CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS PROPOSITION 134 : Pressure Increases to Deny Proponents Free Air Time

California voters don’t go to the polls until November, but a ballot measure that would substantially increase taxes on beer, wine and liquor may well be decided in the next few weeks in the boardrooms and corporate offices of the state’s radio and television stations.

As a major part of its strategy to defeat Proposition 134, the tax increase proposal, the alcoholic beverage industry and advertising businesses that serve it are putting strong pressure on broadcasters to deny the measure’s promoters critical free advertising time.

A week ago, the industry-financed Taxpayers for Common Sense threatened to withdraw its political advertising from any station that gave opponents free time. Now the influential American Assn. of Advertising Agencies has weighed in on the side of the industry, urging stations to deny requests for free air time from consumer and public-interest groups.

“If you give free time to the Proposition 134 promoters, the revenue must be recaptured elsewhere, meaning higher prices for all other advertisers,” said Robert Stephens, vice president of the association’s western region wrote the stations.

Because a key part of the promoters’ strategy is obtaining as much free commercial time under the Federal Communications Commission’s fairness doctrine as possible, the Proposition 134 sponsors say broadcasters’ reaction could determine the outcome of the campaign.

“They (alcoholic beverage interests) not only want a David and Goliath battle, they want to muzzle David,” said Jim Shultz, a consumer activist and adviser to Californians for Yes on 134. “In many ways (free air time is) the only hope that we have of getting our message to the voters. If they can keep the 134 message from radio and television, then it doesn’t leave us a lot more other avenues.”

Others see the industry’s tactics, if successful, as setting a precedent that could affect future campaigns and efforts by public-interest, consumer and environmental organizations to pass initiatives. If broadcasters accede to the industry’s wishes this time, they say, they will be more likely to do the same in future campaigns.

Leo McElroy, media consultant for Californians for Yes on 134, said: “What the liquor industry is really doing is blazing the trail for any industry organization that wants to influence public opinion by attempting to ensure there will not be an evenhanded look at issues in the broadcast arena.”

In recent years, the FCC’s fairness doctrine has been the lifeblood of campaigns by public-interest groups to pass initiatives. Free radio and television advertising helped make the difference in successful efforts in 1988 to pass Proposition 99, a measure that increased taxes on cigarettes, and Proposition 103, an initiative designed to cut insurance rates and overhaul the regulatory system.

The fairness doctrine requires that when “controversial issues of public importance” are on the ballot, both sides must be fairly covered by the broadcast media. Attorneys say that means whenever one side of an issue receives substantial air time through paid advertising, the other side must also be presented through public affairs programming, news coverage or free advertising time.

Many broadcasters, particularly those without ample resources, meet fairness doctrine requirements by agreeing to run a certain number of advertisements without charge for the side that cannot afford to buy the air time.

But this year, the alcoholic beverage industry is arguing that the promoters of Proposition 134 are “financed by wealthy individuals” and intend to mount a $1-million advertising assault just before November. To back up their claims, they note that similar tactics were used by groups that promoted the cigarette tax hike and some of those same groups are also involved in the campaign to increase alcoholic beverage taxes.

“Obviously from our standpoint it doesn’t make sense for our opposition to get commercial time for free when they will have money to pay for it in the last weeks of the campaign,” said Rick Manter, executive director of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

McElroy said the campaign initially raised nearly $1 million, but those funds were exhausted by signature-gathering efforts to qualify for the ballot. He said the campaign has little hope of raising more than enough money to “pay our bills and meet our payroll.” He said emergency room doctors have provided substantial funds for the campaign’s early efforts, but their association has advised the campaign that they have no more funds to give.