No Guarantee of Equal TV Ad Time for Political Candidates

Recently, the political landscape witnessed notable developments when former President Donald Trump made his comeback on X, formerly known as Twitter. This marked his first return since being banned in 2021. During a live stream on August 12, Trump engaged in an interview with X’s owner, Elon Musk, an event that Musk actively promoted.

This situation sparked curiosity among onlookers regarding whether Vice President Kamala Harris would receive equal broadcasting opportunities under federal election fairness regulations. As the presidential election approaches in November, political advertisements are becoming increasingly prominent, leading many to question the fairness of ad time distribution.

The central query posed is whether political candidates are guaranteed equal amounts of television ad time. To clarify, the answer is no. Candidates are assured equal opportunities to acquire airtime at equal prices but not necessarily equal amounts overall.

This concept stems from the Communications Act of 1934, enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). According to the act, if a candidate appears for over four seconds on a TV or radio station’s broadcast, that outlet must provide equal opportunities to others running for the same office. However, exceptions exist: news coverage and interviews are excluded, while advertisements and entertainment content are included.

Historical instances illustrate these nuances well. During Ronald Reagan’s campaign, some networks ceased airing classic films featuring him to comply with these regulations. More recently, Mehmet Oz curtailed his show ‘Doctor Oz’ during his Senate campaign in Pennsylvania to avoid equal time obligations with his opponent, John Fetterman.

The key phrase in the law is “equal opportunities” rather than “equal time.” As defined by FCC guidelines, if a candidate purchases an ad during primetime for $1,000, the station must offer their opponent the chance to buy time at the same rate. However, if the opponent cannot afford it or chooses not to, no further obligation exists on the station’s part.

David Schultz, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, emphasized this point, stating, “It doesn’t mean that [the station] has to give, at the end of the day, the same amount of real-time, if some candidates have more money and could actually purchase more time.” Thus, the law ensures fairness in opportunity rather than outcomes.

Furthermore, this legislation applies solely to broadcast stations, meaning that cable networks and digital platforms like Hulu or Facebook do not have to follow these regulations. Consequently, Elon Musk is not required to provide Vice President Harris with a similarly promoted live event like the one offered to Donald Trump.