Candidates’ Ad Rates Too High, FCC Says : Media: Audit shows TV and radio stations overcharge for political commercials. Consultants say the practice encourages negative campaigns.

A Federal Communications Commission audit released Friday has found widespread evidence that television and radio broadcasters overcharge political candidates for advertising time in violation of federal law.

The practice is a major factor, many political professionals believe, in driving up the price of political campaigning, making candidates more beholden to contributors and encouraging the trend toward quick-hit attack politics.

The surprise audit of 20 TV stations in five cities during the summer primaries found that 80% charged political candidates more than they did other advertisers. Such practices directly violate federal campaign finance laws, which state that, during the campaign season, stations should charge candidates “the lowest unit charge” possible for the same category of ads.

In one city, candidates paid an average of $6,000 for a 30-second television spot, while the average cost of a commercial spot during the same time period was only $2,713, according to the audit.

Candidates fared somewhat better at the eight radio stations audited. Overcharging occurred at only half of those.

“The FCC’s audit of political advertising rates confirms what candidates have known for some time, that broadcasters routinely ignore the law,” said Sen. John C. Danforth, (R-Mo.). “It is such abuse that has driven the cost of politics through the roof.”

The National Assn. of Broadcasters quickly blamed broadcasting regulations that are “complex and difficult to interpret” for the violations. “We are confident that the vast majority of broadcasters make good-faith efforts to comply with political broadcast rules,” said Edward O. Fritts, president of the trade group. “Historically, the commission has not done a good job of educating broadcasters to the various nuances in this important area.”

The law requiring lower rates for political advertising was enacted in 1972 “to give candidates for public office greater access to the media . . . and to halt the spiraling cost of campaigning for public office,” according to the statute.

But research shows that the cost of running for office in this country is doubling every six years, and the largest single campaign cost is television time.

One reason is that many television stations skirt the campaign laws by creating a special category of advertising that only politicians would buy, making comparisons with commercial rates impossible, Danforth and other critics said.

In addition, the FCC audit found that standardized advertising rates have become effectively obsolete. Advertising rates are generally negotiated. But, because political candidates are not long-term clients, they have little basis for getting lower rates in exchange for long-term commitments.

“Such sales practices frustrate the intent of Congress,” the FCC audit said.

The implications of rising advertising rates are significant, political professionals said. For one, it makes politicians more susceptible to influence-peddlers and petty corruption, said Democratic media consultant David Axelrod. “The more you have to spend to get exposure, the more beholden a candidate is to special interests and contributors.”

Others worry that rising costs are compressing and abbreviating the nature of political discourse. “Very rarely will you see a 60-second ad any more,” said Republican consultant Eddie Mahe. “That is because today 60 seconds cost twice as much as 30,” which was once not true.

Democratic political consultant Robert Squier has argued that rising TV costs are one of the causes of negative attack campaigning. With TV time prohibitively expensive, he said, candidates can no longer afford building support through a sequence of biographical ads followed by positive message ads. Instead, they air short ads that will get a powerful message across as quickly as possible, and that generally means an attack ad.

The FCC audit did not divulge which stations had overcharged. Nor did the commission sanction any of the stations audited, although it may do so after further investigation, said Roy Stewart, chief of the FCC’s mass media bureau. The stiffest sanction, though unlikely, would require a station to forfeit up to $250,000 in revenue.

The audit was conducted in San Francisco, Cincinnati, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Philadelphia and Portland.