EN BANC HEARING OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON NETWORK PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE TIME TO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES Volume: 1 Pages: 1 through 104 Place: Washington, D. C. Date: June 25, 1996 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In Re Applications of: ) ) EN BANC HEARING OF THE COMMISSIONERS ) On Network Proposals to ) Provide Time to Presidential ) Candidates ) FCC Building 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. Tuesday, June 25, 1996 The parties met, pursuant to the notice at 2:10 p.m. APPEARANCES: On behalf of Federal Communications Commission: REED E. HUNDT, CHAIRMAN RACHELLE B. CHONG, COMMISSIONER JAMES H. QUELLO, COMMISSIONER SUSAN NESS, COMMISSIONER On Behalf of Network Proposals: KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON, UNIV. OF PA MICHAEL I. MEYERSON, UNIV. OF BALT. LAW SCHOOL PAUL TAYLOR, THE FREE TV FOR STRAIGHT TALK COALITION RUPERT MURDOCH, FOX BROADCASTING CO. SENATOR BILL BRADLEY, (D-NJ) SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, (R-AZ) CHARLES T. MANATT, FORMER CHAIRMAN, DNC FRANK J. FAHRENKOPF, JR., FORMER CHAIRMAN, RNC DR. JOHN HAGELIN, NATURAL LAW PARTY JOHN K. ANDREWS, JR., TCI NEWS NORMAN J. ORNSTEIN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE ANDREW J. SCHWARTZMAN, MEDIA ACCESS PROJECT TIMOTHY B. DYK, JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE WILLIAM J. MCCARTER, WTTW (TV), CHICAGO, IL P R O C E E D I N G S 2:10 P.M. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Let me call the FCC En Banc Hearing on Network Proposals to Provide Time to Presidential Candidates in order. I have a brief description of the way we will organize this matter and then we will move to the opening statements by myself and my colleagues on the Commission. I guess that's the first thing I wanted to tell you, which is we will open with the opening statements by the Commissioners and then we will have statements by the panel participants, three minutes each. And we have a ruthless and precise moderator of time over to my right. And I am very willing to do her bidding, which consists, I'm sorry to say, of interrupting you in mid-sentence if necessary. So I apologize in advance if it seems abrupt but I am sure you all will appreciate that with so many distinguished witnesses, we wouldn't want anyone to borrow from anyone else's time. And after all the statements, we will have question and answer, which will consist of two rounds of ten minutes of questions and answers by each of the Commissioners. Senator Bradley and Senator McCain are in debate on the Senate floor. When last I was informed about this, I think it was a debate on some issues that were involved directly with this -- or indirectly with today's subject. The McCain-Feingold Bill. But in any event, that's why they are not here yet. When they do arrive, we'll take a brief break. And also, Mr. Murdoch is enroute from a board meeting. We are very happy that he was able to accommodate both us and a board meeting in a different city. And so if we get to his turn in the agenda and he's not here yet, we'll just move on. But we will put him in to accommodate him when he does arrive. So without further ado, should we move to the opening statements? - OPENING STATEMENTS - (CHAIRMAN HUNDT) CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Well, I think today, our particular job is, first of all, to thank all of the witnesses for their willingness to help inform us. We are considering our particular function in this matter, which is to examine our rules and to decide whether under our rules, we are obliged to or we ought to look a gift horse in the mouth. I am talking specifically about Section 315, and I know the issues will be eliminated by the witnesses, so I won't try to do that job for you. I will simply say in my brief opening remarks that I think that the competition by the presidential candidates for eyes, ears, and votes of the American public is another kind of competition that all of us certainly want to promote in the communications sector, along with the competition that is going to be engendered by the new telecommunications law of 1996. I think it ought to be agreed quickly by all of us that an informed electorate is crucial to our democratic process. I read a survey by Pugh recently that said that 81 percent of Americans -- 81 percent -- get virtually all of their news about the presidential campaign from television. So I think we can all stipulate to the critical importance of TV in our electoral process. I think we also can stipulate to the critical importance of broadcast TV in this process. Certainly, in primetime, all surveys show that about two out of every three Americans hooked up to cable, in fact, are watching broadcast channels in that primetime. Broadcasters have a public interest responsibility. They don't disagree with that and I think that they know that they can provide no greater public service than giving us an informed electorate and giving us a democratic process that we are aware of. In that connection, I want right at the very beginning to commend, congratulate and thank the four networks, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, as well as the Public Broadcasting Service for the initiatives that they have already made, to provide free time for presidential candidates. And I'm sure many of you will be discussing those specific initiatives. Thanks very much. I also wanted to take time to commend Paul Taylor who gave up a paying job to engage in this particular enterprise. And is the Executive Director of the Free TV for Straight Talk Coalition. I was noting to him earlier today that I read in the newspaper that he has achieved his wishes in substantial part already, and it's been announced in the newspapers that that's taken place. The degree to which Paul, himself, feels that way, he can tell us about when we get to his turn in the hearing. But I do want to thank him and commend him for the public citizenship that he has shown. The purpose of this hearing, I think, is two-fold. First, we want to make sure that our policies on political broadcasting, driven by a statute and by rule, do not inadvertently work against creative ideas on the part of broadcasters that can improve the political debate. We want to make sure that we don't have any unintended consequences of our rules, as this free time effort begins to become a reality. Second, we seek common advice about whether and how we can write or re-write our policies and rules so as to make it easier for broadcasters to voluntarily make air time available to Political Candidates. But I do want to make sure you all understand that, speaking for myself, I am quite aware of the significance of the issues raised by which you might want to call the non-major party candidates. I think that the issues deserve to be ventilated. I am glad that we are going to hear testimony from a representative of that particular category. Dr. Hagelin, is that how you pronounce it? DR. HAGELIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Dr. Hagelin. And I think it's very important that in a democracy we recognize that we need to be sensitive not only to the most publicized candidates, but to a process that continually demonstrates to us its flexibility and suppleness by giving us other candidates and other parties from time-to-time in our history. So that concludes my opening statements. Thank you very much. Commissioner Quello? (COMMISSIONER QUELLO) COMMISSIONER QUELLO: You bet, I certainly endorse your statement and it takes care of the two or three paragraphs of my statement too, so that's very fine. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Well, actually, I borrowed your copy. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER QUELLO: No, I don't think so. I'll say this, it was too well done. Anyway, I am especially interested today in the way that we all approach the future development of the government's role, especially, in terms of how we may best move toward greater flexibility in the Commission's rules covering political broadcasting. A little later, I will tell you of a bad experience I had as a broadcaster 35 years ago, when I had to give time to three French candidates. And got comments - - better save for later. But in some respects, perhaps the best path toward the future may necessarily rely on further congressional action, particularly to the extent we begin to find it most effective to expand the current exemptions in order to promote greater access to the public to the coverage of debates and other political programming. At the present, I am concerned that government regulation of programming this area, through the requirement of equal time, may limit the coverage of debates and other events involving major candidates. Therefore, I look forward to discussing the attributes of the proposals made by the various networks in order to see how a measure of flexibility may be extended to provide better information to the public during the election year. Thank you. That's mine. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Commissioner Ness? (COMMISSIONER NESS) COMMISSIONER NESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome our distinguished panelists. Your efforts and advice are very much appreciated. Speech concerning public affairs is the essence of self-government. Supreme Court Justice Brennan wrote these words in 1964. They still ring true today. KDKA in Pittsburgh first broadcast election results on the eve of November 2, 1920, and ever since, the airwaves have been an essential conduit to disseminate political news, information and points of view. Because it goes to the very heart and soul of our democracy, there is no more important policy that we administer but ensuring robust political debate. So I am pleased that we are holding this En Banc today. Today we consider a number of specific requests to use the airwaves to provide fuller and more varied information to the public about political candidates. I applaud the voluntary efforts on the part of broadcasters to better serve their communities by increasing the quantity and the quality of election-related programming. These efforts were not initiated pursuant to government mandate. Rather, they are a superb example of corporate leaders seeking to give substance to the role as public trustees. It would be paradoxical if our equal opportunities rules, which are intended to enhance debate, were applied in a way that inhibited broadcasters from carrying additional political discourse to better inform the electorate. It is essential that we address these issues in a responsible and timely fashion before we enter the fall Political Campaign season. Both broadcaster and candidates have a right to know in advance how our rules would be applied to the proposed programming. My objectives for this hearing today are three- fold. First, to find a way to apply our statutory provisions to foster wide-spread dissemination of political debate, without trampling on the rights of third-party candidates. Second, to avoid inadvertently creating loopholes or incentives that could be used by some broadcasters to favor certain candidates, thereby, contravening the spirit of the equal opportunities provisions. And third, to shed light on the role of cable and cable programming in political discourse. Section 315 explicitly applies to operators of cable systems. As candidates increasingly purchase national and local spots on cable networks, application of the equal opportunities provisions to cable operators and cable networks will need to be addressed. In short, this hearing is both important and timely. And just as a spirited campaign helps voters to make informed choices, I hope a lively debate this afternoon will help the Commission to formulate the right policy on free air time for Political Candidates. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Commission Chong? (COMMISSIONER CHONG) COMMISSION CHONG: Thank you. Broadcasting is a very powerful communicator of ideas in American life. It informs us, it teaches us, and it provides a common cultural bond that holds us together as a nation. In our democracy, broadcasting has become a key way in which American voters learn about our presidential candidates. And like many Americans, I've watched televised presidential debates and relied on them in helping me decide how I wanted to vote. Televised candidate debates gives us new prospectives on the candidates' characters, on their stands on the issues, on their personalities. In short, televised debates and other election programs inform voters in ways that other media can't match. In recent months, a number or broadcasters have come to the Commission with voluntary proposals offering to provide free television time for major presidential candidates. I applaud these efforts and I highlight their variety. Each proposal demonstrates the judgment of the broadcaster about how best to serve its audience and get information about the candidates out to the public. At the outset, I wanted to make clear that I don't believe that government ought to encroach on the independent judgment of the broadcasters to choose how they should cover or present political information or news. The Commission has been asked to consider whether the proposals of two networks, and PBS should be exempt from the equal time requires of Section 315 of the Communications Act as bona fide news events, consistent with exemptions established by Congress and the Commission's case law interpreting those exemptions. And for me, the starting point of the analysis should be Congress' goal in creating the news exemptions. As I understand it, the primary goal of Congress in enacting the exemptions was to provide incentives for better news coverage of the political process, which in turn, would lead to a better informed electorate. Thus, I ask broadly whether the rulings requested by the parties will further this goal. More specifically, I would like to hear the panelists' views regarding what activity should be exempt from the equal time provision of 315. And I am specifically interested in hearing your views on our cases interpreting Section 315. Do the proposals that are before us fit with an existing precedent? Should the time that's been volunteered be exempt from the equal time rule? And what effect would it have on the nature of the political debate in this and other presidential years? I would also observe that the number of mass media outlets has increased dramatically in recent years. Today there is many more television and radio stations than before. Cable TV reaches about 66 percent of American households. They offer new ways for candidates to get their messages across. I mentioned, for example, CSPAN 1&2, the cable satellite public affairs network paid for by the cable industry, major political candidates are able to deliver their messages there unedited to American citizens. Should the fact that there are many more mass media outlets, and thus, many more platforms for political candidates, alter the way that we approach our cases under 315? What specific ways should we change our rules? Finally, if there is a need for more action, is there a need for statutory change? These are the questions that I am interested in today. Thank you to all of you for coming. I know you have taken time out of you busy schedule to be here, and I appreciate that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: And we'll just move from this side to that side. From Stage Left to Stage Right, in terms of listening to the witnesses for their three minutes statements. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the very distinguished dean of the Annenberg Center. It's good to see you here, thank you very much. - WITNESS STATEMENTS - (Kathleen Hall Jamieson) MS. JAMIESON: Thank you for inviting me. I would like to answer four questions. First, how do we know that free time is going to enhance the political dialogue rather than debase it? Why short, rather than longer? Will the public watch? And how can we increase the likelihood that this will be a beneficial experience for the electorate? My reading of history suggests that when candidates speak in their own voice, rather than in the voice-overs of ads, or in the editing form of sound bites in news, their discourse is more likely to be constructive. And that means to argue rather than assert, to advocate rather than attack, and to be accountable. Their discourse is also in that form, more likely to be civil. Those are all characteristics I think we ought to be trying to increase in political discourse. If you look at the chart that I have provided for the Commissioners, what you will see, drawn from the campaign mapping project that we have undertaken with support form the Ford and Carnegie Foundations, is that in speeches and debates, after 1960, candidates consistently are less likely to attack and to edict. 1960 is the aberration for a very important reason. In 1960, the advertising was delivered primarily by the candidates directly to camera speaking in their own voice. I think this chart becomes compelling evidence for the advantage of the free time proposals that have been put forward by the networks. Secondly, what are the advantages of shorter discourse? First, it tends to be more focused. Secondly, it tends to be more viewed than longer discourse, and that has a real advantage. Because an entire section of the potential electorate does not get much information from news. It's only major source of common experience in politics is presidential debates. And it comes to them without a base of knowledge that lets it learn as much as it otherwise might learn from debates. The low involvement viewer is more likely to watch, and hence, to learn from these shorter forums and that is a major advantage. Third, will the public watch? Skeptics have argued that the public doesn't want more unmediated exposure to the candidates. In fact, skeptics assume that the offered time will attract few viewers. To fairly test this assumption, I think the networks ought to consider doing what they do when they launch and sustain their high priority programs. They ought to provide good, predictable placement. Out of good, predictable placement, I think we will be able to determine whether there is, in fact, an unmet hunger on the part of the public. If we don't have good and predictable placement, we are going to have a self- fulfilling prophecy, a public that can't find the time, won't watch, and will say it never wanted it to begin with. The citizenry will lose. How do we ensure that we are going to increase learning? I encourage the networks to consider finding a way to have candidates address a common issue, either on the same evening or in parallel nights. Thus, to get the advantage of having the focus that lets the audience compare. One of the reasons audience's consistently learn from debates is because they have this kind of focus. Thank you for the opportunity. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thank you very much. Mike Meyerson, one of our most distinguished academics in this particular field. A professor at the University of Baltimore Law School. Mike? (Michael I. Meyerson) MR. MEYERSON: Thank you very much. At the outset, I would like to state that in my opinion, the Fox proposal is a good one. It provides for increase voter knowledge of candidates and minimizes the risk of political favoritism. It meets the requirements of both federal law and serves the public interest. But I think of greater, lasting import, though, will be the reasoning the Commission uses. The reason will govern not only future presidential contests, but thousands of state and local elections as well. As an initial matter, the Commission should not be distracted by an erroneous reading of the First Amendment. Television broadcasting has not been deregulated. The Commission is still charged with performing a delicate task, protecting the public interest in the public airwaves, while simultaneously respecting the First Amendment rights of licensees. But the Commission need not, and I would say may not, simply by a rubber stamp to broadcaster's request for exemptions. Under Supreme Court precedent, there is not a question that the First Amendment would not stop the Commission from rejecting a proposal that violates the equal opportunities law. For example, if Fox were proposing that only one candidate be given free air time, that scheme would not be immunized by an assertion that the broadcaster viewed this message as genuine news value. Now, newspapers regularly make such determination and it is free of all government restraint. But we must keep in mind that broadcasters are in a different situation, because unlike their print counterparts, they are the willing, special beneficiaries of a limited government resource. The question for the Commission today, therefore, is to evaluate whether the proposals squares with the Communications Act. Federal law, I think, is understood best as a health distrust of everybody who has power. A recognition that the Commission and government should not make certain decisions and broadcasters cannot be trusted fully either. No one can be trusted. But this doesn't reflect on individuals, it's simply the risks created by the combustible mixture of power, speech and elections. The Commission, like every other government agency, should be very careful, should not attempt to determine the content and quality of speech. But at the same time, broadcasters should not be given free reign to control the limited resources which they have been gifted by the government. Not only is their danger that political benefactors are rewarded and political agendas pursued, there is simply no impulse for presenting the truly wide divergent fuse that mark our political spectrum. The Fox proposal goes a very way towards reducing the risk of favoring candidates. Most notably to me, the decision as to whom to include is not made by Fox, but by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I think when broadcaster delegate evaluative functions to outsiders, it's like the private equivalent of a federal separation of powers. It's always been an effective way to defuse power and reduce the risk of abuse. The major concern raised by many of the Commissioners today is, what about others? What about the "fringe" candidates? There is always a loss to political speech when candidates are not able to be heard. Under current law though, broadcasters cannot be forced to provide free time for all. If more political speech is beneficial to society, it would be counter-productive for the Commission to limit broadcasters to an all or nothing regimen. There is no statutory requirement that the ideal be the enemy of the good. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thanks Mike. MR. MEYERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: In this case, the short is the enemy of the more articulate. I'm sorry about that. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Paul? (Paul Taylor) MR. TAYLOR: Thanks for this hearing. Three brief comments and I hope I can beat the clock. The first has to do with whether applying a bona fide news event exempt to the various free time formats proposed for the presidential campaign this year is unfair to minor candidates, given that they would be unlikely to receive time. And let me start with a stipulation. Our political system is rigged against independent candidates and third-parties. But the rigging does not arise from broadcast regulations such as 315. It arises from our electoral system itself. We have always been a two-party duopoly. Our election laws all but require it. Unlike the proportional representation electoral models used in the Parliamentary democracies of Europe and elsewhere, our Congressional election model of, winner take all, and single member districts, discourages a multiplicity of parties at the local level. Despite this rigging, history shows that third- parties and independent candidacies do arise from time-to- time in this country as a useful check on the arrogance of two-party power. History also shows that they tend to be short-lived, that they typically get absorbed into the major parties, but that they often succeed in projecting new ideas into the political mainstream. Free broadcast time, restricted under the bona fide news event exemption to the major candidates does not alter any of these dynamics, it accepts them. Accepting them, it seeks to enrich the electoral process and the very meaning of citizen's sovereignty by arming citizens with the information they need to choose wisely among the candidates who have a competitive chance to win elective office. My second point is in the form of an appeal to the broadcast industry. The major networks have come forward with a grab bag of free time offers for the presidential candidates this fall. Though a welcome first step, these offers won't in their current uncoordinated form, change the look, feel, or sound of presidential politics on television this fall. The public is desperate for a change. They want something better than a dreary dialogue dominated by thirty- second attack ads, and seven second sound bites. If the networks would coordinate their proposals, and offer the candidates a few primetime minutes a night for the final month of the campaign, it seems to me we would open up a powerful new mode of discourse, one that would provide a platform for substance and a guarantee of accountability. Finally, my last point is an appeal to President Clinton. I believe he has the chance to make this new and better way of campaigning on television a reality this fall. Yesterday, his opponent, Bob Dole, agreed to give ten made- for-TV mini-speeches, each lasting two and a half minutes in the final month of the campaign. If President Clinton were to make the same commitment now, then I believe the television industry would step up to its public interest responsibilities and air these speeches in primetime. The result will be a better informed, more engaged, and I believe less cynical electorate. Former Israeli Prime Minister, Shimon Peres, once remarked of television that, "It makes dictatorship impossible, but democracy unbearable." As we celebrate the first half of that aphorism, in the great global flowering of democracy that's occurred in centuries end, it seems to me we in the United States, the world's oldest democracy, owe it to ourselves to give the lie to the second. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thanks very much. I hope the other panelists will indulge me if I compliment Mr. Murdoch in his presence, as I did earlier in his absence. I think that Fox's generosity has helped kick-start this whole process and I specifically would like to recall and identify the very visionary speech that the National Association of Broadcasters that Mr. Murdoch gave, now some moons ago, in which he articulated the broadcaster's obligation as trustees of the public airwaves in a way that I think is not only enduring, but also sets the right tone for the future. Thank you very much for being here. I know that you went to some effort to accommodate us and I appreciate it. And I'm sorry we can only give you three minutes for the opening statement. (Rupert Murdoch) MR. MURDOCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. A few months ago, as you said, I publicly committed the Fox network to provide the major candidates for president with two distinct opportunities to present their views unfiltered to the American voters. On election-eve, Fox will provide 60 minutes during primetime, equally divided between the candidates, for each candidate to answer one question, why should the American voter vote for you? Also, between September the 15th and November the 2nd, Fox will carry ten, sixty-second responses provided by each of the candidates to a series of questions of demonstrable concern to voters. Not five seconds sound bites, filtered by anchormen, news reporters and editors. Just the candidates, communicating directly with the voters. We have committed to take these steps unilaterally, and we have offered to do more if we can reach an agreement with the other broadcast networks to join us. Campaign costs have skyrocketed in recent years. Arguably, television advertising has been the biggest single factor in these rapid increases. And we, broadcasters, have found many of these increased campaign dollars landing in our own pockets. In one sense, this movement towards mass-media is not a bad thing. Candidates can reach millions of voters who were not easily reached earlier with their political messages. But the bad news is that the expense of mass- communications has put our elected officials on a seemingly endless, fundraising treadmill. I do not worry as some do that candidates are corrupted in the course of seeking financial support. But I worry about the excessive time and effort that candidates must spend in fundraising. The average U.S. Senator must raise $4,000.00 per day, everyday, for six years, if he or she wishes to mount a re-election campaign. That cannot be good for our political system. For years, I have stood by, have in fact, participated in this fundraising treadmill, and done nothing to correct it. Well, now Fox Broadcasting is taking one small, very imperfect step forward to do something. We hope our proposal will serve as a test case. We hope the candidates will use their election eve coverage and their one-minute segments in the week before the election, to truly address issues of concern to the public. If our structured news coverage offer could be a first step in advancing the goal of less campaign money, it would be a good thing. But even if this first step cannot be taken without the Commission's support, for us to go forward, the Commission must determine that the Fox proposal falls within the framework that the bona fide news interview and on-the-spot news coverage exemptions of the equal time law. We believe that our proposal complies with both the letter and the spirit of equal time law which Congress enacted to ensure equal treatment of political candidates. First, Fox will not exercise any control over the content of the candidates' statements. Second, a consulting firm unaffiliated with Fox will prepare the ten candidates' questions. Each of the candidates responses will be aired on primetime program with comparable audience size. The order of the candidates' statements will be determined by a coin toss and will then be reversed in a rotating sequence. And finally, the ten responses by each of the candidates will regularly scheduled and will receive advance promotion. These safeguards satisfy Congress' intent that the programs be of genuine news value and not be used to advance the candidacy of a particular individual. If the Commission does not rule that our proposed coverage falls within the equal time exemptions, Fox cannot proceed. While we respect the reviews of all candidates, it is not possible to offer valuable air time to candidates who have failed during the campaign to attain any significant public support. Fox proposes to rely on a well-established precedent for determining which candidates should be covered, those that are authorized by the Commission on Presidential Debates. We fully understand that our proposal cannot solve all of the problems associated with the financing of political campaigns, or even most of them. But someone has to start somewhere. We are prepared to do more if we can reach a voluntary agreement with our fellow broadcasters to devote additional hours, half hours, or minutes of news event coverage to candidates in road-block time periods which do not conflict with any network's live sporting event. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, if this Commission gives us the go ahead, we are prepared to start here. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thanks very much. Senator -- AUDIENCE MEMBER: Excuse me. Despite Mr. Murdoch's sugary words, it's very clear now that the proposal from the Fox network it aimed at the corporate nomination of the political process through the -- CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Let me ask you to sit down please. AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- of the networks, to include only the democrats and republicans on the airwaves, prohibiting those that support candidates that represent third-party candidates, the Supreme Court, unrepresented constituents -- CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Could you sit down please? AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- community, women, the working class in this country. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Excuse me. We are in a hearing, we are taking testimony, could you sit down please. AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- workers who are a party. We demand -- CHAIRMAN HUNDT: I am going to have to adjourn the meeting. AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- of all the legal duties -- CHAIRMAN HUNDT: All right, I apologize to the panelists. We will temporarily adjourn. All right, I must have said the magic word. As I was about to say, Senator Bradley and Senator McCain, obviously, are still on the hill. So what we will do is move on to Mr. Manatt and Mr. Fahrenkopf, and then when the senators arrive, we'll accommodate their schedules if the panelists don't mind us doing that. And, of course, Chuck Manatt and Frank Fahrenkopf for their former Chairs of the DNC and the RNC. So we are glad to see them here as a dynamic duo, sharing their wisdom and experience with us. Chuck? (Charles T. Manatt) MR. MANATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Commissioners. My delight in being here this afternoon. I want to take this opportunity really to highlight two points. First, that free TV's success has been quite a success abroad. In the world village we live in, it's very successful. And second, the unprecedented bi-partisan support for the free TV time here at home. First, from the international vantage point, I had the privilege of serving as the Chairman of the International Foundation for Elections. We try to help countries all over the world have fair, honest and effective elections. We have this system in one form or another, free TV in Australia, Brazil, United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Poland, Russia, and the list goes on and on. Secondly, and very, very important I think, is the fact that we have this opportunity to reflect a bi-partisan support for something very important for the future of our country, as it's been outlined before. I would note unprecedented support on a bi- partisan basis, including Vice President Gore, Senator Dole, and certainly President Clinton. All have advocated the free TV time and I would note that President Clinton himself in the State of Union Address on 1995, underscored the need for this for heading in the right direction. Indeed, free TV time has brought together a number of unusual pairs, not just Frank and myself, but more importantly Senator McCain and Senator Bradley, Senator Simpson and Governor Richards, Senator Thompson and Representative Louise Slaughter, political consultant, Lynn Nofzinger, and political reformer, Fred Wortheimer. Now that's really something. And probably the most unusual of the combination is the Christian Coalition's Mr. Ralph Reed and the People for the American Way Mr. Norman Lear. Truly strange bed- fellows but they are supporting a good idea. I also would bring our views as American, or our notes as American, on two men who were especially committed to their parties, to their country and to this idea. I refer to Ron Brown and Lee Atwater. Mr. Atwater said that free TV broadcasts by the presidential candidates would almost certainly have to be substantive, he couldn't see any downside and it's precisely the type of reform that we as Americans need. My friend and successor, Ron Brown, who cared to deeply about our country that we all know the commitment that he had, endorsed free television, knowing the promise it held in improving American democracy. Free TV time was precisely the type of reform we needed when these men served as party chairs in 1988, and indeed, it's still exactly the type of reform we need in 1996. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thank you very, very much. And your counter-part, Frank. It's good to see you here too. (Frank J. Fahrenkopf) MR. FAHRENKOPF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm actually here to day in a dual capacity. As a co-chairman of the Free TV Coalition I, of course, join in the comments of my other members of the Coalition who have already spoken, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Manatt. But I am also here as co-chairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is the non- partisan, non-profit organization which has sponsored all presidential and vice-presidential debates since 1988. In 1987, the year that the Commission on Presidential Debates was created, we developed a procedure for reviewing third- party or independent candidates, running for president, who sought inclusion in the debates. A broad based independent committee develops certain criteria, looking at all independent candidacies for president since 1865. This review committee was chaired by Richard Newstat, professor of government at Harvard. Standards for debate inclusion were, therefore, developed in 1987 and applied by the Commission in September of 1988, to any individual whose name appeared on at least one state ballot as candidate for president or vice president of the United States. And most people don't realize that every four years, well-over 200 people run for President of the United States. Our Commission in 1988 certified only that Vice President Bush and Governor Dukakis, and their running mates, Senators Quayle and Bentsen, qualified and participated in the 1988 debates. The same procedure was used in 1992. The Commission then certified then President Bush, Governor Clinton, and Ross Perot to participate. Now, in both 1988 and in 1992, our standards withstood judicial challenges from third or independent candidates who are not included in the debates. Those court challenges were heard by the Federal Court in the Southern District of New York and the D.C. Circuit. Now, the Commission has already issued criteria for 1996, which will be used this fall in determining who will be invited to participate in the 1996 presidential and vice presidential debates. And Mr. Chairman, we have already filed that with the Commission some time go, that criteria. Now, the criteria used by the Commission does not rely on merely one factor, such as standings and public opinion poles. We have a multi-facetted analysts of potential electoral success, including evidence of a national organization, signs of national news worthiness and competitiveness, indicators of national enthusiasm and concern to determine whether a candidate has a sufficient chance for election to warrant inclusion in one or more of its debates. Now several proponents in their filings before this Commission have sort of given the impression that we, the Commission on Presidential Debates, will do the bidding for them if free TV time is approved. I want to make clear, on behalf of our Commission, that under our charter, we can only engage in general election debates sponsorship and production. Our process for reviewing candidates for inclusion in debates is appropriate for that task. It was not designed to apply to other factors in presidential candidate appearances. And while others are certainly free to adopt what we adopt, and will adopt this September, we will not be involved in the process for others. So, while we are more than pleased to provide as much information on that process to the Commission and others, we cannot do that work for others. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thanks very much. Dr. Hagelin. (John Hagelin) DR. HAGELIN: I'm John Hagelin, presidential candidate of the Natural Law Parties, which is America's fastest growing new party, outpacing the reform party, both in ballot access and candidate drives. We are expecting to run a thousand candidates on the ballots nationwide, and are the only third-party in 1996 to qualify for federal matching funds. The legal issue before us today is not should Fox television be allowed to grant free air time to Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. The crucial legal issue before us is, should Fox TV and, ultimately, all the networks, be granted an exemption from the FCC's equal access laws, allowing them to exclude other qualified presidential candidates from equal time on the public air waves? There are seven reasons why the FCC should not allow Fox television to exclude qualified third-party candidates from its offer of free air time. One, it violates both the spirit and the letter of the equal opportunity provision of the communications act set by Congress. Two, the need for such protection by the FCC is greater than ever in the face of unprecedented financial and ballot access obstacles to third-party candidates and ideas. The U.S. has become the least democratic democracy in the world, with barriers to participation by third parties that violate the very Helsinki Accord advance by America throughout the world. Three, the yearning for third parties is greater than ever. Poles show that 85 percent of Americans do not believe that the Republicans or the Democrats have the answers to our nations problems and 63 percent favor a third party. Four, democracy stagnates when it denies access to third-party ideas. According to may scholars, 90 percent of the key ideas that have shaped our democracy, such as the abolition of slavery and a woman's right to vote, came from third parties. Five, common sense and democratic fairness dictate that objective criteria must be employed to determine which candidates receive access to the airwaves. The criterion set by Congress requires a presidential candidate to be on the ballot in 10 states. If the FCC wants to further restrict access, then increase the number to 20, 30 or even 40 states. Or use the criteria recently suggested by the FTC for the presidential debates, which include both ballot access and federal matching funds. But party affiliation, standings and poles are subjective assessments made behind closed doors, must not be the criteria. Six, the decision as to who merits air time must not be left in the hands of the networks. Networks are for profit entities with their own vested interests. They should not be allowed to determine what ideas are heard and which ideas should not be heard. And seven, the decision about air time should also not be left in the hands of the Presidential Debates Commission. The Debates Commission is not a government agency, but a private committee comprised of former democratic and republic party chairman. Americans are so turned off to politics that our democracy is in crisis. We have the lowest voter turnout of any democracy in the world. Many Americans feel that a democracy has been usurped by two parties that are out of ideas and no longer represent the people. To restrict access to the airwaves, to Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, will simply force-feed Americans more of what they don't want. Bring Americans back into the political process, set objective criteria that will open the door to legitimate third-party ideas. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thank you very much. Mr. Andrews? (John K. Andrews) MR. ANDREWS: I'm John Andrews and I head the news division for TCI, the largest cable television company in the United States. From 42 weeks of experience in providing free air time for the presidential candidates this year on a national television news program, we at TCI are convinced that the idea of free time has a very significant potential to improve our election process. So we urge the Commission to do everything in your power to facilitate other experiments with this idea. Beginning on Labor Day 1995 and continuing through Election Day 1996, TCI has made a simple offer to all the major candidates for president. Give us your long-form, taped campaign message, and we will air it nationwide at no cost. A total of more than 17 hours of direct, unfiltered communication from candidates to voters has been contributed thus far and it's working extremely well. TCI makes the time available within the context of a one-hour weekly news program called, Race for the Presidency. Currently, we are airing 10 minute tapes provided by the campaigns of Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, featuring excerpts from recent speeches. At earlier stages in the race, when the Republican field was much larger, we aired candidate tapes ranging from three minutes to six minutes in length. Race for the Presidency is hosted by syndicated columnist Clifford May. Every program also presents campaign news, bi-partisan political analysis, a media critiques feature, and reports from the campaign trail and on politics and cyberspace. Candidate qualifications to appear on the program are judgment by objective criteria that were developed by TCI news in consultation with the Presidential Debate Commission and the League of Women Voters. Race for the Presidency is taped every Thursday in Denver, and it airs throughout the weekend in different parts of the country. It's distributed by a cable industry coalition that includes some 25 major operators and programmers, along with a growing roster of public television stations. The total reach of the program now exceeds 50 million homes throughout the United States. Amid the numerous proposals to offer free air time in the fall of 1996, here is a proven model that has been successfully doing so since the fall of 1995. Viewers acclaim it and opinion polls support it by margins of 65 to 85 percent. Free air time for candidates, not mandatory in a way that would infringe the First Amendment, but voluntary in keeping with the citizenship responsibilities of television companies, needs to happen on a wider and wider scale. Clarification of Section 315 is important so that this can occur. We at TCI thank the Commission for undertaking it. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thanks a lot. Mr. Ornstein, you've written a number of articles on this subject, all of which I have read deciduously, and I'm looking forward to your comments today. (Norman J. Ornstein) MR. ORNSTEIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I'm delighted to be a part of what I hope is the first step in a broader process of the Commission considering how broadcast time can enhance campaign dialogue. What I would like to do is to address some of the questions that Commissioner Chong had raised in her opening statement. First, would the Fox proposal, and others like it, be bona fide news events in the contexts of Section 315. And it seems to me it's demonstrably clear and compelling that, just like the presidential debates, they are likely to be the subject of enormous public and press interest, to be discussed and analyzed for sometime after they take place, which would be how I would define bona fide news events. It also seems to me that you don't have to use the commission on presidential debates explicitly to use reasonable criteria, such as they or any other independent group could define to determine who would be included or not within the context of this particular dialogue. Now, just as important, why would the Fox proposal and other innovations like it be valuable and important in enhancing our campaign dialogue. Let me say, in the ideal American democracy, political campaigns become an integral part of the deliberate process that leads to governing. Candidates communicate not just to voters but with each other. There is interaction, give and take, the thrust and parry of a campaign teaches us about the character and leadership qualities of the candidates, their positions on important issues, and the gist of those issues themselves. So that voters learn not just the start black and white of policy choices, but the shades of gray as well. And their votes reflect in the end more than just a choice between two or more alternative candidates but a broader understanding of the choices that face them in the nation ahead. We fall woefully short of that reality now and the dialogue tends more to be in the form of you are ugly, you are uglier, your mother's ugly, your mother's uglier and you are a liar besides. Now the debates move us a little bit towards a dialogue, but I think not far enough. And the Fox initiative and other proposals go further. They are not simply about providing an opportunity for candidates to reach voters, they do that. And this is not about removing the filter of the press for their messages. In fact, every communication of the candidates will be exhaustibly covered by the press, regardless of how it is made and that's certainly true here as well. The issue is about the quality, reach, and impact of candidate communications and what we have here is a potential to increase vastly all of those. The goal is to have a conversation though. A give and take between the candidates that becomes a part of the deliberative process. And that's why I believe the Fox proposal is a welcome start, but we need to move much further towards proposals that can give us a dialogue. And that's why the Taylor proposal, something that would have alternating statements each evening done on block would be something that would be very highly desirable and I certainly hope that the various news outlets will consider even more innovative ways of moving us closer to that dialogue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thank you very much. (Andrew J. Schwartzman) Mr. Schwartzman, you are a very familiar and welcome presence here. Thanks for joining us today. MR. SCHWARTZMAN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my prepared remarks and that clock starts to tick, can I respectfully refer the Commission to page 12 of the comments which we filed on June 3, which we discussed at some greater length, the importance of the failure to afford equal time could be a far greater threat to civil order than allowing legitimate candidates to present access with dissident view points. It's sound policy, we point out. I recognize by Congress that it's better to bring these supporters into the democratic process rather than send them into the streets. And in light of today, I think that I would respectfully refer the Commission to that part of our comments. Thank you. Paul Taylor's free time plan is a great idea. And, unlike other campaign reforms, it can be put into place this fall. One important point is being overlooked. It is broadcasters who are getting the time for free, 24-hours a day, seven days a week, and we are the ones giving it to them. The last time I checked, the public owns the airwaves. And, I might add, not only are Mr. Dyk's clients fighting like crazy to keep this freebie, they want even more free spectrum. Actually, Paul Taylor is simply asking the networks, very nicely, to share just a little of the free time they have been hogging for years. Fox's proposal isn't ideal, but I must commend Mr. Murdoch for coming as far as he has. Based on Fox's June 3rd letter clarifying that it won't interfere with candidates' statements, I believe you can and should declare that the plan qualifies for an exemption. It's a shame that the three largest broadcast networks are so obstinate in opposing Paul Taylor's plan. I believe the Commission has the power to require broadcasters to provide time to candidates at no charge. If the broadcasters don't exercise responsible judgment, you should consider mandating it. Those of us within the beltway think in terms of national politics. But the precedence you set apply with equal force locally, where the worst abuses take place. You need to be much more careful in limiting your decisions to the facts presented and not leaving loopholes that invite the precedents I'm about to discuss. It started innocently enough with the reinterpretation of the news event exemption to facilitate presidential debates. Twenty years later, the exemptions have not swallowed the entire statute. The broadcaster's latest proposal, so credulously offered in you May 10th public notice, would wipe out all that remains of candidates equal opportunity rights. It would allows broadcasters to declare that any program they themselves deem to be a news program, will now qualify as exempt. This would turn over the discretion to the same folks who tried to tell you that the Flintstones is a history lesson and the Jetsons is part of the science curriculum. You staff has already ruled that Sally Jessy Raphael and Jerry Springer are, and this is the statutory term, bona fide news interviews. The exemptions were granted because the Commission's staff concluded the producers make programming decisions based on journalistic principles and the newsworthiness of the guess. Here's what passes as bona fide news interviews. Moms dating a boy toy, I lost my hair and I lost my job, I was raised by a satanic cult, drag queens and the people who love them, skinhead romances, my daughter is a prostitute. I have a lot more of these but I'm sure you get the idea. There is a better way. Rather than flat Congressional intent, you can redefine the statutory term, legally qualified candidate. This would allow additional flexibility, but ensure that serious third-party candidates like George Wallace, John Anderson and Ross Perot would not be shut out. In the context of debates, the criteria used by the League of Women Voters and the Presidential Debate Commission have proven practical and intellectually honest. Democracy would be much better off if you followed that model. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thank you very much. Mr. Dyk, we know you to be one of our most eminent First Amendment commentators and scholars. You are very welcome here. (Timothy B. Dyk) MR. DYK: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission. I am here today representing the National Association of Broadcasters, which thanks the Commission for holding this embanking query to explore these very important issues. And the NAB's position in support of the Fox proposal is that Section 315, the exemptions, particularly the (A)(4) exemption should be broadly interpreted to allow broadcast journalists to develop new creative formats to inform the American people about political campaigns. We think that there is little question, but that the Fox proposal is exempt under the Commission's previous ruling on remand in the King case, but we also think that what's really important is that the Commission, in the course of this proceeding, articulate criteria which can be applied across the board by broadcasters in the coming campaign to determine whether a program is exempt without having to come to the Commission on a case-by-case basis for such a determination. And we think the two criteria that were articulated in the Kind case are the criteria that the Commission ought to adopt. First, is the program newsworthy, deferring to the broadcasters judgment? And second, is the broadcaster's determination of newsworthiness entitled to deference? And in connection with that second question, the primary issue is whether the broadcaster proposal shows favoritism toward a particular candidate or whether it does not. And as the Commission made clear in the King case, the various structural criteria which the Commission applies to determine the question of potential favoritism, equal opportunities for the major candidates, the inclusion of significant third-party candidates, balanced presentations and equal time for those appearing on the programs. And the Fox proposed broadcast satisfy all of those criteria here. We had suggested in the comments that candidate control, as opposed to broadcaster control might be a relevant issue here, but we suggest that under the King decision, that that is not a criteria. And the Court of Appeals on appeal in the King case made clear, we think, that the question of broadcaster control is not relevant to the (A)(4) exemption, though it may be relevant to the news interview exemption. In the application of the exemption in these areas serves all three of the important purposes of Section 315, it achieves the goal of broadcaster coverage and increased broadcaster coverage of campaigns. It avoids broadcaster favoritism, and it preserves, most importantly, broadcaster editorial discretion. And that's a key component, not only of the Act, but also of the First Amendment, recognized even as long ago as the Red Lion case. We do oppose, however, the suggestion that broadcasters be required to give free time to candidates. We believe that the Commission does not have authority to do that, to impose that kind of common carrier obligation under the Mid-West Video case, and that even if it did, it would be contrary to the Constitution and would be bad public policy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thanks a lot. Mr. McCarter, I think you have experience as well as wisdom to share with us today. Thank you very much for coming to town. (William J. McCarter) MR. MCCARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My role here this afternoon is to report on a rather unique and hopefully a model experience out of Chicago, Illinois. I am the President of WTTW, Chicago, which is a public television station. During the fall of 1992, we developed a program service entitled Candidate Free Time. It was in conjunction with the Senate race at that time in Illinois. We repeated the service during the 1994 election, and this time with key state officials as well. This year, we are planning an extensive effort for the 1996 election, offering candidate free time to the candidates for the Senate, the House and select statewide offices. Our candidate free time service, followed the principles that were set forth in the King broadcasting case. Candidates were invited to participate if they received at least 10 percent support in the major neutral polls, mainly in the major newspapers in Chicago, and they were allowed to present the essence of their campaign and what they stood for in their own words. Candidate messages were taped at our studios at no cost to the candidates, the messages for each of the candidates ran two to three minutes in length, presented in a back-to-back format. The order of the candidate appearances in the programs was determined by a coin flip. The ground rules for candidate free time included if only one of the invited candidates were given office, accepted our invitation, that office would not be included in the program service. No empty chair photography. The studio's set in each case was very simply and straightforward, utilizing a plain background and the videotaped messages included no inserts and no special effects. Candidates were offered the use of a tele- prompter. In the event the candidates wish to retape their messages, they were allowed to do so. One program unit consisted of a brief description of the office, plus a brief biographical information rundown on each of the invited candidates, followed by each of the candidates' two to three minutes statement. In 1992, 10 program units were aired. In 1994, 24 program units were aired. In 1996, during the month of October, we expect to air over 50 broadcast units. They would be on weeknights throughout the month. The reactions to a candidate's free time were as follows: The candidates in each case, when they were invited, they readily accepted. Their initial reaction was one of curiosity, but wariness, until we explained the process. After the videotaping, candidates were more than appreciative, rather, a little surprised, and very pleased with the opportunity. None of the candidates questioned or attempted to negotiate our ground rules. The audience, viewers, by letters and phone calls and random comments, indicated their surprise that the program service was even offered. Viewers were very appreciative of the brevity and the compactness of the program unit. Viewers most appreciated the back-to-back format, and they seemed to appreciate the absence of on-air intermediaries. Our reaction at WTTW was that it worked extremely well. Based on the success of the first two efforts, we look forward to an expanded opportunity in October and we urge the Commission to clarify and broadly interpret its policy in this very important area. And I thank you for the chance to report on this experiment. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thanks a lot. I thank all panelists for their very, very excellent statements. I will now move to the question and answer period and we will commence with Commissioner Quello. COMMISSIONER QUELLO: Yes, I'm sorry I will have to leave after this question. I have a little minor thing at home. One thing, I think, I want to commend Fox for their forward looking move. I think it's good programming. I don't think it's necessary to take the Constitutional risk of government mandating free time. However, I just want to give an example of what happened to me. I'm concerned about third-party candidates too. They should have some kind of access to it. Maybe we should move it up to, appear on the ballot, of 20 states. But I think what I had as a broadcaster 35 years ago, I am going back to ancient history now, and that's very appropriate for me. We had a debate with Governor Romney and Candidate Swensen. Half an hour each, and we had requests from the Socialist Labor, Socialist Worker, and American (inaudible) parties. So we gave time, a half hour each, the biggest thing that ever happened to these three parties. And one of them got up and made all kinds of racial and ethnic slurs. I couldn't convince the people that were complaining to the station that we had no right to even edit their scripts. And we were forever on the black list of the people that were victimized by one of these candidates. So, next time, I think I wrote a declaratory -- I asked for a declaratory ruling from the FCC and I was told I would still have to put on the fringe candidates. With the result, I said, well, if we have to put on the fringe candidates and take a chance on being maligned, slandered, or liable, I wouldn't do it. So there is a problem. But I think it's very necessary to allow leading candidates, certainly, the ones that have the best chance to go on, and I think we have to do something about, maybe, the bona fide third-party candidates too. But I applaud this forward looking move. I know all of it -- there is no perfect answer to anything, but I am glad to see what they have already started. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thank you. Commissioner Ness. COMMISSIONER NESS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up a little bit on what Commissioner Quello was saying, can any of you answer how many candidates receive payments for the presidential primary matching payment account? Mr. Hagelin? MR. HAGELIN: There is one candidate with respect to the Republican and Democratic candidates, and that is myself in 1996. COMMISSIONER NESS: Okay. MR. HAGELIN: In former years, there were two such candidates in 1992. COMMISSIONER NESS: And how many parties have achieved valid access in a number of states representing at least 270 electorate college votes? MR. HAGELIN: Throughout this entire century, there has never been an election in which more than two or three, in one case four, candidates have ever made it on the ballot, in enough states to win the election. That is enough states with enough electoral votes to win. In this particular race, there would probably be two such candidates, or three, depending upon Ross Perot's anticipated declaration of candidacy. So that would be a reasonable criterion, I think. COMMISSIONER NESS: Uh-huh. MR. HAGELIN: It certainly doesn't open up the world to an unaccountable infinity of candidates. COMMISSIONER NESS: In that context, at what point, I just simply don't remember anymore, but at what point are the qualifications, ballot qualifications determined? What would be the end date to determine when 270 electoral college votes would be achieved? MR. HAGELIN: The last of the ballot access deadlines for the latest states is in August. So by August, it will be clear which candidates have made it on the ballot in enough states to, in principal, win the election. But it will probably be two or three in addition to the Republican and Democratic candidates. COMMISSIONER NESS: Two or three candidates? MR. HAGELIN: Candidates. COMMISSIONER NESS: In addition? MR. HAGELIN: In addition to Clinton and Dole. That would be possibly Ross Perot, libertarian candidate will almost certainly make it, and the natural law party candidate will make it. There are several parties that are working hard to achieve such ballot access, the Green Party, the U.S. Taxpayers Party. Their progress as of now is not such that it would be that likely that they would achieve that degree of ballot access. But they are certainly working on it and should be given a shot. COMMISSIONER NESS: Yes, so by August, we would know -- MR. HAGELIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER NESS: -- how many might arguably qualify? MR. HAGELIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER NESS: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Murdoch, thank you very much for your efforts certainly. We are delighted at the activity that that has spawned. Would, as a practical matter, if we were to rule that these proposals would qualify for the exemption under (4)(A), to what extent would that reduce the amount of fundraising that candidates do for air time for the investment that they make in broadcast air time? Do you see a concomitant reduction in spending, or would this just be an augmentation in the amount of air time that they receive? MR. MURDOCH: Well, I think the presidential, which is all we are attempting at the moment, there would probably be very little effect on that. I think what we've got to do is see if this works, can we take it into the statewide levels and into the Congressional Districts, because that's where I think the time is really spent and where the damage is done by this process. So, really, as I've said, this is a very imperfect proposal, and just aimed to kick-off the process. COMMISSIONER NESS: Let's assume -- MR. MURDOCH: Could I just say one thing? COMMISSIONER NESS: Please. MR. MURDOCH: I'm sorry -- about what Dr. Hagelin said. I mean, we may look, perhaps, at the Israeli president where they give time to every party, registered party that has -- I don't know what their rules are for the criteria how to be a party. And then there was extra time given to all the parties that are already represented in the Congress. So they do manage to get some time for new entrants. And, you know, if we were able to go down this path, and be able to open it up properly, there should be some formula which we could adopt to let new people state their views. COMMISSIONER NESS: Okay. Going back then, to the issue of qualifications, with respect to the Presidential Debate Commission, to what extent are the criteria that we just talked about, included within your analysis? MR. FAHRENKOPF: They aren't included. COMMISSIONER NESS: But you have additional criteria? MR. FAHRENKOPF: We have criteria that is on file, Commissioner, with your staff which covers a broad range of things. Not just something like, where you are in the polls. In fact, if you go back just for a few moments and think about the 1980 election, which at that time, the debates were conducted by the League of Women Voters. They had a standard that, in order to be invited to participate in the debates, you had to have a certain standing in the public opinion polls. And that was the only criteria. By the time the first debate rolled around in 1980, John Anderson met that minimum requirement. You will recall that President Carter, however, refused to participate in a debate with John Anderson. So I, in fact, and some others in this room I'm sure, we down in Baltimore the night that then, former Governor Reagan, debated John Anderson. Now, by the time the second debate -- the scheduled presidential debate rolled around, Mr. Anderson had fallen below the minimum floor in the public opinion polls, was not invited by the League of Women Voters to participate in the debate process. And then we got in 1980, our only debate between the two major candidates and President Carter debated Governor Reagan. So, it can change during the process, but the criteria that we have used since 1987 and applied in the last two election cycles, and which we have published months ago, having to do with 1996, covers a broad range of things that should be taken into consideration in determining who participates. COMMISSIONER NESS: Mr. Hagelin, did you want to comment on that? MR. HAGELIN: Just briefly. The FEC has spent a great deal of time thinking about what criteria would be appropriate and which criteria would not be appropriate for selection. They have recommended against the use of public opinion polls for a variety of reasons we could discuss at greater length, but there are plenty of objective criteria in addition to ballot access in a number of states. It could be number of money raised, again, federal matching funds, national party committee status, and so forth. But they recommended against party affiliation, place of residence, and "subjective qualifications" or subjective criteria, such as placement in the polls. And they emphasized again that objective criteria need to be set well in advance, not on the even of the broadcast, but well in advance so qualified third-party candidates could at least, in principal, meet those requirements. COMMISSIONER NESS: Okay. Switching gears a little bit. Let's assume that all of these programs go ahead, and let's assume that it catches on and there is competition among the networks to provide more and more of this. And let's assume, in a wonderful world, that we end up with during the course of a four week period of time, 50 hours worth of this type of programming that's aired. This is open to anyone to comment. At what point, let's assume, also, for the sake of this discussion, it turns out just to be the two major party candidates pursuant, perhaps, to the Presidential Election Commission's criteria. At what point would this, in your view, reach a mass of programming that might be viewed as infringing on the right of access of other candidates? Does it reach a point where such good is too much good? Anyone want to take a stab at that? MR. SCHWARTZMAN: Commissioner Ness, if you are asking -- am I on here? I'll just scream. There we go. If you are asking as a matter of law -- this is, I'm afraid all too often, lost here. Section 315 is an inclusive measure, which then has a few exemptions. And if the programming is exempt -- COMMISSIONER NESS: It's exempt. MR. SCHWARTZMAN: The answer is no. None. There is no point. If you are asking as a matter of policy, I think that's a much more important question, but I think it's something that requires some additional congressional analysis. What I would hate to see is the Commission, one more time, to take Section 315 and distort it yet again to come up with something that Congress clearly did not intend. It provides for equal opportunities, not opportunities after you get to 50 hours. So you are really bumping up against the limits of your statutory mandate and I think the answer is, either exempt or don't exempt and then tell Congress what would be a good thing to do. MR. ORNSTEIN: Commissioner Ness, let me make two points here. COMMISSIONER NESS: Yes, please. MR. ORNSTEIN: The first is, this will be a self- regulating process. The candidates for president are not going to want to use all of their time in the final four weeks of the campaign going on every single broadcast and having something to say because they aren't going to have all that much to say. (Laughter.) MR. ORNSTEIN: The second point is, that it's -- CHAIRMAN HUNDT: What do you mean by that? MR. ORNSTEIN: I'll let them speak for themselves, and in a limited fashion. COMMISSIONER NESS: Back-to-back. MR. ORNSTEIN: If there is going to be any punch to what people say, if you had to say something new and different or something that would reach voters, 20 different things a day, for 10 minutes, you would quickly reach a saturation point. And the candidates are not going to do that. They are going to be more strategic and focused here. The second point is, that this is much more a matter of quality than it is of quantity anyhow. Frankly, if I could get two minutes a minutes a night on block, where I could have a candidate speak to something important and then the next night have the other candidate either respond or go on to something else, I would be much happier than if there were 20 hours during that period of time. And what's going to happen is, you are going to get a competition among the various networks to try and do innovative things that will attract the candidates so that they can have bona fide news events that will get people talking about them. MR. DYK: Commissioner, could I? COMMISSIONER NESS: Please. MR. DYK: I just want to disagree with Mr. Schwartzman, as I do on occasion. I don't think there is such a thing as too much exempt programming. There is no indication in the legislative history of Section 315 that Congress had any concern with protecting fringe candidates. What Congress was concerned with was protecting the viable candidates, the major party candidates. Of course, it was the Lar Daily decision which lead to the exemptions. So, I think that Congress would be happy, the First Amendment would be happy, the more exempt programming there is, so long as the fundamental values of Section 315 are protected and those values include broadcaster discretion, increasing coverage, and insuring that there is no discrimination in favor of an individual candidate. COMMISSIONER NESS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Well, as I warned before, we are going to take a 10 minute break right now and then we will regroup and finish up. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Let me call us back in order, if I can. If I can get our photographer friends to just back off for a second there. Thank you very much. As I mentioned before, we have the honor today of the presence of Senator Bradley and Senator McCain. We are very, very grateful to you gentlemen for making your time available at our hearing, and let me interrupt the order, as I said that I would, and ask Senator McCain and then Senator Bradley, in that order, to give us their statements, if they would be pleased to do so. And, of course, you are welcome to stay later, but I understand that you may have to get back for other affairs on the Hill and feel free to come and go as you please. We are just delighted to have you here. SENATOR MCCAIN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission. First let me apologize for the interruption, and I appreciate the indulgence of so many more important people here who are probably much more informative as well as more important. We just finished the vote on the issue of campaign finance reform in the Senate and I wish I had better news, but to no one's surprise, we were not able to invoke closure and move forward. So you may not have to grapple with the issue of free television time, at least as far as campaign finance reform is concerned. At least, in the short-term, although I believe that issue will prevail over time. This hearing is all the more important because of that failure in my view, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission. I am here to endorse a proposal made by Paul Taylor that would call for the major networks to give the major party presidential candidates five minutes each night to lay out their case for why each should be president. I would hope that the Commission would see the value in this proposal and clear the way for the networks to act on it expeditiously. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the cooperation the networks have displayed. I think it's very important and a great contribution that they have all made different proposals. But, Mr. Chairman, I think we are also aware that unless there is a uniform proposal, these proposals do not have the kind of impact that we want and believe that Paul Taylor's proposal can make on the political process. The rhetoric of political debates has been sinking to new lows, instead of a dialogue on the issues, campaigns are now characterized by the 30 second attack ad, and not surprisingly, poll after poll shows that the public is frustrated and even disgusted with today's campaigns. So we ask the question, how can we change the system one small way, and it is a small way, but I think very important symbolically, which is Paul Taylor's proposal. I believe the proposal would qualify as a legitimate news story and not subject to the equal time provisions of the law. The networks would not have to give fifth, sixth, and seventh party candidates equal time, and I would hope the Commission would agree. But for this proposal to be real, for it to be truly meaningful, all the networks must simulcast this nightly broadcast. The only way this proposal will have an impact is if the viewer is faced with a road block. Some have said that this road block approach will send viewers rushing to the cable channels. True, some may change the channel, but many will not, and many will begin channel surfing and then return to the networks. The data shows that the vast majority of television viewers watch the four major networks and that's not going to change because of this experiment as much as some might believe this proposal will not result in CSPAN becoming a top rated network. Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of observing the Russian elections. It was the second Russian election that I have observed, I was incredibly impressed at the zeal, the dedication, and the commitment that the Russian people made to a free and fair election. In fact, their election turnout was 70 percent, which is something that all of us would welcome as a great improvement in the way that our system works. One of the factors is that their candidates, as other European countries had free television time to get their message across. Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take too much of your time, but there was one candidate that surprised everybody. A General Lebid (phonetic). General Lebid was generally regarded to have about two or three percent of the vote. He got 15 percent of the vote, is now viewed as Mr. Yeltsin's successor, and everyone will attest to the fact that Mr. Lebid's performance on television, which was free, was what convinced the people of Russia that he was the kind of man they wanted to lead their country through the difficult times that they have. Finally, I am certainly grateful for Senator Bradley and efforts he's made. And we've sent letters to both the Dole and Clinton campaigns. And as you know, the Dole campaign responded yesterday in the affirmative. I hope that the Clinton campaign will follow suit very shortly. And finally, finally, Mr. Chairman, I worry about politics in America today, as one who has sought and obtained office on several occasions. I worry, as Senator Bradley does, about the level of debate, about the ventilation of the issues, and the information that we provide to the voters of America. I do not think that western civilization as we know it is going to collapse, but I do believe that we are on a trend which is demeaning and debasing to the kind of political activity in the electoral system that our forefathers envision. And I think you very much for having this hearing today and considering this very important proposal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thank you very much. You have honored us by your presence and you leadership on this and other issues in our area, it's very, very welcome. Senator Bradley, we are equally as -- SENATOR MCCAIN: I look forward to our next hearing on spectrum auction. Thank you. (Laughter.) CHAIRMAN HUNDT: You bet. Senator Bradley, we are absolutely delighted to hear form you also today. SENATOR BRADLEY: Thank you very much. Chairman Reed Hundt. I was very struck by what Senator McCain said about the Russian elections, and maybe there is a precedent there that some highly decorated veteran who is good on TV moves from out of nowhere to a significant position of leadership in many other countries. I mean, we all tend to see what we want to see in an election and I think that that clearly was a very interesting observation. I am very pleased to be here today with you, even though I lament that it comes just minutes after the Senate rejected the campaign finance reform bill of this year. I think that if the year passes without any other action taken, then clearly the most significant action that could be taken is the idea of free TV time in the presidential debate, similar to the proposal that Paul Taylor has offered. I think that it is a remarkable opportunity for the country, if we could block two to three to four to five minutes on sequential nights, the last 21 or 22 days of a campaign, and alternate from one candidate to the other. I think that it is the first time that we will have the opportunity to have a presidential campaign similar to the one fought in 1912, when Woodrow Wilson one day would make a rather significant speech and two or three days later Teddy Roosevelt would make a speech. And even Taft was forced to comment because of the seriousness with which these candidates took their charge of seeking the presidency and sharing their vision with the people in the course of the campaign. I believe that in modern times, probably an hour speech a night would not be appropriate, but the roadblock of three or four minutes used by each candidate with only that candidate on the air at the time would, I think, be a significant step forward. I think that Fox and ABC and those others who have stepped forward with their own innovations on Paul Taylor's original idea, should be complimented. We hope that others will come forward also. But I hope we don't lose site of the original purpose, which was to create a debate over time to engage the public in a discussion of the serious issues by the individual who would chose to be President of the United States. Not through negative ads on television, not through surrogates, but the candidate himself or herself, directly to the American people in their living room. The roadblock is enormously important because that means you couldn't escape unless you really wanted to escape. And you would have to confront what the candidates were saying. Now, I think that this is an important idea, but I think if we have to build on this victory, if we manage to get it, we have to undertake a new effort to truly reclaim our democracy from the power of money. I think that today's set back on the floor of the Senate only proves that there is nothing to be gained by aiming low. The proposal on the floor of the Senate today was rather modest. Free broadcast time is important, but if it is just a decoration on top of the current system, it won't be enough to repair democracy. So while I think it's very important to take this step, it is also very important to do a few other things that I think qualify for comprehensive campaign reform. Such as, giving voters control over how much money is spent. Equalizing spending and confronting the Supreme Court's 20 year old misunderstanding that a rich man's wallet deserves the same protection as a poor man's soapbox, in free speech terms. I've introduced a package of legislation that would deal with that, and all of these areas. That package also contains a proposal that would provide for Senate candidates two hours of free time, one hour in primetime, in units of at least one minute in the last 60 days or so of the campaign. And I think the issue in the proposal that I put forward, and frankly, the issue in the proposal that Paul Taylor has put forward. And I think the spirit behind the various networks coming forward with their own variations on the Taylor proposal, is the recognition that the airwaves are truly public property. They now offer, I think, the closest thing we have to shared cultural, and a common forum for the discussion of ideas. That forum should not be available, only to the highest bidder. We have not only a right to insist that broadcasters provide this space, but a responsibility to ensure that the public's air space is used in the interest of rebuilding democracy. Now, I can understand that these proposals might be a little frightening to broadcasters, but I found that broadcasters understand what's going on as well as anyone. I think that occasions the proposals that have been made in the Taylor variation. And that broadcasters understand that they have been granted a very special privilege to use a limited resource. And that broadcasters want to be a part of rebuilding democracy. And, frankly, many broadcasters that I've talked to are tired of selling dozens of hours every other fall at the lowest unit cost. In thirty second units for harsh, negative ads. Those ads, I think, make people change the channel and you could very well, if you were redoing the whole system, eliminate some of the lowest unit cost rates, in exchange for a commit on free TV time. I am convinced that that is the direction that we have to take. I think that open-air space for public discussion is enormously central to rebuilding our democracy, and the step that you can take this year and that I hope the country will take by the fall is to make in block, say, three to five minutes available on alternative nights for the respective presidential candidates. That would begin the process of rebuilding our democracy so that people might feel that the people who are running for president have talked to them directly about their plans before they took office. So if they have a bold proposal, they will share it in the course of these television appearances. It won't emerge after the election to the surprise of many of the candidates' supporters. Or, contrarily, if the person has no bold proposal, it will become obvious that there is no intent to move the country forward. Or, if the candidate simply attacks his opponent in these ads, directly looking into the camera and calling his opponent whatever he chooses to call him in that moment, that also would tell us something about the person who would choose to be President of the United States. So I think you very much for the opportunity to testify. I urge you to take action in this area. I compliment those who have come forward to offer their variations. And in particular, I compliment Paul Taylor who has the tenacity to push this forward against great odds. And I share with him, having been on the other side of the political process than he, that this would be a step that would be applauded in the long-run, not only by members of the press, but also by politicians themselves. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thank you very, very much Senator. We are immensely grateful for your comments. You made many trenchant remarks. I particularly note your comments about the lowest unit cost system. I think that it's broke, it needs fixing. It's probably a song for another day, but it is, I think, one of a number of different ways that we currently fail to create the kind of atmosphere in the immediate world that we would all like to see for our process. If I can, I will return to our previous sequence. And the question and answer mantel will now pass to Commissioner Chong. COMMISSIONER CHONG: Thank you. Let's talk about this notion of roadblocking for a minute, if we could. Why is roadblocking so important? I assume from the conversation that we are talking about roadblocking on the free, over-the-air broadcast. And so, if people turn it off, or they turn to cable, I mean, I'm just trying to understand whether this is something that Mr. Taylor wants us to mandate? That all free over-the-air broadcasters roadblock at the same time, or whether you are talking about a voluntary effort by the broadcasters? MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I'm talking about a voluntary effort. Everything that I have proposed in this coalition is proposed this year envisions voluntary action by broadcasters. Roadblocks are important. I think they are a statement by, in this case, the broadcasters of the unique and importance of certain events in our national life. We roadblock State-Of-The-Union speeches, we roadblock the presidential debates. We accept the fact, not because anybody has mandated it, not because there is a law that requires, that we accept the fact that these are very important moments in our national life. It seems to me that the last few weeks of a presidential campaign is such a moment. This is a new kind of format, and giving it a roadblock isn't an announcement from the broadcasters, an investment in the importance of the event, that I think would be taken seriously by the viewers. Interestingly, I will also tell you, that as I went around over these last several months and talked to some of the broadcasters about their feelings of whether they would be willing to give us a few minutes in primetime, they all had competitive worries, as one could understand that they would, but a number of them said that a roadblock would actually make them feel more rather than less comfortable because at least all of their competitors would be showing the same political speech, and no one would, therefore, be at a disadvantage. COMMISSIONER CHONG: Thank you. MR. TAYLOR: But I would see the roadblock as something that ultimately the broadcasters would have to sit around the table and agree among themselves. COMMISSIONER CHONG: Thank you, Mr. Murdoch? MR. MURDOCH: I think we have to face the fact that politicians are pretty boring people. And they drive the viewers away. And the reason to do this, and to do this seriously, and to have roadblocks if you are going to have programs of more than one minute or more than two minutes, is to hold people and not give them an alternative. And I think they should be done with great care and only very seldom, and only on matters of great national significance, like national elections. But if you are going to give 10 minute or 20 minute segments of your time, you are going to be killed as a commercial broadcaster by your opposition. And we are all too competitive to do that. And it won't get off the ground unless you people can jawbone all the broadcasters into roadblocking. COMMISSIONER CHONG: Mr. Fahrenkopf? MR. FAHRENKOPF: Well, I think the evidence of what happened four years ago in the debates reflects the importance, I think, of roadblocking. Historically, if you go back over presidential debates, starting back in 1960, then jumping all the way to 1976, because we had an absence of 16 years of presidential debates, from 1960 to 1976. But since then, historically, what would happen would be that the first debate would probably be the one most watched. And then watched viewership went down. That changed dramatically in 1992. The first presidential debate was the highest watched political program in American political history, and they went up from there. The final debate at Michigan State University was watched by 96 million Americans. And I think what has happened is there is such a proliferation of other sources out there of political information, whether it's on daily talk shows, or nightly talk shows on some networks, that the American people really are hungry for focused roadblocked attention to the issues and the individuals who would be President of the United States. COMMISSION CHONG: I wanted to ask Mr. Dyk about his Constitutional analysis of a roadblock? Do you wish -- you are anyone else would like to share on that topic? MR. DYK: Well, I think that there is no First Amendment problem to encouraging broadcasters to do that. Or for broadcasters to agree to do it. I think the problem comes in connection with a mandated free time proposal. If you put on top of that a roadblock requirement, I think you do have substantial First Amendment questions. I just don't think it's the business of government to force people to watch things that they may not want to watch. And to the extent that the government gets in that business, I think it's a very dangerous thing, and very, very hard to support. COMMISSION CHONG: Mr. McCarter, you are a broadcaster, how do you feel about roadblocking? Do you think the broadcasters are amenable to it on a voluntary basis? MR. MCCARTER: I would agree with what Mr. Taylor said a few minutes ago. I think if the roadblocking option came up and was available for all, that many would join it willingly and it would encourage the whole process in that direction. COMMISSION CHONG: Mr. Schwartzman? MR. SCHWARTZMAN: Commissioner, I think Congress could enact a roadblocking measure that would withstand constitutional scrutiny, but I don't think that that's really what it ought to come to. The former Chairman of this Commission used to refer to eat your vegetables programming with great disdain. But I think the Commission does, in fact, have a role to lead. And to bring viewers who may not watch the news into the political process. And I now will refer to something that has been one of the less pleasant aspects of your job in the last few months. The only reason you are having an extremely difficult, unpleasant, time consuming exercise over children's television programming, is because the industry in the past failed to head repeated requests from Chairman and Republican and Democrat, going back over 20 years, to do more about children's programming. COMMISSION CHONG: Mr. Schwartzman, this is not the topic of this hearing. MR. SCHWARTZMAN: I think that is this Commission were to lead by coming out, Republicans and Democrats alike, as Mr. Fahrenkopf and Mr. Manatt have done, and encourage the networks to come forward and join together in a roadblocking plan, it would go a long way toward achieving the right result without legislation or without regulation. COMMISSION CHONG: Thank you. How much time do I have? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: One minute. COMMISSION CHONG: That's it for now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: I think we can all agree that there is behind Section 315 an important point, which is that television should not be used to distort the political process. Specifically, it should not distort the process by selecting for the public's appreciation specific candidates and excluding others. Can I ask you, Mr. Ornstein, to comment on this particular purpose of Section 315 and what importance you would attach to that particular goal? MR. ORNSTEIN: It's a tough one for you. I do think that the earlier comments were accurate. If you go back through the Congressional history of this provision, you didn't have members of Congress particularly excited about the problems of fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth parties here. They had something else in mind. It's difficult, nevertheless. You don't want to do something, or even step aside to allow something to happen that's necessarily going to quash debate or gong to distort a political process. But I'd mention two things. The first is that Paul Taylor was absolutely right. We have a process that already through a whole host of provisions, legal and otherwise, statutory and otherwise, basically provides an almost special role for major parties in the system. Mr. Murdoch had mentioned the Israelis and they do have a different process for television. They also have a very different political process. One that is built on proportional representation, where the representation in the system comes to any party that gets two and a half percent of the votes nationwide. It used to be one percent. We have no proportional representation. We have a system in which the Congress has single member districts and only those who get the most votes end up getting elected. So it's perfectly reasonable in our traditions, in our laws, and in the intent here, to focus on a set of reasonable criteria to limit which voices get heard. And as long as there are some reasonable limits placed here, and those that use -- whether you are on the ballot and the majority of electoral vote states where you could actually win. Other criteria that suggests whether you are a viable candidate, which are perfectly allowable, if they are done in a reasonable way, it seems to me it is perfectly reasonable to do so. More generally, I think, clearly your role is to step aside where you can to allow robust debate to take place. This seems to me to be one of those where you ought to be bending over backwards to let the broadcasters, the organizations like Paul's represents, to try and work things out unless there is a compelling interest to step in. There may be other instances, when we move to the question of the digital spectrum and what requirements broadcasters should have to get access to that where your role may end up being a more proactive one. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: And while we can stipulate that TV broadcasters should not distort the political process, it's also the case, isn't it, that TV in fact, facilitates the political process in America? You can't run for office without being on TV as a practical matter, isn't that right? MR. ORNSTEIN: Precisely so. And it seems to me what we hope will happen here is that the nature of the TV dialogue, which tends to be now particularly focused around the campaign commercials, which get into, as I said earlier, the your ugly, your uglier kind of dialogue. The debates are wonderful, but the fact is, when you have a couple of hours, and they are roadblocked, you are not going to capture the attention broadly of the widest swath of Americans into the dialogue of the campaign. If we can find ways in which television can more positively facilitate a dialogue, and in this case, having a couple of minutes, or a few minutes a night, where candidates speak directly to the camera, where the voice over, the negative quality is going to be much harder to maintain. And if it is there, there will be ample opportunity for the press and it's analysis and for the other candidate to play a role there in bringing it back within the bounds, is almost a necessary direction we need to go in to try and recapture the notion of a campaign that really is a part of a deliberative process. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: I think it would be fair to say also, that the current system of running for office, the one in which you have to raise money to buy the time to get the access also distorts the political process. Paul Taylor, you are one of the most respected commentators on the political process in the print medium. If you don't mind telling us a little bit about your views on how the TV and radio medium distort or effect the political process, I would appreciate to hear those views. MR. TAYLOR: Well, I covered a number of presidential campaigns, and one of the reasons I got disillusioned with it -- let me describe the 8:00 a.m. meeting that each campaign in the last weeks has. The brain thrust of the presidential campaign. They all sit around with coffee and donuts at 8:00 a.m. and the got two things on their mind. And the two things are, what are the seven second that we want to get on Brokaw and Jennings and Rather tonight, and where do we want the candidate standing when he says it. That's question number one. So that will be our line of the day. We will build the whole day around that. And question number two is, we just got back, we have three attack ads we are thinking of running this week. To reenforce that line, we just got back the focus group results on them, we've tested them, should be choose version A, B or C? If that's what drives candidacies, if that is the coin of realm in campaign communication, that is going to be what drives journalism. And the political journalism is very much about that. We write a lot about the Spin Doctors, the polls, the focus groups, the sound bites. America, it seems to me, understands this. We have been doing business this way in presidential campaigns for a couple of decades now. The voters, I think get it. I will quote Todd Gidlyn, some of you may remember, an author -- said the voters have become cognizant of their own bammoozlement. (Laughter.) MR. TAYLOR: In some ways, the packaging, the artifices, the fakery, is discounted in advance, but it becomes -- again, it becomes what carries the conversation. So it's like a pro-wrestling match. And some people tune in just for the sheer interest of the pro-wrestling match. What I hope you can get to is a boxing match. Where you have the two candidates engaged in honest combat. Does that eliminate the negativity from the campaigns? Frankly, I hope not because negativity is a part of politics. But I hope that a format such as the one we have been talking about allows for honest engagement, honest dialogue, played out in front of the biggest audience America assembles every night, which are sitting down to watch Mr. Murdoch's programming and the programming at ABC, NBC, and CBS. And so, in other words, I think with a fairly small format change, you have the potential to improve discourse, to change campaign strategy, to change campaign journalism, and I think ultimately, to do what's the most important thing, to engage citizens. The last point I would make. People say attack ads work. And they do work. But understand how they work. They don't work by persuading your supporters to vote for you. They work by persuading people who might have been inclined to vote for your opponent not to vote at all. And I think that it is no accident that in the last 20 or 25 years, where we have been engaging in political communication this way, we have seen our voter turnout drop to among the lowest of all democracies. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: So, on the one hand, we don't want broadcasters in an individual market, or a network to distort the political process by choosing who ought to be on the TV. Of course, you are saying that, in effect, that's happening through the news anyhow, so we already have some of that. But we certainly don't want to enhance that. That's the purpose of 315. On the other hand, forcing all the candidates to have to buy the time has it's own negative distortion area effects on the political process. So, aren't we focusing here -- or ought we not be focusing on making sure that we don't make the best of the enemy of the good? If we have an idea that's been launched that might help us get a better process, isn't it worth of experimenting and aren't we best off trying to identify the single-defined purpose of 315 that ought to be preserved? Making sure that individual broadcasters don't exercise in their own right the power to select who ought to be using the free time. Now, Mr. Murdoch, has suggested the ways in which Fox would not exercise that discretion. The way that he would farm it out to others. Could I get comment on his specific proposal. Dr. Hagelin, you probably are the best person armed to disagree since you have only this particular forum for free time. MR. HAGELIN: Right. Well, you correctly pointed out that television access is crucial to participate in the democratic process. You should also bear in mind that the Republican and Democratic candidates have granted themselves $60 million in taxpayer funding to buy TV time. Third-party candidates can't do that. I would like to have asked Senator McCain how General Lebid would have done in the Russian election if the Russian television had been closed to Yeltsin and Zuigonof only? Or whether 70 percent of the Russians would have turned out to vote in that election if only Yeltsin and Zuigonof had been given free TV time? CHAIRMAN HUNDT: But if I can, I would like to ask you to focus very directly and, if I can, very, very briefly. Is there anything wrong with the suggestions Mr. Murdoch has made about the way in which Fox would not, as a network, select who would be on, but rather the way they would ask that that be outsourced or delegated to a third- party so as to protect the fundamental purpose of 315? MR. HAGELIN: That is genuinely a good suggestion. It is clearly a step forward. I think it's very important that the FEC, perhaps, be consulted as to what objective and fair democratic criteria would be. I think that's a great step forward for democracy. And I don't think the 96 million viewers that we saw in 1992 would have tuned in if Perot, for example, had not participated in that debate. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Let me switch briefly to my last topic for questioning. It is said that cash donations to political campaigns are the gift that never stops taking. That may or may not be true, and I certainly don't want to run the risk of the same accusation when I get to my next favorite topic after free time for presidential elections. But that is the topic of free time for other elections. Specifically, Congressional and statewide elections. Mr. Murdoch, my ears perked up when you mentioned that topic and I thought I heard you indicate that that's also in your vision. If I could get you to expand on that, I would appreciate it. MR. MURDOCH: Yes, we have been hearing a lot today about the content and the style of the elections and of advertising. I'm not so concerned about that as I am about the money behind it. And I think that's where the damage is done, and I don't really believe that the national party fundraising for the presidential elections is doing a lot of harm. It is the Congressmen and the Senators and, particularly, the unfair advantage that the incumbents have in this process which I think does a great deal of damage to the whole democratic process in this country. If you are an elected member of the Congress it is 10 times as easy to raise money as if you are a challenger. And that in itself, I think, is bad for this country and against change. And we've got to find a way. I think as for television, it's easy enough to extend this to statewide races. In some areas, it's difficult when you get into Congressional districts, because we could have nothing else on the air in a place like Los Angeles, where there are two or three dozen districts, Congressional Districts. And the same in New York. But there must be a way through it, I think, in which we can, if we can agree on some process for this, that we can take it down to these other races. And give people time to get their point of view across and not cheapen, as Senator McCain wants, the time which would simply double the amount they buy. I'd almost put the rates up so that they couldn't buy any and you keep the rich candidates out that way by giving free time to all the candidates with no advantage to the incumbent. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Excuse me just one second. I don't want to me remiss here in not acknowledging the gratitude, the contributions that TCI has made to this merging debate about free time. And if I could ask you, Mr. Andrews, to just comment on what Mr. Murdoch has just said. I'd like to hear TCI's views or your personal views about free time being extended to a Congressional or statewide candidates. MR. ANDREWS: Well, thank you Mr. Chairman for your kind words. And we intend on, Race for the Presidency in the final 12 to 15 weeks before election day to showcase in those markets where our program is best distributed to showcase Senate races. In some cases, if there is not a Senate race being contested in that state, it would be a race for Governor. Perhaps, even in some cases, Congressional Districts, simply as a way of sampling the idea for the benefit of not just viewers in that state or that market, but for viewers in our national audience on the Race for the Presidency program. We intend this as a way of getting our feet wet toward a more diversified effort in many states in 1998. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: And, Chuck, did you want to make one comment? MR. MANATT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would just underscore, I guess, the discussion of both of the last two gentlemen. How important it is we head in this direction. In almost all cases, presidential or statewide, which is to say Governor or Senator, where the real cost of the campaigning is way overburdened on the media, Congressional Districts and others are not quite burdened the same way on the media. But this step, this direction, which we have to work with campaigns are terribly important. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: I don't have any other questions at this time. We will now have follow-up questions and, hopefully, follow-up answers from Commissioner Ness and Commissioner Chong. COMMISSIONER NESS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to talk a little bit about the safeguards that are in place or that ought to be in place, or that ought to be removed. What safeguards are absolutely necessary to delineate what would be a bona fide news event? Does anyone want to address that specifically? What safeguards ought to be in place? For example, need it be back-to-back programming? Need it be independent candidate selection? Need it be independent question formulation? Newsworthiness? No evidence of broadcaster favoritism? What is useful, what is unnecessary to ensure that the goals of 315 are maintained? Mr. Dyk? MR. DYK: The answer, I think, with respect to the first three is no, they are not necessary. And as to the second two, the answer is yes, they are necessary. I think that the question of whether they have to be back-to-back should be made irrelevant as approval of the Fox proposal would. Newsworthiness remains an important criterion and lack of individual candidate favoritism remains an important criterion. But I think essentially, in the (A)(4) exemption, those should be the only two criterion. COMMISSIONER NESS: Yes, Mr. Meyerson? MR. MEYERSON: If you talk about multi-party races, I think I can -- I would like to see people also talk about a lack of hostility to candidates as well. It's certainly possible to have two people and you don't care who wins as long as one of them doesn't, a third person. So I would like to add, as sort of understanding that you don't want to be hostile, especially, to a third outside voice. And when you talk about third parties, historically, their addition has not been because they could win, but because they could alter the debate. And I would like to make sure that if you look from Ross Perot to John Anderson to George Wallace on back, it's not the chance of victory that "will effect their political process." You want to let those who could effect the debate be included in the debate. COMMISSIONER NESS: Any other views from anyone else? Mr. Ornstein? MR. ORNSTEIN: It seems to me that defining a bona fide news event is something that is the subject of substantial public and press attention that is going to be discussed substantially afterwards. And that you simply want some reasonable and objective criteria that are put in place by, I think, an independent group and I think the Murdoch proposal is a very reasonable one in that regard. There are others that could be followed to make sure there is a fairness in terms of who is brought in. The one thing I would say, just simply in terms of this particular set of proposals, we want a dialogue here. It isn't just about raising new issues. It's getting a dialogue among those who have a chance of winning and getting a sense for voters who aren't going to pay a whole lot of attention looking at candidates to assess them. Their leadership qualities, not just where they stand on the issues. And you don't want to muddy the waters too much. If you have five or six candidates so that the dialogue between the major ones isn't going to come right one after the other, but with a substantial interlude in between, you are going to lose a major part of this. And that ought to be a criterion as well. COMMISSIONER NESS: But if the presentations are prerecorded, not edited, but prerecorded, the two and a half minutes, or whatever, presentations. MR. ORNSTEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER NESS: Do you really have a dialogue? MR. ORNSTEIN: I think you do get a dialogue. Because what will end up happening is, and I believe this would happen if we manage to get some variation of this. This is going to become a very important focal point of the campaign. And a candidate is going to say something, and for the next 24 hours, it's going to be hashed out and reviewed and discussed. The other candidate is going to react to it. There is going to be some question of what you want to do the next day. And then you are going to get the similar sort of thing happening. So that once this becomes a focal point, people are going to pay more attention to it than they would otherwise and the discussion will go on, well-beyond the two and a half minutes itself. COMMISSIONER NESS: Is it critical that there be no intervention or editing by the candidate, for example? Is that an important piece of the puzzle? Mr. Schwartzman? MR. SCHWARTZMAN: Yes, this is the critical legal point. The difference, and Mr. Dyk and I vehemently disagree on this, the difference between on-the-spot coverage of a bona fine news event, is that a news event reflects the absence of broadcaster control over the content of the programming and what is said. And that was what Mr. Murdoch clarified in connection with Fox's plan, that in my mind, qualified it as coverage of a news event. What Congress had in mind in 1959, was covering conventions. You put a camera up and you broadcast what happens, and the absence of a broadcaster's ability to effect it, is what qualifies for the exemption. A news interview is quite the opposite. So, yes, I think that critical to this, and critical to the kind of virtual debate inherent in Paul Taylor's concept is that the broadcasters have no role in effecting, conditioning the content requiring that specific questions be addressed or answered, giving over the time to the candidate. MR. MURDOCH: Commissioner, can I? COMMISSIONER NESS: Please. MR. DYK: I find that a somewhat astonishing construction of Section 315, where the central Congressional purpose was to restore broadcaster discretion. And I'm not aware that in any of the court decisions or any of the Commission decisions that there is any suggestion that broadcaster control or broadcaster influence is going to render the program non-exempt. And I don't think there should be any such criteria and I think it would be directly contrary to the central Congressional purpose. COMMISSIONER NESS: What about candidate editing of the presentation? MR. DYK: Well, I think we are talking here about the (A)(4) exemption. COMMISSIONER NESS: Correct. MR. DYK: I don't think that candidate editing of the presentation is inconsistent with that. I think what's going to happen here is that broadcasters will experiment with different formats and the beauty of broadcaster editorial judgment is if the formats don't work and, for example, the candidate editing results in a format that doesn't work, the broadcaster is going to abandon it and it's not going to happen again. COMMISSIONER NESS: Okay. Does anyone else have any thoughts in terms of safeguards? What works, what doesn't work? Dean Jamieson? DEAN JAMIESON: The only thing I would say is (inaudible). COMMISSIONER NESS: Okay. Cable television is playing an increasing role in the political debate. There are a number of programs that are now found on cable television. A lot of candidates have used the local inserts in cable television to provide an opportunity to be on the air at lower prices. I was wondering, Mr. Andrews, you commented about your programs and the desire to have clarification on the part of the Commission with respect to 315. Can you elaborate a little bit about how you see 315 effecting what is done on cable, specifically, as TCI? I assume you are saying TCI is an operator? MR. ANDREWS: Yes, TCI is an operator, but also Intro-Television, TCI's channel which serves most of our 13 million subscribers across the country, is the home-base of Race for the Presidency. And as we read 315, cable programming services are not spoken to, cable operators are spoken to. And this was the threshold at which we began designing Race for the Presidency a year ago, thinking that we had considerable leeway as a cable programming service. We wanted to enlist a broad coalition of other cable programmers and cable operators, which we have been able to do over 20 members of that coalition that give us our reach of 50 million homes for the show every week. And we also hope that we could begin enlisting public television stations, like Mr. McCarter's WTTW, not yet one of our partners. But we have about 15 public television stations across the country. So we went further beyond the silence of the law about cable programming services and scrutinized the definition of bona fide news program and designed Race for the Presidency so that 20 to 25 minutes of free candidate material in a 50 minute programming hour has wrapped around it the news analysis, the bi-partisan political analysis from Republican and Democratic voices with a sprinkling of participation of third-party voices, as well as reports from the campaign trail that is anchored by a well-respected credential journalist. We did everything we could to make it a bona fide news program almost an analogy to what NBC has offered for inclusion of presentations by candidates within it's Dateline programs in October, or what CNN, a cable service by the way, has offered with its inside politics, five minutes a week, I believe is there offer in the last four weeks of the campaign. So we tried to be as safe as we could in designing Race for the Presidency under the legal advice that we had received in order to push farther and offer Senate candidates, House candidates, Gubernatorial candidates free air time in the closing weeks of this campaign in many parts of the country. It would be helpful to us if the clarification that has been requested by Fox does broaden the reading of the Section so that we don't have to tiptoe as much as we have to date. COMMISSIONER NESS: Would you say that a vertically integrated programmer MSO, such as TCI, would all of your cable networks that you run on your own systems be subject to 315 requirements? MR. ANDREWS: I'm not a lawyer, I am not experienced in communications law. Prior to receiving the assignment to conduct this particular experiment for my CEO, John Malone, and I really couldn't possibly speak to that question, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER NESS: Does anyone else have any thoughts about the inclusion of cable programming within the purview of 315? Okay, my time is up. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Commissioner Chong? COMMISSIONER CHONG: Thank you. I talked a little bit in my opening statement about how we have many more mass media outlets today than certainly at the time the rule was implemented, 315, which I believe was back in the 20s. I don't even think we had TV back then. In 1959, Congress put the exemptions in for the news programming. That was the year I was born, let me note. And so things have changed since then too. We have cable, we have satellite DBS, we have OVS systems, hopefully, being put in soon. I wanted to know if any panelists would like to speak about whether the fact that there are many more mass media outlets available to consumers, whether that ought to impact the way that we interpret the Section 315 and also any of the exemptions. Anyone want to take a stab at that? MR. DYK: Well, Commissioner, I think it is relevant and I think it ought to be that the Commission could be less concerned about broadening the exemptions and as the Commission has ruled in the past in the fairness proceeding, these new outlets, these new competitive media entities really do have a bearing directly on the First Amendment question, and suggest that some of the concerns that the Supreme Court addressed in Red Lion, based on the technology at that time, are somewhat outmoded now. And that it's appropriate to recognize greater First Amendment rights and broadcasters and in greater freedom from broadcasters in order to serve their audiences. COMMISSIONER CHONG: Now, in the Red Lion case, they talked a lot about scarcity being the basis for broadcast public interest obligations. Are you arguing that as we move into a digital age with more outlets that this argument has somehow diminished? MR. DYK: I think it is diminished and I think that the Red Lion case itself recognized that that day might come and that subsequent cases have suggested that that day has arrived. And I do think it has arrived. What your people are arguing about now is -- Henry Geller said, well, not today, but 10 years from now. Well, that's a wholly different debate than we had at the time of Red Lion, where I think you had to be somewhat visionary to see the changes in the technology. But the competition is there. The notion of the First Amendment is that people benefit from private choice in these areas rather than governmental choice, that the real danger is governmental choice and I think whatever countervailing considerations might have existed at the time of Red Lion don't exist any more. COMMISSIONER CHONG: Mr. Ornstein? MR. ORNSTEIN: I see good news and bad news in the expansion of outlets. The good news is that candidates who otherwise couldn't afford to buy television network time, are going to have a lot of outlets and places where they can actually get messages across to different audiences and maybe expand dialogue in some ways. But that dialogue is going to be a narrower and narrower one. And we are already finding candidates strategically focusing and trying to get a message through to a smaller group of people, but we might not even have an opportunity if you were an opponent to know what kind of dialogue is going on out there. It seems to me to increase even more, the compelling need to have at least some place where we have a national dialogue as we fragment further and further. And that's where these ideas become even more compelling. That if in fact we are going to have all kinds of political dialogue going on over the fishing channel, or the dance channel, or the internet, in different places, smaller groups of people, it's going to be harder to have a national dialogue which is important as a unifying force in the country. And if we can find ways to do that and cement it in now, it will be very, very good for the country and you ought to give some consideration to that as you consider what the legal ramifications are. COMMISSIONER CHONG: I'm glad you raised the internet. It seems to me that that's -- I mean, this is not the topic of our panel, but it's clear that internet is a growing service. I note that most political candidates and most Congressional members have web sites, where people can access information about the candidate and position papers on a daily basis. I would think that that would foster positive information flowing to the voter. I saw some hands up. Mr. Manatt? MR. MANATT: Madame Commissioner, it would foster more information, I'm not sure if it's positive. In some ways, it will get out -- I would just add to what Norm was saying. The two Senators tried to underscore it. For the closest thing to a national culture, a way in which we can be pulled together at least once every four years in a presidential dialogue and a presidential debate, is exactly the free TV time format we are talking about with a plethora now of different other mediums that people get their information. They are not getting the same information and they are just not coming together. It's something where with a country as diverse as ours, we need to be concerned about. COMMISSIONER CHONG: At the end, Ms. -- DEAN JAMIESON: Jamieson, Kathleen. COMMISSIONER CHONG: Thank you. DEAN JAMIESON: I think as you talk about multiplication of channels, it's important to remember that we are dealing here with television. And for the one-third of the families who don't have cable, they don't really have the kind of multiplication of channels that many people envision when they make this kind of argument. And to the extent that it is cable that is bringing us CSPAN and cable that brings Inside Politics, and candidates increasingly are using Larry King as a conduit, that one-third of the families are being closed out of the political dialogue. And I don't know exactly how that bears on your technical legal question, but I think from a larger standpoint, which is how do we create more access to the dialogue democracy, it means that the broadcast channels have an obligation that is very real and needs to be made real until we have 100 percent cable penetration. COMMISSIONER CHONG: What about radio? I mean, radio is broadcasting. That falls within the purview of 315. Has that been a problem, is it effective as a conduit? Anyone have thoughts? DEAN JAMIESON: I think one of the most important things that has happened in the last decade has been the expansion of talk radio in politics. Which has provided many voices that otherwise would not have had access to the political system. A means of talking back to the political system. The program, for example, that talks about disability issues for its entire programming time is, I think, a very innovative use of the nation's airwaves. And so, much of the talk publicly about talk radio suggests that it hurts democracy. I think talk radio is an exciting alternative way of creating interaction in politics. And it deserves our applause. And there, I think, the multiplication of channels has produced multiplication of voices. COMMISSIONER CHONG: I have had some commentators say that if the free time proposals are not exempt as news events, it's possible that the networks might run afoul of the campaign contribution laws. Does anyone have any comments on that issue? Mr. Schwartzman? MR. SCHWARTZMAN: As I said in my opening statement, it's the public's time. So the broadcasters are giving time that they own as a contribution, rather they are exercising their responsibility as trustees of the public's time in exercising their programming judgment as to what will best serve their audience. So it's not a contribution at all. The Commission staff addressed this in 1989 and that's, basically, the position they took. And I think it was right then, and it's right now. COMMISSIONER CHONG: Anybody agree, disagree? MR. DYK: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER CHONG: Mr. Dyk? MR. DYK: I do think there is a potential problem with non-exempt programming being a contribution under the FEC regulations. The FEC has never been able to rule on this and it does have difficulty in getting these rulings out. But I think there is a danger there. But, if the Commission were to rule that programs are exempt, there would not be a problem under the FEC regulations. And that's one of the important reasons for the exemptions. COMMISSIONER CHONG: Anyone else? Mr. Andrews? MR. ANDREWS: That was an important consideration in resigning Race for the Presidency, Commissioner. As we studied the FEC law, it appeared that qualifying as a bona fide news program, hence exempt, was critical for our company to stay on the right side of the FEC. COMMISSIONER CHONG: Thank you. I note that since 1975, the Commission has been steadily expanding the exemptions to allow for more kinds of news programming. Particularly, with respect to news interviews and on-the- spot coverage of news events. It seems like it's a good trend, at least in my view at this point. I'm wondering if anyone disagrees that this is a good trend? MR. HAGELIN: I would have to disagree with the way it's been done. It seems as though we have had an erosion over the past -- well, since 1959, of the spirit in the letter of the Equal Provisions Act set by Congress for the purpose of being sure that a diversity and a plurality of ideas were heard. I think the strength of our democracy depends upon the plurality and diversity and vitality of the discussion. And I think, given the forces that are involved in the decision here today, the FCC is going to have to work doubly hard to be sure and maintain a diversity and the vitality of a democratic process by being sure that the spirit of the Congressional equal access provision is upheld. And I don't think it's a good thing that the FCC, I think, has allowed a steady erosion of that beginning with a 1959 exemption. Which was really fostered by McCarthy- style era attempt to keep certain parties out of the discussion, which may have been motivated for legitimate reasons at the time. But to see a further erosion of those equal access provisions in the ensuing years, where there is no fundamental basis and no danger to our democracy through the fertility of new ideas. I can't see that that erosion is a good thing. COMMISSIONER CHONG: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HUNDT: Thank you very much. I doubt that we have ever had a more important hearing here at the FCC. We certainly have never had a more distinguished list of witnesses, and I want to thank all of you very, very much. Our country is moving to an information economy and our competition policy is supposed to drive that. We are moving to an information society, our networking of classrooms and other policies are supposed to drive that. We need to move to an information democracy. And the effort that you all are discussing today is an effort that will help us achieve that vision. I think that Paul Taylor and the other members of the Free Time Coalition have demonstrated that if wishers are beggars, then beggars are going to ride on the information highway at least. And I congratulate you on your success. I want to thank those who requested the time, I want to thank those who gave the time, and I also want to thank all of you who have given us the free advice to go with that free time. Your free advice is invaluable for us. We need it to make sure that we do protect the legitimate purposes of Section 315, while at the same time, recognizing that it would be wrong to have an overly strict crabbed reading of 315 that, in fact, denied us the opportunity to improve the other effects on the political process that we currently see. And that is the need to raise virtually infinite amounts of money to get access to the American people. None of us in this country want that to continue to be the case, and I think we ought to be able to find our way to a reading of 315 that will allow these donations to be received without empowering broadcasters to distort the process and in an inappropriate manner by selecting the recipients of the donation. So I think you have helped us enormously in all of these respects, and I want to thank you again. I also would like to acknowledge the continuing extraordinarily able contributions of our staff, Roy Stewart has done magnificent job on this hearing and on many, many other issues. In his particular office, Bobby Baker and Ray White, and Anthony Mastando have all contributed to the briefing of the Commissioners and to the preparation of this process. And I'm sure many of the panelist here join me in thanking them. Jonathan Cohen, John Nuechterlein, Marsha McBride, Christ Wright, all deserve thanks for their contribution to our legal analysis and I hope the other Commissioners will indulge me as I thank specifically someone on my staff, Julius Genachowski, who is a brilliant lawyer and a very, very indefatigable individual, has helped guide my own thinking through this process. Thank you all very, very much. This particular hearing is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.) // // // // // // // // // // // // REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE FCC DOCKET NO.: CASE TITLE: EN BANC HEARING ON NETWORK PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE TIME TO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES HEARING DATE: June 25, 1996 LOCATION: Washington, D. C. I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the Federal Communications Commission. Date: 06/25/96 _____________________________ Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation 1220 "L" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Peter Shonerd TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence were fully and accurately transcribed from the tapes and notes provided by the above named reporter in the above case before the Federal Communications Commission. Date: 06/27/96 ______________________________ Official Transcriber Heritage Reporting Corporation Christine Perkins PROOFREADER'S CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the transcript of the proceedings and evidence in the above referenced case that was held before the Federal Communications Commission was proofread on the date specified below. Date: 07/05/96 ______________________________ Official Proofreader Heritage Reporting Corporation Barbara Blossom