.' 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20463 

M EM ORAN D U M 

p% TO: 

@ 

1"- $5 

e 

F 

yJ FROM: 

3? DATE: 

SUBJECT: $. 

a 

r 

The Commissioners 

Staff Director 

Deputy Staff Director 

Acting General Counsel 

Office of the Commission Secreta 

August 27,2001 

Statement of Reasons for MURs 51 10 and 5162 

Attached is a copy of the Statement of Reasons for 

MURs 5110 and 5162 signed by Commissioner Scott E. Thomas. 

This was received in the Commission Secretary's Office on 

Monday, Auqust 27,2001 at 12:33 D.m. 

.<.- 

cc: Vincent J. Convery, Jr. 

Information Division. 

Press Office 

Public Disclosure 

Attachment 
b 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

In the matter of 1 

1 MUR 5110 

Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) ) 

In the matter of ) 

) MUR 5162 

ABC News, CBS News, and CNN News ) 

STATEMENT OF REASONS 

Commissioner Scott E. Thomas 

While I joined my colleagues in voting to find no reason to believe there was a 

violation in these matters, certain issues were not as clear-cut as their Statement of 

Reasons, dated July 24,2001, would suggest. In particular, in MUR 5 1 10, there is some 

question about whether the CBN’s role in producing and paying to air the program at 

issue is within the press exemption at 2 U.S.C. 0 43 1(9)(B)(i). 

The Commission’s authority to investigate communications by broadcasters or 

other media-related entities has been circumscribed by some courtsy--For example, as my 

colleagues note, in Readers Digest Ass ’n, Inc. v. FEC, 509 F. Supp. 1210 (S.D.N.Y. 

1981), the court required the FEC to first limit its inquiry to whether the entity in question 

was engaging in a ‘legitimate press hction.’ Contrary to my colleagues’ Statement, 

though, this is not a simple matter of whether the program at issue happened to air over a 

broadcast station’s facilities or whether the station is owned or controlled by a candidate 

or party. There must be an assessment of whether the entity involved in producing or 

paying for the program’s airing engaged in a hnction that is within the ordinary course of 

business for a press entity. 

In this case, CBN’s response suggests that CBN produced the program and then 

paid the television station to air the program. CBN’s web site indicates CBN has an 

overall goal well beyond that of traditional media: “CBN’s mission is to prepare the 

Unites States of America, the nations of the Middle East, the Far East, South America and 

other nations of the world for the coming of Jesus Christ and the establishment of the 

kingdom of God on earth.’ We are achieving this end through the strategic use of mass 

communications, especially television and film, the Internet and New Media, radio, the 

distribution of cassettes, literature, and the educational training of students . . . .” 
... c 

www.cbn.com (visited 7/19/01). The web site then relates: “Today, CBN is a 

multifaceted institution that comprises several national and international broadcasting 

entities, a 24-hour telephone prayer line, and a hotel and conference center. Chief among 

CBN’s broadcasting components is The 700 Club, a daily television program featuring 

Pat Robertson. . . . The show’s newdmagazine format presents a lively mix of 

information, interviews, and inspiration to an. average daily audience of more than 

1,000,000 viewers.” Id. 

While the communication complained of apparently was part of a 700 Club 

program that probably would qualim as a ‘legitimate press function,’ only an 

investigation of certain factual issues would give full assurance. Without knowing what 

component of the CBN “institution” in fact produced the program, and without knowing 

whether it is ‘ordinary course of business’ for a station to be paid by CBN to run a news 

segment (rather than paying CBN for such program), one cannot categorically say this 

case presented no possible basis for a violation. In this age of ‘infomercials,’ 

entertainment programs that include candidate interviews, television and radio programs 

produced by party-controlled entities, cable stations devoted to programs of particular 

parties, media outlets owned by candidates, and entire broadcasting networks owned by 

non-media conglomerates, the lines are often blurry. 

I voted not to initiate an investigation because there was a very slim likelihood 

that the actions of CBN in this instance were outside the ‘legitimate press function.’ I 

agree with my colleagues that most complaints alleging media bias will not rise to the 

level of a ‘reason to believe’ finding. But my colleagues go too far when they say, “The 

complaints cite only the broadcasts of the Respondent entities, leading to aper se 

conclusion that the activities complained of fall within the statutory exemption of any 

‘news story, editorial or commentary’. . . .” The mere fact that a communication is made 

through a broadcast is not dispositive. A station could not repeatedly run one candidate’s 

campaign advertisements without charge, for example, simply because the ads were being 

‘broadcast’ by a media entity. And though a station itself might be rnsulated when airing 

a commentary piece, an organization paying to produce and air it might not qualify for 

the statutory exemption, particularly if this is not the standard way of airing commentary 

on the station. There are nuances in this area of the law that should not be overlooked. 

&, 

Date Scott E. Thomas 

Commissioner 

2