FREE TV FOR STRAIGHT TALK COALITION April 16, 1996 Chairman Reed E. Hundt Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Chairman Hundt, We the undersigned request the Commission to convene an en banc hearing to promote a maximum contribution by the electronic media, especially broadcast television, to the coming general election campaign for president, with special focus on recent proposals to provide free network television air-time to the major presidential candidates. Because it is relied upon so heavily by the public for news and information, the role played by television in its coverage of political affairs is crucial to a free society. Part of that role is to contribute as much as possible to a fully informed public and thus to interest that public in participating in this vital civil undertaking. While television does make significant contribution in this respect, it is not, we submit, the maximum contribution that is so greatly needed in these times, particularly in light of indicia like low voter turnout and voter cynicism. Therefore, prominent citizens, members of the press, politicians, academics, party leaders, and various network officials have all expressed a deep and growing concern over this state of affairs. Serious proposals to improve the situation raise the hope that the political media generally, and television in particular can respond much more fully and positively to the electorate's need for substantive information regarding candidates and issues. Congressional interest in such proposals is growing as well. The 1996 presidential campaign has become a focal point for these efforts. The Fox Network has offered to schedule free time for the major presidential candidates this fall. Our newly created group -- The Free TV for Straight Talk Coalition -- has urged all the networks voluntarily to offer the major presidential candidates a few minutes a night during prime-time for the culminating weeks of the 1996 presidential campaign. We believe an en banc hearing before the FCC offers a timely and appropriate forum to explore the range of free television time proposals being considered, and to discuss the relevant legal and practical questions necessary to make free television a reality. We are not suggesting the need for a formal proceeding of written comments and replies. Rather, an oral en banc proceeding will provide a full opportunity for network representatives, elected officials, academics, and concerned citizens to present their views on free television for the major presidential candidates. In addition, they may want to address the broader question of how the telecommunications media can better serve the public interest in public discourse and democratic decision-making. In doing so, the Commission will serve the public interest by facilitating this important, voluntary, and much needed development in political broadcast coverage. The Commission has previously acted to "encourage the larger and more effective use of [broadcasting] in the public interest" (47 U.S.C. Sec. 303(g)) in this political field (see First Report, 48 FCC2d 34 (1972)), and should do so now. There is a second reason for the Commission to convene such a proceeding. The Commission has the statutory responsibility for enforcing the equal opportunities requirement of 47 U.S.C. Section 315(a). The Fox Network has expressed its intention to seek a declaratory ruling from the FCC exempting its free time proposal from the relevant equal opportunities regulations. (47 C.F.R. Sections 73.1941 and 76.205). Accordingly, an en banc hearing will better enable the Commission to discharge its important function of affording guidance as to the application of the equal opportunities requirement and the exemptions thereto. In that connection, we believe that our proposal, under established precedent, does fall within the exemption in Section 315(a)(4) and thus could go forward as a legal and practical matter. Other than the foregoing agency responsibility, we are not calling for any Commission action or government intervention into political broadcasting. Any such offer by the networks should and would be entirely voluntary and would be undertaken by them in discharge of their own responsible recognition, recently stressed by them, of their public trustee obligation. The broadcasting industry is unique, in fact and in law (see Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 2456-57 (1994)), and therefore has a unique opportunity to make a maximum contribution sought in this vital civic area. Much has been and will be given the broadcast industry, and thus much can be expected of them. It is therefore our hope that if the FCC brings together the interested parties and presides over a good faith discussion of free television proposals, the outcome may well be that the networks will find new ways to improve the political coverage of the presidential campaign. The presidential candidates may be given a new opportunity in such free network air-time to communicate their positions on a variety of topics with the electorate. But even more importantly, the American people will discover a new political forum in which their interest in the presidential campaign and knowledge of the issues will be greatly heightened. We believe our free television proposal is best, but are eager to hear all views at the FCC hearings. Because time is of the essence, we look forward to your decision to convene an en banc hearing at the earliest possible date. Thank you for giving this matter and our request your consideration. Sincerely, Senator Bill Bradley Senator John McCain Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. Charles T. Manatt Kathleen Hall Jamieson Paul Taylor cc: Commissioner Rachelle B. Chong Commissioner Susan Ness Commissioner James H. Quello