CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS / PROPOSITION 188 : Ads Should State Tobacco Industry Role, FCC Urges : Commission staff advise radio, TV stations to clear up confusion over the chief sponsors of ballot initiative. Opponents say commercials mask firms’ involvement.

The Federal Communication Commission, trying to clear up confusion over the backers of Proposition 188, urged California radio and television broadcasters on Tuesday to inform voters that the tobacco industry is a chief sponsor of the ballot measure.

The non-binding staff advisory suggests that broadcasters use the full name of the ballot measure’s sponsoring group, rather than a shortened version that opponents say masks the tobacco industry’s strong involvement.

An attorney for the Proposition 188 campaign said the group was aware of the advisory and would issue new advertisements and announcements with the longer name.

Announcements about the proposition had been running with the tag line “Californians for Statewide Smoking Restrictions, Yes on 188,” the so-called corporate name.

Under the new request, stations are being asked to tack on the phrase “a Committee of California Hotels, Restaurants, Philip Morris Inc. and other tobacco companies.”

Philip Morris tobacco company is the initiative’s primary sponsor, having spent more than $5 million to promote it.

Opponents of 188 contend that the shorter, corporate name misleads voters by suggesting that the proposition is a tough anti-smoking measure. In fact, the proposition would roll back local smoking bans and prevent cities from regulating tobacco use in the future.

A Berkeley anti-smoking group, Americans for Non-Smokers Rights, complained to the FCC after an effort at voluntary compliance met with incomplete results.

“Our rules say the sponsor’s name must fully and fairly disclose the true identification of the person or persons or group” backing such ballot measures, said Milton Gross, chief of the commission’s political broadcasting branch. Because so little time remains before next Tuesday’s election, the FCC staff decided to issue the informal ruling and seek a final determination from the commission later.

“We found no case law on the issue. Rather than be cautious and wait to have the commission issue a final ruling, we decided to let the stations know informally,” Gross said.

Chip Nielsen, counsel for the Yes on 188 group, said: “I sent out a two-page memo (to backers) saying, ‘This is what’s going on, what do you want to do?’ . . . I then drafted a letter (to broadcasters) that explains new (TV and radio) spots will be sent out immediately. That’s the one thing that guarantees no hassle by any station. This is not a setback. It’s a staff verbal position one week before the election.”

Nielsen said the Proposition 188 group complied with the statutory requirements, which say that the full sponsorship name must be used on official campaign disclosure reports and direct mail.

“The (broadcasting issue) is a unique question. The FCC staff cannot answer it, and it needs to go the commission,” Nielsen said.

The Yes on 188 group will contest the staff ruling when it goes before the full commission, which almost certainly will happen after the election, Nielsen said.

Such informal rulings are fairly commonplace, said Abbie Baynes, an FCC special counsel.

Julia Carol, director of the Americans for Non-Smokers Rights, on Oct. 21 asked 20 radio stations to voluntarily use the longer sponsorship name, and about half complied. (Major TV spots had not begun then, Carol said, but FCC rulings generally apply to radio and television stations.)

After a station reneged on its decision, Carol filed the FCC complaint Oct. 24.

In light of Tuesday’s advisory, Carol said that lawyers for the ABC, CBS and Westinghouse networks had agreed to use the sponsorship name.