Source: https://m.openjurist.org/453/us/367
Timestamp: 2020-04-05 13:32:53
Document Index: 783816417

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 312', '§ 312', '§ 312', '§ 315', '§ 312', '§ 706', '§ 312', '§ 312', '§ 706', '§ 153', '§ 326', '§ 312', '§ 3', '§ 315', '§ 312']

453 US 367 Cbs Inc v. Federal Communications Commission | OpenJurist
453 U.S. 367 - Cbs Inc v. Federal Communications Commission
The Commission's repeated construction of § 312(a)(7) as affording an affirmative right of reasonable access to individual candidates for federal elective office comports with the statute's language and legislative history and has received congressional review. Therefore, departure from that construction is unwarranted. "Congress' failure to repeal or revise [the statute] in the face of such administrative interpretation [is] persuasive evidence that that interpretation is the one intended by Congress." Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 11, 85 S.Ct. 1271, 1278, 14 L.Ed.2d 179 (1965).
In support of their narrow reading of § 312(a)(7) as simply a restatement of the public interest obligation, petitioners cite our decision in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 93 S.Ct. 2080, 36 L.Ed.2d 772 (1973), which held that neither the First Amendment nor the Communications Act requires broadcasters to accept paid editorial advertisements from citizens at large. The Court in Democratic National Committee observed that "the Commission on several occasions has ruled that no private individual or group has a right to command the use of broadcast facilities," and that Congress has not altered that policy even though it has amended the Communications Act several times. Id., at 113, 93 S.Ct., at 2091. In a footnote, on which petitioners here rely, we referred to the then recently enacted § 312(a)(7) as one such amendment, stating that it had "essentially codified the Commission's prior interpretation of § 315(a) as requiring broadcasters to make time available to political candidates." Id., at 113-114, n. 12, 93 S.Ct., at 2091-2092, n. 12.
Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the Commission abused its discretion in finding that petitioners failed to grant the "reasonable access" required by § 312(a)(7).15 See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). "[T]he fact that we might not have made the same determination on the same facts does not warrant a substitution of judicial for administrative discretion since Congress has confided the problem to the latter." FCC v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U.S. 223, 229, 67 S.Ct. 213, 216, 91 L.Ed. 204 (1946). "[C]ourts should not overrule an administrative decision merely because they disagree with its wisdom." Radio Corp. of America v. United States, 341 U.S. 412, 420, 71 S.Ct. 806, 810, 95 L.Ed. 1062 (1951).
See also FCC v. National Citizens Comm. for Broadcasting, 436 U.S. 775, 799-800, 98 S.Ct. 2096, 2114, 56 L.Ed.2d 697 (1978). Although the broadcasting industry is entitled under the First Amendment to exercise "the widest journalistic freedom consistent with its public [duties]," Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, supra, 412 U.S., at 110, 93 S.Ct., at 2090, the Court has made clear that:
The First Amendment interests of candidates and voters, as well as broadcasters, are implicated by § 312(a)(7). We have recognized that "it is of particular importance that candidates have the . . . opportunity to make their views known so that the electorate may intelligently evaluate the candidates' personal qualities and their positions on vital public issues before choosing among them on election day." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 52-53, 96 S.Ct. 612, 651, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976). Indeed, "speech concerning public affairs is . . . the essence of self-government," Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75, 85 S.Ct. 209, 215-216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964). The First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 625, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971). Section 312(a)(7) thus makes a significant contribution to freedom of expression by enhancing the ability of candidates to present, and the public to receive, information necessary for the effective operation of the democratic process.
Petitioners are correct that the Court has never approved a general right of access to the media. See, e. g., FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689, 99 S.Ct. 1435, 59 L.Ed.2d 692 (1979); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 41 L.Ed.2d 730 (1974); Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, supra. Nor do we do so today. Section 312(a)(7) creates a limited right to "reasonable" access that pertains only to legally qualified federal candidates and may be invoked by them only for the purpose of advancing their candidacies once a campaign has commenced. The Commission has stated that, in enforcing the statute, it will "provide leeway to broadcasters and not merely attempt de novo to determine the reasonableness of their judgments . . . ." 74 F.C.C.2d, at 672. If broadcasters have considered the relevant factors in good faith, the Commission will uphold their decisions. See 202 U.S.App.D.C., at 393, 629 F.2d, at 25. Further, § 312(a)(7) impair the discretion of broadcasters to present their views on any issue or to carry any particular type of programming.
Section 312(a)(7) provides that the Commission may revoke a broadcast license "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." It is untenable to suggest that the right of access the Commission has created is required or even suggested by the plain language of this section. What is "reasonable" access and what are "reasonable" amounts of time that must be sold are matters about which fair minds could easily differ. The Commission recognized as much in this litigation: "The statutory language," it said, "does not expressly define the scope of the Commission's responsibilities or the procedures by which it should enforce them." 74 F.C.C.2d 631, 637. Furthermore, the Commission thought "[t]he legislative history of Section 312(a)(7) does little to clarify those responsibilities and procedures." Ibid. It also found the floor debates to be "equally uninstructive." Ibid. It then announced that "[i]n the absence of further direction, we must also assume that Congress wanted to delegate to the Commission broad responsibility to define and implement the scope of Section 312(a)(7)'s rights and duties." Id., at 638. Having conferred carte blanche on themselves, four of the seven members of the Commission proceeded to produce some 48 printed pages of guidelines, proscriptions, prescriptions, permissions, instructions on balancing, clarifications, summaries, conclusions, and orders, all purporting to define the "reasonable" access that broadcasters must provide federal candidates for office and to explain why the networks' offers of access were not reasonable under the circumstances. The Commission issued an initial opinion covering 24 pages but felt compelled to write 24 more pages on reconsideration, purporting to clarify and explain what it had meant in the first place. I think the Commission fell into serious error and that its action was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise contrary to law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). At the very least, its decision represents "a clear error of judgment." Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). I regret particularly that the Court of Appeals and this Court have compounded the error by suggesting that the Commission understood its task and competently performed it in an understandable manner. There are several reasons for my position.
The history of the Federal Government's regulation of the broadcast media has been recounted by this Court on several occasions. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 103-110, 93 S.Ct. 2080, 2087-2090, 36 L.Ed.2d 772 (1973); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 375-386, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 1798-1804, 23 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969). That history evinces Congress' efforts to deal with the inevitable tension between the need to allocate scarce frequencies and the importance of giving licensees broad discretion in exercising editorial judgment in the use of those frequencies. These efforts have led to the creation of a general requirement that broadcast licensees operate in the public interest but that they be given considerable leeway in the fulfillment of that duty. As the Court stated in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, supra, 412 U.S., at 110, 93 S.Ct., at 2090: "Congress intended to permit private broadcasting to develop with the widest journalistic freedom consistent with its public obligation. Only when the interests of the public are found to outweigh the private journalistic interests of the broadcasters will government power be asserted within the framework of the Act." In particular, Congress has explicitly provided that broadcast licensees are not common carriers, 47 U.S.C. § 153(h), and that the Commission may not engage in censorship of radio communications. 47 U.S.C. § 326.
The parties agree that prior to the adoption of § 312(a)(7) individuals or organizations had no specific right of access to broadcast facilities. This was the common view of the Commission, the courts, and Congress. As we said in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, supra, 412 U.S., at 122, 93 S.Ct., at 2096, Congress had "time and again rejected various legislative attempts that would have mandated a variety of forms of individual access." Broadcasters had obligations with respect to their programming, such as the fairness doctrine which obligated them to cover issues of public importance from opposing points of view, but this obligation was enforced with care so as not to unduly infringe on the "journalistic discretion in deciding how best to fulfill the Fairness Doctrine obligations." 412 U.S., at 111, 93 S.Ct., at 2090. We also observed: "[I]n the area of discussion of public issues Congress chose to leave broad journalistic discretion with the licensee. Congress specifically dealt with—and firmly rejected—the argument that the broadest facilities should be open on a nonselective basis to all persons wishing to talk about public issues." Id., at 105, 93 S.Ct., at 2088. Similarly, in FCC v. Midwest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689, 99 S.Ct. 1435, 59 L.Ed.2d 692 (1979), where we held that the Commission had erred in providing for a general system of access to cable television, we noted that the Commission's authority with respect to cable television was derived from the provisions of the Communications Act and concluded that the Commission should not have ignored "Congress' stern disapproval—evidenced in § 3(h)—of negation of the editorial discretion otherwise enjoyed by broadcasters and cable operators alike." Id., at 708, 99 S.Ct., at 1445. We reaffirmed "the policy of the Act to preserve editorial control of programming in the licensee." Id., at 705, 99 S.Ct., at 1444.
The Communications Act had thus long been construed to impose upon the broadcasters a duty to satisfy the public need for information about political campaign s. As this Court observed in Farmers Educational & Cooperative Union v. WDAY, Inc., 360 U.S. 525, 534, 79 S.Ct. 1302, 1308, 3 L.Ed.2d 1407 (1959), a broadcaster policy of 'denying all candidates use of stations... would ... effectively withdraw political discussion from the air,' and such result would be quite contrary to congressional intent. Furthermore, § 315 had long provided that should a station permit a political candidate to use its broadcasting facilities, it must 'afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office....' As that section expressly provided , however, the provision for equal time created no right of initial access.
3. The Court relies, as it must, on the authority of the Commission to interpret and apply the statute and on the deference that courts should accord to agency views with respect to the legislation it is charged with enforcing. As the Court has said, however, "[t]he amount of deference due an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute . . . 'will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.' " St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church v. South Dakota, 451 U.S. 772, 783, n. 13, 101 S.Ct. 2142, 2148, n. 13, 68 L.Ed.2d 612 (1981), quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 164, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944). I find the Commission's current radical version not only quite inconsistent with its prior views but also singularly unpersuasive.
"A. Each licensee, under the provisions of sections 307 and 309 of the Communications Act, is required to serve the public interest, convenience, or necessity. In its Report and Statement of Policy Re: Commission En Banc Programming Inquiry (1960), the Commission stated that political broadcasts constitute one of the major elements in meeting that standard. (See Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America, North Dakota Division v. WDAY, Inc., 360 U.S. 525 [79 S.Ct. 1302, 3 L.Ed.2d 1407] (1959), and Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 393-394 [89 S.Ct. 1794, 1808-1809, 23 L.Ed.2d 371] (1969).) The foregoing broad standard has been applied over the years to the overall programming of licensees. New section 312(a)(7) adds to that broad standard specific language concerning reasonable access.
There was no suggestion in 1972 that the "needs" of the requesting candidate shall be paramount. Indeed, the Commission embraced its prior practice. Discretion was thought to remain with the broadcaster, not to be placed in the hands of the candidates or subjected to close and exacting oversight by the Commission. Clearly, the Commission's contemporaneous construction of § 312(a)(7) is inconsistent with the sweeping construction of the section it has now adopted. See Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965).