War Over Political TV Ads Heats Up

The letter from a Republican National Committee lawyer to television station managers across the country this week had a decidedly ominous tone. If the station did not stop running an AFL-CIO ad criticizing the local Republican congressman, the letter warned, “you leave yourself and your station exposed to legal action.”

At issue for the Republican committee were charges from the AFL-CIO that 20 Republicans in Congress had voted “to cut Medicare . . . to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.”

Republican officials argue that their proposed budget did neither--slowing the rate of growth in Medicare, but not cutting it. Democrats argue the proposed Medicare changes are truly a “cut” because recipients would receive fewer benefits even though inflation and the aging of the population would still cause spending to rise.

As for the tax cut, Republicans argue that their proposal would give 61% of its benefits to those making between $30,000 and $75,000 a year. That, they say, means it is not a cut “for the wealthy.” Democrats say the same figures prove that the cut is primarily for wealthy Americans because the wealthiest 10% of Americans would receive far more than 10% of the benefit.

Lawyers for the RNC argue that the AFL-CIO ads go beyond political debate and make claims that constitute a potential libel against Republican members of Congress.

“The Republican National Committee will urge defamed Republican members to pursue all available legal remedies and is prepared to assist them in that effort,” Republican counsel Thomas J. Josefiak said in his letter.

The heated letter is a sign of the rougher edges of political debate in this 1996 electoral season. The letter is simply the most dramatic of the political complaints coming to television station managers in recent months as ads become more negative and independent organizations begin to spend more on political advertising.

As a result, station managers increasingly have been asked to become the legal and political arbiters in a heated debate over what can be allowed in the nation’s political debate.

At the AFL-CIO, counsel Jonathan Hiatt also sent station managers a letter Friday that argued for the union’s right to run the ads.

“This Republican Party letter has no legal foundation and is simply a transparent effort to coerce your station into denying paid access by the AFL-CIO to the airwaves to inform workers and the public at large about its views on important legislative issues pending before the Congress,” Hiatt’s letter said.

The GOP is not the only one complaining about advertisements. Recently, for example, the California Republican Party began running an ad on illegal immigration, accusing the Clinton administration of blocking efforts to stop illegal immigrants from using welfare benefits. When the Democrats protested the ad was inaccurate, officials at KNBC-TV in Los Angeles pulled the ad and asked the Republicans to substantiate their claims. After the station was satisfied, the ad began running again about a day later, a spokesman for the station said.

The RNC’s letter raises the stakes by threatening a libel suit, but libel lawyers and television executives said the move appeared to be less a legal threat than a political gambit.

“That’s saber-rattling,” said William Moll, president and general manager of WKRC-TV in Cincinnati where the ad is on the air. “They’re trying to intimidate the station and that’s just wrong.”

Washington, D.C., libel lawyer Henry Hoberman said: “If the RNC were to file a lawsuit, it would have a shelf life of about 30 seconds.” First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams similarly argued that the letter “is preposterous legally.”

But, Abrams added, the effort is “dangerous from any 1st Amendment perspective. The notion that a serious libel suit could be commenced about a hotly disputed political issue is abhorrent to our belief that these issues should be decided in the court of public opinion.”

For Republicans, the real question is not whether the letter leads to court action but whether it is strong enough to dissuade stations from running the ads, which target 20 Republican congressmen by name in their home districts.

“This is the most egregious case that we have seen and that is why this is the strongest letter that we have sent out,” said Mary Meade Crawford, press secretary for the Republican National Committee.

At least one station already had decided not to run the ad. At WHO-TV in Des Moines, General Manager Jerry Giesler decided this week not to run the ad because it accused a local Republican of voting to “destroy Medicare.”

“Destroy is a very strong word, and we would fire someone from our newsroom who used a word like that,” Giesler said, adding that he had made the decision to drop the ad on Wednesday, two days before he received the GOP letter.

Some stations, including WEHT-TV in Evansville, Ind., have decided to cancel all issue-oriented ads that do not come from candidates.

When a candidate runs an ad, the station cannot censor it, said Steven Bookshester, associate general counsel of the National Assn. of Broadcasters. Ads from interest groups have no such protection.

When one side sends out a letter threatening to take a station to court or to complain to the Federal Communications Commission, Bookshester advises that the stations ask the group running the ad for documents supporting their charges.