Opinion ID: 419941
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sponsorship Identification

Text: 33 The statute neither regulates all types of political advertising nor manifests any intention to occupy the political advertising field. Nor does the legislative history suggest that Congress intended entirely to preclude state regulation of political advertising. The FCC has, however, apparently expressed the view that the sponsorship requirements preempt state law in part. 45 In a joint statement, the Commission and the Federal Election Commission have informed broadcast licensees how to comply with the sponsorship identification requirement. After listing a number of approved sponsorship announcements, the two commissions stated: The notice requirements of the FECA and the FEC Rules supersede and preempt any state statute which attempts to impose additional notices on political advertising by Federal candidates or committees. 46 34 The FEC and FCC requirements are not identical. The FEC rules apply to candidates, their committees, and others buying political broadcast time. The announcements required are designed to reveal whether a commercial is authorized by a candidate. 47 The FCC rules apply to broadcast licensees. They are designed to satisfy Sec. 317 of the Communications Act, which states that when a station is paid to broadcast anything, [it] must announce that the broadcast is paid for and who paid for it. 48 35 Although the expression of intent to preempt does not expressly apply to the FCC's identification-of-sponsorship rules, it appears in a statement coauthored by the FCC and listing sponsorship identifications complying with Sec. 317 and the regulations. The statement expresses federal intent to preempt the imposition by states of additional notice requirements on political advertising by federal candidates. Thus, it is sufficient to invalidate the Texas statute to the extent that the law seeks to regulate federal candidates or committees. 49 36 Patently the FCC does not seek to control sponsorship identification by state candidates or committees. The Texas sponsorship requirement is, therefore, valid to the extent that it regulates such advertising concerning state elections and campaigns. There is no direct conflict between the federal sponsorship requirements and Texas' requirement. It is not physically impossible to comply with both laws; indeed, compliance with the Texas statute satisfies the federal requirement. 50 Nor does the Texas statute obstruct the federal purpose. The federal statute is meant to require identification of sponsors in a way that viewers can comprehend. 51 The Texas statute furthers rather than obstructs Congress' goal. 37 When the federal requirements [do] not regulate every aspect of [the] area, the state ha[s] the implied reservation of power to fill out the scheme. 52 State regulation is preempted only if the federal rules occupy the entire field or directly conflict with, hence denying, state authority. Texas may, under the circumstances, add a requirement to the federal pattern.