NOTICE


*****************************************************************
********
             

                         NOTICE


*****************************************************************
********

This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect.  

If the original document contained--

                    *  Footnotes
                    *  Boldface & Italics

--this information  is missing in this version

The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed
too.

If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect
version.

For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file
pnmc5021.

File  pnmc5021 (.txt & .wp) is in directory
\pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous.

*****************************************************************
********
                                    Federal Communications Commission                 FCC 96-401
                                    
                                    
                                    
                               Before the
                 Federal Communications Commission           
                          Washington, D.C.  20554


In re Complaint of    )                                            
     )
Ross Perot      )
                                       )
against                                )
                                       )
ABC, CBS, NBC, and                     )
Fox Broadcasting Co.                   ) 

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

        Adopted:  October 3, 1996            Released:  October 4, 1996       

     By the Commission:

     1.    We have before us a complaint filed on September 24, 1996, by Ross Perot
("Perot") and his general campaign organization against American Broadcasting Company
("ABC"), CBS Inc. ("CBS"), Fox Broadcasting Company ("Fox"), and National Broadcasting
Company ("NBC").  Perot is the Reform Parties candidate for President of the United States.  
Perot asserts that these networks have allowed the presidential candidates of the major parties to
"use" their facilities, but have failed to afford him equal opportunities in violation of Section
315(a) of the Act. (47 U.S.C. Section 315(a)). Perot also alleges that each of the broadcast
networks has failed to provide him with "reasonable access" to their facilities, as required by
Section 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. Section 312(a)(7)).  

     2.   Several months ago, Fox, ABC, and PBS sought guidance from the Commission
on the equal opportunities provision of the Communications Act.  Those networks sought a
declaratory ruling on whether their plans to offer free time to the major presidential candidates
fell within the "bona fide news event" exemption to the equal opportunities requirement.  The
Commission found that they did.  The Commission has not, however, fully considered the issue
of a presidential candidate's right to reasonable access from the major networks since 1979, when
the Commission ruled that ABC, CBS, and NBC could not, consistent with their 312(a)(7)
reasonable-access obligations, refuse to sell a candidate a one-half hour block of time once the
campaign had begun.  We will address the issues raised by this petition on the facts before us
and leave the need for guidance on the reasonable access provision of the Communications Act
to a future time.

         3.      Applying the principles articulated in our prior decisions and the congressional
intent underlying the equal opportunities and reasonable access provisions,  we believe that denial
of Perot's complaint is appropriate. 


                           EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES  
   

        4.       Perot alleges that the networks have failed to provide him with equal opportunities
in response to several appearances, or planned appearances, of his opponents.  First, Perot alleges
that ABC, CBS, and NBC provided extensive prime time coverage of the 1996 Democratic and
Republican presidential nominating conventions, and that over four hours of this coverage
consisted of "uses" by the Democratic and Republican nominees.  Perot argues that, while
coverage of political conventions is normally exempt from equal opportunities pursuant to Section
315(a)(4), the events surrounding the 1996 conventions of both parties were "exceptional," and
that as a result, the news exemption should not apply.  Specifically, Perot states that "while some
limited news was dispatched, the vast majority of the network's programming . . . was simply
a staged forum for the candidates."  Perot also notes that the networks did not cover the Reform
Parties' convention and asserts that he is entitled to four hours of equal opportunities in response
to the time received by President Clinton and Bob Dole during the coverage of their respective
conventions.

        5.       Perot also contends that he is entitled to equal opportunities as a result of these
networks' planned coverage of the Presidential debates between President Clinton and Bob Dole.
The Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD"), the sponsoring entity, recently announced that
Perot should not be included in the debates.  Perot claims that the CPD "arbitrarily" excluded him
despite his having satisfied all the objective criteria for inclusion.  Perot states that the CPD's
reason for excluding him was that he had "no realistic chance of winning" the election.  Perot
maintains that CPD's decision was "clearly partisan" and that, under the circumstances, if any
network decides to carry the debates, appearances by the candidates therein will entitle Perot to
equal opportunities.  

        6.       For similar reasons, Perot contends that Fox has denied him equal opportunities
by failing to include him in the network's news presentations of ten sixty-second statements by
the major presidential candidates and an election eve program in which the network will present
longer statements by the major presidential candidates.  Fox chose to include on these programs
those candidates selected by the CPD for inclusion in the presidential debates.  Perot maintains
that Fox "suddenly withdrew its agreement to provide" him free time.  Finally, Perot notes that
ABC recently aired two hour-long editions of its program "20/20", one featuring President
Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton and the second featuring Republican Presidential candidate
Bob Dole and his wife, Elizabeth Dole.  Perot claims that these appearances do not fall under
exempt news programming, and that accordingly, he is entitled to equal opportunities to the
candidates' appearances therein.  Perot maintains that he is willing to pay for this time, but that
ABC has still refused to provide it to him.  

Network Responses to Equal Opportunities Complaint 

        7.       The networks contend that Perot's equal opportunities complaint is without merit. 
ABC, CBS, and NBC assert that their coverage of the Democratic and Republican National
Conventions was specifically exempt pursuant to Section 315(a)(4) of the Communications Act. 
Consequently, the networks contend that any appearances by candidates during these broadcasts
cannot give rise to equal opportunities rights.   Further, ABC states that its decision to devote live
air time coverage to the conventions "was based on its good faith journalistic judgment that such
coverage was newsworthy and not in order to promote the candidacy of either party nominee." 
 NBC asserts that its decision to cover the Democratic and Republican Conventions and not that
of the Reform Parties is within its discretion to be selective in determining which news events
to broadcast.  NBC maintains that Perot presents no basis to support his claim that the coverage
of these two conventions could not be considered newsworthy.  

        8.       The networks contend that their planned coverage of the presidential debates is
similarly exempt.  NBC and CBS point to the fact that the Commission has long held that the
coverage of debates consisting of two or more candidates for public office qualifies for an
exemption from equal opportunities as an on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event, 
pursuant to Section 315(a)(4).  Moreover, CBS contends that the test of whether a broadcaster's
coverage of a candidate debate qualifies for an exemption is not the motivation of the debate's
organizers in selecting the participants, but rather whether the broadcaster acted in good faith in
determining that the event is newsworthy.  In this respect, the networks maintain that their
decision to broadcast the debates was based upon their good faith "journalistic judgment" that
these events will be highly newsworthy and they state that Perot has provided no basis upon
which to question their judgment.  NBC states that it played no role in choosing the participants
and asserts that the fact that Perot has not been invited to participate does not, in its judgment,
render the event any less newsworthy.

        9.       ABC states that Perot has no basis upon which to assert an equal opportunities
complaint against it for the appearances of President Clinton and Republican Party nominee Bob
Dole on its program "20/20," in light of the fact that "regularly scheduled news interview
program[s]" are exempt from equal opportunities pursuant to Section 315(a)(2).  ABC maintains
that "20/20" is a regularly scheduled news program and that "news interviews are a regular and
recurring feature of the program."  ABC contends that "20/20" satisfies the criteria upon which
the Commission has previously found similar programs to be exempt.  ABC claims that "except
for a bare assertion that '20/20' is not news, Perot presents no evidence" to refute the program's
exempt status. 
 
        10.      Fox contends that Perot's equal opportunities complaint against it with respect to
its coverage of presentations by the major presidential candidates is similarly without merit.  Fox
notes that the Commission recently determined that these programs qualified for an exemption 
as on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events.  Consequently, Fox maintains, there can be
no right to equal opportunities with respect to the appearances by the candidates therein.  Further,
Fox contends that Perot "mischaracterizes" the network's actions in stating that Fox withdrew its
agreement to provide him free time.  Fox states that on September 6, 1996, it sent Perot a list
of the ten questions to be posed to the participating candidates.  Fox states that it provided Perot
with this information solely "as a courtesy" to enable him to be better prepared in the event that
the CPD included him in the debates.  Fox states that because its exemption for these programs
was based upon a proposal submitted to the Commission in which the network specifically stated
that it would defer to the CPD with respect to the participants, it could not now decide to include
Perot without being susceptible to a claim by other candidates that it was not acting in accordance
with the Commission's ruling.  

        11.      Finally, NBC takes issue regarding Perot's allegation that the networks only invite
major party candidates and their representatives to appear on news programs.  NBC contends that
Perot's claim is incorrect, at least with respect to NBC, and states that since early 1996 the
network has broadcast several news interviews with him.  NBC further states that Perot's
campaign has received coverage in its other news programs as well. 


Perot Reply To Network Equal Opportunities Responses

        12.     Perot contends that the appearances by the Democratic and Republican presidential
candidates in the above programs cannot be exempt from equal opportunities as news.  Perot
maintains that such an expansive definition of the news exemption would eliminate the "structural
safeguards" that the Commission has required of such programming.   Perot further contends that
if the networks are given the liberty to define virtually every appearance by a candidate as
"news," no candidate will ever have the right to enforce equal opportunities.  Perot argues that
this result would be inconsistent with the intent of Congress in enacting Section 315(a).  With
respect to the issue of broadcaster intent, Perot states that he had "no ability to conduct discovery"
and, therefore, cannot provide any evidence thereof.  However, Perot maintains that the fact that
the networks chose to cover only the Democratic and Republican conventions, and not that of the
Reform Parties, suggests that they are "showing favoritism" towards the major party candidates.

     
     Discussion

Equal Opportunities Legal Background

     13.   Section 315 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. Section 315) provides that if
a licensee permits a legally qualified candidate for public office to use a broadcast station, it must
afford equal opportunities to other such candidates for that office.  In 1959, Congress amended
Section 315 to exempt from the equal opportunities requirement appearances by legally qualified
candidates on any of the following:

     (1) bona fide newscast,

     (2) bona fide news interview,

     (3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to
     the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or

     (4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to      
political conventions and activities incidental thereto).

47 U.S.C. Section 315(a)(1)-(4).
     
     14.   In Aspen Institute, the Commission adopted a two-part test for analyzing whether
a program should be considered bona fide news event programming.  First, it determined whether
the format of the program reasonably fit within the news event exemption category and, second,
it assessed whether the decision to carry a particular event was the result of good faith news
judgment and not based on partisan purposes. The Commission has continued to utilize the
Aspen analysis for cases involving the news event exemption.   


Analysis of Equal Opportunities Complaint

     15.  Applying the terms of the statute and the Aspen test to the Perot equal
opportunities arguments as they relate to the "news event" exemption, we conclude that, based
on the record before us, none of the networks is obligated to provide Perot with equal
opportunities in connection with the major party nominating convention coverage or the upcoming
debates.  In addition, consistent with our recent ruling in Fox Broadcasting, we conclude that
Perot is not entitled to equal opportunities related to his exclusion from Fox's presentation of
statements by President Clinton and Bob Dole.  Finally, we conclude that Perot is not entitled to
equal opportunities in connection with the respective appearances by President Clinton and Bob
Dole on separate editions of ABC's 20/20 program.  For purposes of clarity, we shall address
each of Perot's allegations separately.


Party Convention Coverage

     16.  With respect to Perot's argument that he is entitled to equal opportunities in
response to the network's coverage of the political conventions, the explicit language of Section
315(a)(4) exempts such programming.  Section 315(a)(4) states that on-the-spot coverage of bona
fide news events includes "political conventions and activities incidental thereto."  Thus, 
Congress has chosen by statute to classify political conventions as exempt from the equal
opportunities requirement.  We have no basis to conclude that such programming is not bona fide. 
With respect to Perot's argument that the conventions are staged to showcase the candidates, the
following language from the Aspen decision by the United States Court of Appeals is instructive:

     We remain unconvinced by petitioner's arguments that these events [political
     conventions, debates and press conferences] are distinguishable [from debates and
     press conferences] based on the degree of control by the candidate, or the degree
     to which candidates tailor such events to serve their own political advantages.  It
     is more reasonable to believe, as the Commission apparently does, that any
     appearance by a candidate on the broadcast media is designed to the best of the
     candidate's ability, to serve his own political ends.

Chisholm v. FCC, 538 F.2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 97 S. Ct. 247 (1976).  Thus, 
candidate control does not necessarily mean that a program is not an exempt news event.

Appearances on the "20/20" program

       17.     The appearances of President Clinton and Bob Dole on ABC's "20/20" program
are also not subject to equal opportunities.  As discussed above, in 1959 Congress exempted four
categories of news from the equal opportunities requirement.  The exemption for "bona fide news
interviews" pursuant to Section 315 (a)(2) has been interpreted by the Commission to apply to
a variety of different kinds of interview programming, including CBS's "60 Minutes."  In
granting CBS's 1976 request for a Commission determination as to whether it believed that "60
Minutes" fit the news interview exemption, the Commission ruled that it satisfied congressional
intent.  Specifically, the Commission noted that it was regularly scheduled, a requirement
specified in the exemption's legislative history. The Commission also took note of the fact that
the program was under the exclusive control of CBS, and the licensee stated that interviewees
were selected based on the basis of newsworthiness, not for partisan purposes.  CBS indicated
that although "60 Minutes" contained various kinds of news formats,  the program featured news
interviews on a regular recurring basis.  As such, the Commission determined that appearances
by legally qualified candidates on "60 Minutes" would not trigger equal opportunities rights for
opposing candidates.  Similarly, ABC states that "20/20" has been regularly scheduled since 1978
and has featured news interviews of many newsworthy persons, including heads of state and other
political figures, including  Perot in 1988 and 1992.  ABC states that its news division controls
the program and guests are selected on the basis of good faith journalistic judgment, not to favor
any particular candidacies.  Thus, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, "20/20" falls
within the news interview exemption and the appearances of President Clinton and Bob Dole
therein do not entitle Perot to equal opportunities.

        
Presidential Candidate Debates

        18.      With respect to the Presidential debates, we believe that under our news event
analysis, Perot again fails to establish that the debates would not be properly accorded exempt
news event status.  In Aspen Institute and consistently since, the Commission has found, with the
approval of the courts, that debates between at least two competing legally qualified candidates
are exempt news events.  Thus, under the first part of the test, as to whether the debates
reasonably fit within the news event exemption, it is reasonable for broadcasters to treat them as
such.  As to the second prong, whether the decision to carry the debates is the result of good faith
news judgment and not based on partisan purposes, Perot also fails to show that the networks
decision to cover the debates is not based on the newsworthiness of the event.  Perot contends
that the CPD selection process is skewed because, inter alia, the CPD failed to follow its own
objective criteria and is partial to the two major political parties.  We do not review the decisions
of the CPD.  Thus, the correctness of its decision is immaterial to the question of whether any
particular broadcaster's decision to carry the debates was based upon an intent to favor one
candidate over another, and not on a judgment of newsworthiness.  Perot has not suggested that
any of the networks played any role in CPD's decision to exclude Perot.  In the absence of a
showing by Perot that the broadcasters themselves acted for partisan purposes, we conclude that
the presidential debates are news events and exempt from the equal opportunities requirement.

       

                             REASONABLE ACCESS

       19.     On August 18, 1996, the Reform Parties nominated Ross Perot as its candidate for
President for the November, 5, 1996, general election.  Shortly thereafter, representatives of the
Perot campaign contacted each of the aforementioned networks to inquire about the purchase of
time.  Specifically, Perot requested to buy from all four networks eight one-half hour blocks
of prime time, one to air each week beginning the week of September 8, 1996, continuing
through the week of October 27, 1996.  In addition, Perot requested a one half-hour slot for
election eve, Monday, November 4, 1996.  Perot maintains that the ability to purchase half-hour
blocks of time, especially in prime time, is crucial to his campaign as a third-party candidate. 
Perot asserts that the Democratic and Republican candidates have ample access to the media
through traditional news coverage, which is rarely provided to him and other third party
candidates. Perot argues, by way of an example, that only major party candidates and their
representatives are typically invited to appear on talk shows and other news programs. Perot also
notes that he has been excluded from the presidential debates scheduled to take place in October,
which ABC, CBS, and NBC plan to cover.   In addition, Perot claims that the Democratic and
Republican presidential candidates will each have over $100 million dollars to spend on their
respective campaigns, whereas he will have approximately $29 million at his disposal. 
Consequently, Perot contends that while the major party candidates may be able to afford to
communicate with the voters by the purchase of 15, 30 or 60-second "sound bites," he does not
have this luxury and needs to purchase larger blocks of time to deliver his message effectively.

        20.      Perot states that the Commission has long required networks to sell reasonable
amounts of time to federal candidates during prime time programming. Commission Policy in
Enforcing Section 312(a)(7), 68 FCC 2d 1079, 1091 (1978).   A refusal to do so, Perot contends,
would deny a candidate access to the time periods which possess the greatest audience potential
and would thus be inconsistent with Section 312(a)(7).   Further, Perot asserts that a candidate
must be allowed the flexibility to obtain programming in a manner suited to his or her campaign. 
Perot states that the United States Supreme Court in CBS Inc. v. FCC ("Carter-Mondale"), 453
U.S. 367 (1981), held that broadcasters are required to tailor their responses, as much as
reasonably possible, to a candidate's stated purpose in seeking the airtime.  Accordingly, Perot
argues that the networks should "honor a candidate's decisions on the best strategy for pursuing
his media campaign." Perot maintains that the responses he received from each of the four
networks constitute a denial of reasonable access.   

        21.      Since the focus of this portion of the complaint is Perot's allegation that he did
not receive sufficient prime time program length access, we reiterate that Perot initially requested
to purchase 8 one-half hour prime time slots, one to air each week beginning the week of
September 8, 1996, continuing  through the week of October 27, 1996, and an additional one
half-hour slot for election eve, Monday, November 4, 1996, for a total of 4 1/2 hours of prime
time programming.  
 
Network Responses

        22.      In their September 27, 1996, responses to Perot's allegations, as detailed below,
each network argues that it complied with the statute and relevant Commission policy and case
law in providing access to the Perot campaign.  
 
        
ABC 

         23.     According to the pleadings, ABC has provided Perot with three one-half hour
prime time slots from September 1, through October 20, 1996, and a shared hour on election eve,
the amount of which is to be determined in relationship to the needs of other candidates that
evening.  ABC has also offered Perot four additional one-half hour slots in non-prime time
following its program "Nightline."  ABC further states that it has offered Perot "spot
availabilities" in prime time and other day parts through election day.  ABC states that Section
312(a)(7) does not require licensees to provide unlimited time to candidates or to accede to every
request that a candidate may make. ABC asserts that the Commission has made clear that
licensees may take into consideration the disruption of broadcast schedules, the potential of equal
opportunities requests by competing candidates, and the amount of time already provided to the
candidate during the course of the  campaign in responding to a candidate's request for time. 
ABC maintains that it has been flexible in considering Perot's particular requests and needs and
has responded by making available a variety of dates and different dayparts to him. 
Consequently, ABC concludes that it has "fully satisfied" its reasonable access obligation to Perot.


NBC 

        24.      According to the pleadings, NBC sold one half-hour of prime time to Perot on
September 8, 1996, from 7:00-7:30 pm. and states that it will sell Perot an additional half-hour
of prime time on October 12, 1996.  NBC will also sell Perot up to one-hour in non-prime time
on October 1, 1996, as well as a portion of a one-hour block of time on election eve, November
4, 1996, that, like CBS, will be apportioned among the candidates choosing to purchase time that
evening.  In addition, NBC has offered Perot numerous 15, 30, and 60-second spots in both
prime and non-prime time.  NBC states that it applied the proper criteria in evaluating Perot's
request for access and maintains that it arrived at a reasonable decision that balances Perot's
expressed needs against other relevant factors such as the disruptive impact on the network's
programming schedule and the likelihood of requests for time from other candidates.  Moreover,
NBC states that it had no role in creating Perot's financial disadvantage vis a vis the major
presidential candidates, and therefore, the network has no obligation to create a "level playing
field" for presidential candidates.  NBC states that Perot is not entitled to unlimited access and
that the package NBC has offered him, including program length and spot time, fulfills the
network's obligation in providing reasonable access. Consequently, NBC maintains that Perot's
complaint against it is without merit.  

FOX

        25.      According to the pleadings, Fox has sold Perot a one half-hour slot on September
14, 1996, from 8-8:30 pm.  Fox has also offered Perot a package of ten, 15, and 30 second spots
to air between October 5, 1996, and November 2, 1996.  Fox has further indicated that it will
attempt to clear time currently allotted to the airing of the 6th game of the World Series if the
Series ends in fewer games.  Fox states that it offered Perot a half-hour in prime time on
September 30, 1996, but that Perot declined this offer.  This offer was made to Perot on
September 26, 1996, two days after Perot filed his complaint with the Commission.  In addition,
Fox has since offered to sell Perot an additional one-half hour on October 12, 1996, from 9:30 -
10:00 pm.  Fox claims that it is unique among the major networks because it is constrained by
a smaller prime time schedule. Fox points to the fact that it provides only 15 hours of regularly
scheduled prime-time programming each week compared to 22 hours for the major networks. Fox
argues that the Commission has previously indicated that it will make exceptions to the prime
time program length requirement for federal candidates "where circumstances dictate," and
maintains that this is one of those circumstances. Fox also contends that the Commission has
recognized the importance of other non-political types of programming, and states that it has
contractual obligations with respect to the broadcast of the Major League Baseball championship
games.  Fox further states that considering "the likelihood of requests to buy time by rival
candidates under the equal opportunities provision of Section 315(a)" it has  accommodated Perot
as much as reasonably possible.  Consequently, Fox concludes that it has acted "reasonably and
in good faith, and that its decisions should be entitled to deference even if the Commission's
analysis would have differed in the first instance."  

CBS 

        26.      According to the pleadings, CBS sold Perot one half-hour of prime time on
September 10, 1996, from 8:00-8:30 pm. and has offered to sell him a half-hour in prime time
in the latter part of October, the specific day and time of which is to be determined.   In addition,
CBS offered to sell Perot an hour block of time on election eve, but reserves the right to reduce
proportionately the amount of time available based upon requests by other candidates for election
eve access.  CBS has also offered to sell Perot two non-prime time half-hour slots during the
daytime as well as a one-hour slot during late night programming.  In addition, CBS has offered
to provide Perot with an extensive amount of 15, 30, and 60-second spot announcements in both
prime and non-prime time programming and states that it remains willing to consider further
requests for time.  CBS maintains that it weighed Perot's expressed needs against other factors
which the courts and the Commission have indicated broadcasters may consider in responding to
reasonable access requests, including the number of other candidates who may also seek program
and spot length time as well as disruption to regular programming.  CBS states that there has
never been a Commission requirement that a licensee, which has provided other types of access
to its facilities, must sell a federal candidate multiple half-hour blocks of time over the course
of a campaign in order to comply with Section 312(a)(7).  On the contrary, CBS refers to a staff
ruling by the Mass Media Bureau in which it was determined that ABC had not acted
unreasonably in offering a presidential candidate 5 minutes of time in response to a 30-minute
request where the network had previously sold the candidate a half-hour of time accepted by the
candidate to be in lieu of its right to prime time.  CBS concludes that, in light of this ruling, 
its response to Perot's requests cannot be considered unreasonable.
          

Perot Reply To Network Reasonable Access Responses

        27.      In his reply, Perot contends that the networks have failed to provide evidence to
support their refusal to provide him with sufficient prime time programming.  Perot asserts that
the networks merely recite the factors which the Commission considers in analyzing a reasonable
access complaint rather than offering explanations of why they have failed to adequately provide
him with prime time slots.  Perot maintains that the networks must cite a realistic danger of
program disruption or unusual circumstances to justify a denial of a candidate's request for time. 
Otherwise, Perot states, the networks could simply evade their reasonable access obligations on
a "speculative and unsubstantiated" basis.  In response to Fox, Perot states that the Commission
has never relieved a network of reasonable access obligations because it programs fewer prime
time hours.  Further, Perot argues that Fox's contract to air the Major League Baseball games
cannot be considered an "exceptional circumstance."  With respect to his having declined Fox's
offer for a one-half hour prime time slot on September 30, 1996, Perot states that this was a "last
minute offer," which did not allow him sufficient opportunity to prepare a program.  Regarding
NBC's assertion that it had no obligations to create a level playing field, Perot claims that NBC
was obligated, but failed,  to "assess" the campaign's needs in evaluating its request for time. 
Perot further claims that LaRouche is not analogous because, unlike here, the candidate in that
case accepted a substitute time period in lieu of prime time.  Finally, Perot claims that despite
the networks' current assertion that they must consider the fact that another presidential candidate
has now requested to purchase a half-hour block of time, this information was not before them
at the time they denied his requests and thus cannot justify their refusal to have honored his
request.


Discussion

Reasonable Access Legal Background

        28.      Section 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act provides:

        The Commission may revoke any station license or construction permit...for willful or
        repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts
        of time for the use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal
        elective office on behalf of his candidacy.

        29.      In 1978, the Commission formulated policies for implementing the reasonable
access obligation, emphasizing a "rule of reason" in balancing the needs of the federal candidate
in seeking access and the interests of broadcasters in not having regular programming unduly
disrupted. Relying on those factors, the Commission encouraged good faith negotiation between
broadcasters and federal candidates in determining how much advertising time, and the placement,
a station will provide. Three years later, in its landmark Carter/Mondale decision, the Supreme
Court stated that although flat bans or across-the-board policies for handling reasonable access
requests are prohibited, "the Commission mandates careful consideration, not blind assent to,
candidates desires for air time." 453 U.S. at 389. The Court affirmed the Commission's
interpretation of  Section 312(a)(7), summarizing as follows: 

        [A]ccess requests from "legally qualified" candidates for federal elective office . 
        .  .  must be considered on an individualized basis, and broadcasters are        
        required to tailor their responses to accommodate, as much as reasonably possible,
        a candidate's stated purposes in seeking air time.  In responding to access requests,
        however, broadcasters may also give weight to such factors as the amount of time
        previously sold to the candidate, the disruptive impact on regular programming,
        and the likelihood of requests for time by rival candidates under the equal
        opportunities provision of Section 315(a).  These considerations may not be
        invoked as pretexts for denying access; to justify a negative response, broadcasters
        must cite a realistic danger of substantial program disruption -- perhaps caused by
        insufficient notice to allow adjustments in the schedule -- or of an excessive
        number of equal time requests.  

     30.  The Commission's review of a broadcaster's reasonable access determination is
analyzed in a two-step process:  (1) has the broadcaster adverted to the proper standards in
deciding whether to grant a request for access?; and (2) is the broadcaster's explanation for his
decision reasonable in terms of those standards?  
        
        31.        Each of the networks has adverted to the proper standards in considering Perot's
request for time, as the first prong of our test contemplates.  Specifically, each has stated that it
has balanced the amount of program length, prime time programming Perot requested -- nine
prime time half-hours -- from each network, and his campaign's stated need for such time,
against the highly disruptive impact the request, if fulfilled in its entirety, would have on its
regularly scheduled programming.  In addition, each took into account the potential for requests
for time from the six other presidential candidates and the amount of time it had already offered
Perot.  With respect to the second prong of our test, we have reviewed the networks' explanations
as to how each has balanced Perot's requests for program length prime time against the impact
of that request, and find that the explanations are reasonable.  We believe that the record shows
that each network indeed gave considerable weight to the candidate's express need for program
length, prime time access.  We also believe that they have been reasonable in considering the
potential impact of Perot's substantial request on their programming schedules and have offered
access consistent with their obligations under Section 312(a)(7).   In coming to this conclusion,
we have necessarily looked at the amount of time offered, the time period in which it is offered,
and the proximity of the time offered to the election.  
 
        

Analysis of Reasonable Access Complaint against ABC
       
       32.     We are satisfied that ABC has offered to sell Perot "reasonable" amounts of
program length programming in prime time and that it has provided such prime time access
sufficiently close to the election so that Perot will have a reasonable opportunity to reach the
American electorate during the period they are most engaged in deciding how to cast their votes. 
Specifically, once Perot was nominated by the Reform Parties, ABC offered him a total of one
and a half hours during prime time, spread over the eight weeks preceding the election.   ABC
offered to allow Perot to purchase half-hours slots on September 1, 7-7:30 p.m., October 6, 7-
7:30 p.m., and October 20, 7:30-8 p.m.  The network also offered Perot the opportunity to
purchase up to one-hour of prime time programming on election eve.  Under the facts and
circumstances before us, we find that ABC has provided Perot "reasonable access" under Section
312(a)(7).


Analysis of Reasonable Access Complaint against NBC

       33.     We are satisfied that NBC has offered to sell Perot "reasonable" amounts of
program length programming in prime time and that it has provided such prime time access
sufficiently close to the election so that Perot will have a reasonable opportunity to reach the
American electorate during the period they are most engaged in deciding how to cast their votes. 
Specifically, NBC offered to sell to Perot one thirty-minute prime time program for broadcast in
September (September 8, 7-7:30 p.m.) and an additional half-hour in prime time in October
(October 12, 10:30-11:00 p.m.)  NBC also advised Perot that it was reserving one-hour on
election eve, November 4, 8-9:00 p.m., to be allocated among any of the presidential candidates
who request paid access that evening.  Under the facts and circumstances before us, we find that
NBC has provided Perot "reasonable access" under Section 312(a)(7).

Analysis of Reasonable Access Complaint against Fox

       34.     We are satisfied that Fox has offered to sell Perot "reasonable" amounts of program
length programming in prime time and that it has provided such prime time access sufficiently
close to the election so that Perot will have a reasonable opportunity to reach the American
electorate during the period they are most engaged in deciding how to cast their votes. 
Specifically, Fox initially offered Perot one prime time half-hour slot on September 7, subject
to rescheduling on September 14, which Perot accepted. Thereafter, Fox offered Perot a second
prime time half-hour slot on September 30, which Perot declined.  Fox also offered Perot a half-
hour prime time program slot on October 26, as a contingent backup to game 6 of the World
series.  Fox then offered to sell to Perot an additional prime time slot on October 12, 9:30-10:00
p.m. Thus, in response to Perot's request for prime time programming, Fox offered to sell to
Perot three prime time half-hours in a period sufficiently proximate to the election to provide his
campaign with the reasonable opportunity to reach the electorate. Under the facts and
circumstances before us, we find that Fox has provided Perot "reasonable access" under Section
312(a)(7).  


Analysis of Reasonable Access Complaint Against CBS
               
       35.      We are satisfied that CBS has offered to sell Perot "reasonable" amounts of
program length programming in prime time and that it has provided such prime time access
sufficiently close to the election so that Perot will have a reasonable opportunity to reach the
American electorate during the period they are most engaged in deciding how to cast their votes. 
Specifically, CBS has offered to sell to Perot a half-hour slot on September 10, 8-8:30 p.m. and
a second half-hour prime time slot in the latter part of October.  In addition, CBS offered to sell
Perot one-hour of prime time on election eve, but has reserved the right to apportion the hour on
election eve as it deems reasonable among any other candidates who seek such access.  Thus, in
response to Perot's request for prime time programming, CBS offered to sell to Perot two prime
time half-hours and at least a portion of election eve hour of prime time in a period sufficiently
proximate to the election to provide his campaign with the reasonable opportunity to reach the
electorate. Under the facts and circumstances before us, we find that CBS has provided Perot
"reasonable access" under Section 312(a)(7).  



                                     CONCLUSION

       36.     As a result of the foregoing, the complaint filed by Ross Perot is hereby DENIED.


                                     
                                     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                                     William F. Caton
                                     Acting Secretary