Document: 347 U.S. 284 74 S.Ct. 593 98 L.Ed. 699 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONv.AMERICAN BROADCASTING CO., Inc. COMMISSION v. NATIONAL COLUMBIA SYSTEM, Nos. 117, 118 and 119. Argued Feb. 1, 1954. Decided April 5, The Federal Communications Commission, concurrently with the Department of Justice, has power to enforce statute prohibiting broadcasting any lottery or similar scheme offering prizes dependent upon lot chance, but its in such respect is limited by scope statute. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1304. Mr. J. Roger Wollenberg, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Alfred McCormack, New York City, appellee No. 117. Paul W. Williams, 118. Max Freund, Chief Justice WARREN delivered opinion Court. 1 These cases are before us on direct appeal from decision a three-judge District Court Southern York, enjoining Commission enforcing certain provisions rules relating so-called 'give-away' programs. question presented whether enjoined correctly interpret 1304 United States Criminal Code, formerly 316 Act 1934. This prohibits '* * lottery, gift enterprise, scheme, whole part chance *.'1 2 appellees national radio television companies. They are, addition, operators stations licensed Commission. Each broadcasts, over own affiliated stations, programs popularly known as Generally characteristic this type program distribution home listeners, selected wholly basis an award solving given problem answering question.2 3 challenged proceeding, §§ 3.192, 3.292, 3.656 Commission's Rules Regulations, were designed prevent broadcast programs.3 identically worded apply, respectively, standard (AM), FM broadcasting, broadcasting. Paragraph (a) each rule provides that 'An application construction permit, license, renewal other authorization peration station, will not be granted where applicant proposes follow continue policy practice *,' sort forbidden (b) fall within ban 4 if connection prize consisting money thing value awarded person whose selection condition winning competing prize: 5 '(1) Such winner winners required furnish have their possession product sold, manufactured, furnished distributed sponsor station question; 6 '(2) listening viewing receiver; 7 '(3) answer question, which aid question. For purposes provision answered previous considered correctly; 8 '(4) phone prescribed manner phrase, write letter containing writing phrase used (or ascertaining letter) is, been, question.' 9 After promulgation rules, present actions brought appellees.4 sustained general authority adopt subdivision (1) paragraph correct interpretation But, one dissent, court held subdivisions (2), (3), (4) beyond hence invalid. was view applied only contest requiring contestants contribute 'price' 'thing value'.5 We noted probable jurisdiction consolidated argument.6 10 Like below, we no doubt Indeed, would remiss duties it failed, exercise licensing authority, implementing statute, either individual decisions.7 But Unless involved here illegal under 1304, cannot employ make them so agency action. Thus, reduced simplest terms, issue constitutes 'lottery, scheme' proscribed 11 All parties agree there three essential elements scheme': prizes; (2) according chance; (3) consideration.8 also review they out contestant furnishes necessary consideration. 12 contends consideration; brief, urges these 13 nothing age old lotteries slightly new from. form results fact schemes illicit appendages legitimate advertising. classic looked advance cash payments participants source profit; give-away looks equally material benefits advertisers increased audience exposed advertising.' 14 It consideration essential, commercial benefit promoter satisfies requirement: 15 Where successfully reap profits promoter, ultimately flowing participants, consequence indirect. In event, gambling spirit—the lure obtaining something almost nothing—is exploited scheme.' 16 As against claim insist more than just promoter; participation merely does constitute 17 Section itself define needed scheme'. Nor do postal statutes language taken.9 legislative history similarly unilluminating.10 guidance, therefore, must look primarily American decisions, both judicial administrative, construing comparable antilottery legislation. Enforcing legislation long been difficult task. Law enforcement officers, federal state, plagued many types seemingly inexhaustible ingenuity promoters could devise efforts circumvent law. When reached courts, decision, necessity, usually turned peculiar facts, constituted lottery. So varied techniques conceal joint factors prize, consideration, clever applying feigned well business activities, often apply case facts another. 19 And here. find decisions precisely point us. courts defined various ways, far aware none ever contestant's at requirement.11 Some courts—with vigorous protest others—have requirement satisfied 'raffle' giving free chances persons who go store register order participate drawing prize,12 'bank night' gather front motion picture theatre primary paid patrons theatre.13 differ substantially To eligible here, single purchase anything pay admission price leave his visit promoter's place business; effort listening.14 20 believe stretching breaking give crime. Particularly true when through years Post Office consistently words contrary administrative interpretation. Thus Solicitor repeatedly ruled laws preclude mailing circulars advertising attack.15 Similarly, Attorney General— charged directly criminal laws—has refused bring action broadcasters programs.16 very action, noteworthy joined appealing below. 21 true, contended cases, interpret. There another Justice. If should broad urged same likewise cases. can sustained. Not lack support decided violence well-established principle penal construed strictly. 22 apparent matter concern Commission; believes evil guise, struck down devices cupidity spirit. unsuccessfully sought take them.17 Likewise, without success, Congress amend law specifically prohibit them.18 now seeks accomplish result regulations. doing so, over-stepped boundaries exceeded rule-making power. Regardless doubts others social expansion provide remedy.19 judgments 23 Affirmed. 24 DOUGLAS took U.S.C. (derived former 1934, 48 Stat. 1088—1089, repealed 62 862, 866): 'Whoever broadcasts means license States, whoever, operating knowingly permits of, advertisement information concerning list drawn said contains all prizes, shall fined $1,000 imprisoned year, both. 'Each day's separate offense.' Examples 'Stop Music' (American Broadcasting Company), 'What's My Name' (National 'Sing Again' (Columbia System). described American's complaint 117 follows: called telephone during program. On version, random directories. among those listeners express advance, postcards sent network, desire participate. versions, however, time he called, asked title musical played. event listening, some reason desires tune repeated, master ceremonies hums sings him telephone. answers correctly, receives merchandise prize; not, gets less valuable 'consolation' member studio then opportunity win identifying tune. receives, addition identify tune, 'Mystery Melody.' identifies wins 'jackpot' valued several thousand dollars. Should fail Melody,' process repeated. Addi- tions made week Melody' remains unidentified. National's Prizes famous clues short skit performed professional actors. chosen members audience. remaining telephone, watchband manufactured Government bonds clues. fails identification, amount added following week's subject clues, changed every week. Columbia's 119 Performers sing popular song repeat parody lyrics describing person, place, event. Contestants, directories, distance lyrics, 'Phantom Voice,' voice unrevealed person. Clues identity Voice' network. until identification made. 'consolation prize,' prize. 47 CFR, 1952 Cum.Supp., 3.656. enough cover solely position coverage intended, controversy delimited involving participating homes. 110 F.Supp. 374, 381. 402(a) 1093, 402(a), 402(a); 28 1336, 1398, 2284, 2321—2325, 2321—2325; Administrative Procedure Act, 60 243, 1009, 1009. Pub.L.No.901, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 64 1129, 1031, since procedure inapplicable commenced prior enactment. 383. 346 808, 31. authorized 4(i) 'make regulations, orders, may execution functions'; 303(r) 'Make regulations prescribe restrictions conditions, inconsistent law, carry chapter'; 307(a) 309(a) grant licenses renewals 'if public convenience, interest, necessity' thereby served; 312(a) revoke violation regulation Act. 1068, 154(i), 154(i); 50 191, 303(r), 303(r); 1083, 307(a), 307(a); 1085, 309(a), 309(a); 1086—1087, 312(a), 312(a). 'public issuance seem imply lawabiding. sufficiently permit consider applicant's past proposed especially bar conduct stations. proper why stated interpretative defining prohibited greater clarity. See National Co. 319 190, 222—224, 63 997, 1011—1013, 87 1344; cf. Steamship Labor Relations Board, 31, 46—47, 886, 894—895, 86 1246. A typical 'lottery' tickets sold ticketholders lot. Stone State Mississippi, 101 814, 25 1079. 'gift enterprise' differs involves property; purchaser property, 'free' drawing. Horner 147 449, 409, 37 237. whatever factual differences between 'lottery,' enterprise,' 'similar scheme,' traditional tests applicable each. distinguished legal elements. five sections—s 1301 1305 'Chapter 61—Lotteries' Title 18. 1305, 1950, exempts 'fishing contests' operation four sections. importing transporting tickets; 1302, related matter; 1303, postmasters employees; information. sections use terminology—'any chance'. first appeared 1909 amendments laws. 35 1130, 1136. adopted verbatim lotteries. With slight modifications became Code 1948 revision early country, see Spofford, Lotteries History, p. 171 1892 Report Historical Association, S. Misc. Doc. 57, 52d 2d. Sess. S.Rep.No.1620, 80th (1948); H.R.Rep.No. 304, 1st A99 (1947); S.Rep.No.781, 73d (1934); H.R.Rep.No.1850, H.R.Rep.No.1918, 49 S.Rep.No.564, 72d (1932); H.R.Rep.No.221, S.Rep.No.10, Part 60th (1909); H.R.Rep.No.2, (1909). legality state trial did because element lacking. Clef, Peoria Co., Equity 21368, Circuit County, Illinois (1939). (see note 9, supra) appear uniform valuable' Garden City Chamber Commerce, Inc., Wagner, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 100 769, stay denied, Cir., 192 F.2d 240; Publishing Murray, 230 F. 773, certiorari denied 241 675, 36 725, 1232. dictum Brooklyn Daily Eagle Voorhies, C.C.E.D.N.Y., 181 579, 581—582. leading Maughs Porter, 157 Va. 415, 161 S.E. 242; ex rel. Regez Blumer, 236 Wis. 129, 294 N.W. 491. Contra, Cross People, Colo. 321, 32 P. 821; 240. critical com- mentary supra, Notes, Va.L.Rev. 465 80 U. Pa.L.Rev. 744; Pickett, Contests Lottery Laws, 45 Harv.L.Rev. 1196, 1206. E.g., Affiliated Enterprises, Waller, Terry 28, 40 Del. A.2d 257; Gantz, 597. e.g., Darlington Theatres Coker, 190 S.C. 282, S.E.2d 782; Rock-Ola Mfg. Corp., D.C.N.D.Ill., 3. (e.g., Music,' 2, even requirement. practical matter, few questions unless listened 1949 (described mailable. 1950 conducted 'Truth Consequences' While earlier rulings had contrary, informally advised unreported record accord rulings, 1947 instructed local least 'an expenditure substantial time' enterprise instructions provided: 'In section, show (in chance) 'consideration' involves, example, payment purchases merchandise, ticket, account, requires time. hand, one's name registered deemed present.' (Italics added.) Postal Bulletin, 13, 1947. italicized language, judicially confirmed 1953, case, issued further narrowing meaning time.' June 4, 1953. Apparently prosecutions instituted Code. series letters Chairman 1940 General institute proceedings number response letter, 'careful concluded warranted Department.' 16, supra. 1943 Senate Interstate Commerce Committee approve amendment later become retained existing 'any extended prohibition offers money, gifts (as audience) chance.' No taken proposal. Cf. Halseth, 342 277, 280—281, 72 275, 276—277, 96 308.

Category: 7