com/#"><img src="https://library.cqpress.com/images/back_to_top.gif" alt="Back to Top" width="71"></a> Document Citation "Political Broadcasting." In CQ Almanac 1967, 23rd ed., 08-577-08-578. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1968. http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal67-1314809. Document ID: cqal67-1314809 Document URL: http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal67-1314809 </div>

View full article

Political Broadcasting

here today, more tomorrow