CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS: PROPOSITION 134 : Probe Urged Into Alcohol Industry Threat on Free Ads

Supporters of Proposition 134, an initiative that would hike taxes on beer, wine and liquor, announced Monday that they will seek an attorney general’s investigation of threats by alcoholic beverage interests to cancel political advertising with broadcasters who give the proposal’s promoters free time.

“It’s bullying. It’s a violation of voters’ rights in the most basic form,” said Assemblyman Lloyd G. Connelly (D-Sacramento), an author of the proposal. “It’s clearly extortion, (although) whether it’s criminal extortion is a question in my mind.”

In a letter last week, Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization financed by the alcoholic beverage industry to battle Proposition 134, warned broadcasters throughout the state that it might withdraw its advertising from any station that grants free air time to proponents of the November ballot measure.

Citing the Fairness Doctrine of the Federal Communications Commission, the proposition’s supporters had requested that stations run free advertisements to balance the millions of dollars in negative ads being aired by the industry organization. At least 40 stations responded to the request and the 60-second spots began running Monday.

Under the Fairness Doctrine, if one side in a ballot measure fight is given substantial air time either through paid advertising or programming, then the broadcaster must also make time available to present opposing views. Although broadcasters can settle this obligation through their regular programming or news shows, most choose to do it by offering free air time.

Connelly said he will ask for an attorney general’s investigation because the threats, if successful, could set a dangerous precedent that would discourage broadcasters in the future from offering free time to consumer and public-interest groups.

But alcohol industry officials said they could see no law or rule that had been violated by their warning to broadcasters and questioned what justification the attorney general would have to look into the matter. So far, they said, no advertising has been pulled from any station.

“This missive that was sent is a plain business decision made by people in essence who don’t want to be buying advertising for the other side,” said John Jervis, an industry spokesman.

He said the proposition’s supporters were trying to mislead broadcasters by claiming that they had no funds to counter the industry advertising when an internal memorandum indicated that they plan to launch their own $1-million advertising campaign just before the November election. But pointing to a bank balance of $5,000 and debts of $40,000, the measure’s media consultant, Leo McElroy, said the campaign to pass Proposition 134 had no hope of raising $1 million for advertising. He said a campaign worker did talk in a July memorandum of a $1-million advertising blitz just before the election, but it was never considered a serious possibility by any of the campaign’s leaders.

Officials at the California Broadcasters Assn., meanwhile, advised their members to ignore the threats and abide by the Fairness Doctrine.

“We can’t pay any attention to (threats),” said Victor Biondi, the association’s executive director. He said what is at stake for broadcasters is not advertising revenue but their license and “if you cave in (to advertisers) you’re subject to discipline by the commission.”