Tobacco Documents Online

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20580 BUREAU OF CONSU.l1ER PROTECTION Sunny Sun Nai Fong, Chief Office of Health Education 3500 N. Logan P.O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Dear Mr. Fong: S~? ~ 4 19Ea Your letter to Ms. Cheek has been referred to me for reply. I apologize for the delay in responding. I notice that you were to have held a meeting on August 18 and had hoped for answers by that date. Unfortunately, I was out of the office on business for most of the month of August. I caution you that the following represent my own personal opinion. These answers should not be taken as the view of the Commission. First, to the best of my knowledge, there are no federal restrictions prohibiting states from purchasing air time on television or radio stations to discuss various issues, including to advocate an anti-smcking position. To the best of my knowledge, there are no guidelines or rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission that prohibit a state from buying time. There may be state restrictions on the use of state funds to buy advertising time: I am not in a position to advise you whether Micbigan has any such restrictions. I personally do not know whether any states have bought time to advocate or discuss anti-smoking positions. You could consult with John Banzhaf, Director, Action for Smoking and Health, George Washington Law School, Washington, D.C. He may have an answer to this question. Of course, you should recognize that the stations do not have to sell you time to discuss the anti-smoking issue. Each individual station management is responsible for the programzning content and the decision on what to broad- cast is left primarily to the stations. I I I I I I I L -261-

Mr. Fong F I Second, I- am unaware of any mechanisms that will ensurP the airiny of public service announcements during prime time. I cannot coaunent upon the political feasibility of offering tax incentives to radio and TV stations which broadcast PSAs during prime time. Third, under the FCC's fairness doctrine, broadcast stations were required to carry anti-smoking positions if they carried cigarette advertising. The FCC has since ruled that ordinary product advertisements, such as cigarette commercials, do not normally discuss controversial issues of public importance and thus do not give rise to fairness doctrine obligations to air contrastir,g views. It is my personal opinion that it would be difficult to adopt a fairness doctrine approach for magazines - distributed in Michigan. The fairness doctrine was upheld against first amendzaent attack because broadcasters are considered public trustees, with.certain obligations to the public. Magazines are wholly private concerns. They do not get a license from th.e government to operate. They are not required to ~-~ carry any proqramtning they do not want to. They are much less ~..J subject to regulation by the government than are broadcast stations, wh.ich receive their license to operate from the government. - I hope this information is of assistance to you. Again, I apologize for the delay. Sircerely, i Collot Guerard_, Deputy Director for -Advertising Practices -262-