Court Opinion

ID: 9456953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:07:36.239994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:09.595585
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in the result. Petitioner Kay has not pressed in this court his claim that he was entitled to broadcast time under the fairness doctrine. And in the administrative proceedings, he did not raise, and the Commission did not consider, the question whether petitioner can be deemed to have “opposed” the Republican primary candidates1 on the ground that Ohio’s election laws permitted any voter, regardless of prior political affiliation, to vote in the American Independent Party primary.2 Thus the sole question Kay has presented is whether the bare words of Section 315 require that he be granted equal time. On this point — the only issue on which I believe *649it necessary or wise to express an opinion — I agree with my brethren that in these circumstances neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history compel the result Kay demands.

. Compare Use of Broadcast Facilities by Candidates for Public Office, Part V: When Are Candidates Opposing Candidates, 24 F.C.C.2d 832, 863 (1970).

. See page 648 of the majority opinion.