Eliminate the FCC’s Equal Time Rule Ahead of the Upcoming Election

The upcoming 2024 presidential campaign has unexpectedly shifted focus to a longstanding Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation known as the equal time rule. This rule mandates that if a candidate for public office appears on a licensed broadcast station, the station must provide equal opportunities to other candidates for the same office. This requirement is anchored in the Communications Act of 1934 and aims to level the playing field in the broadcasting landscape. Recently, it has gained prominence due to incidents involving various presidential candidates who have leveraged this rule to assert their presence in the media, most notably Randall Terry of the Constitution Party, who used the regulation to force broadcasters to air his anti-abortion advertisements. Though he may not be a genuine contender for votes, his status as a “legally qualified candidate” allowed him to demand airtime, theoretically giving other candidates similar rights as long as they paid the prevailing ad rates.

The equal time rule is designed to prevent media bias, a concern echoed by Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr when Vice President Kamala Harris made a cameo on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live.” Carr interpreted the Vice President’s appearance as a blatant evasion of the equal time rule, which ostensibly exists to prevent licensed broadcasters from influencing elections unfairly. He highlighted that in exchange for operating on public airwaves, broadcasters must act in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” However, this situation poses complications, as Harris’s brief and unpaid appearance prompts questions about whether other candidates can claim their share of airtime without further cost. This quandary is underscored by NBC’s acknowledgment that significant airtime was allocated to a Republican challenger in response to a perceived violation of the equal time rule.

These incidents demonstrate the increasingly complex landscape of broadcasting regulations and political campaigning. Under the current conditions, the equal time rule’s implications for modern media consumption and political coverage seem outdated. As of late, conventional broadcasters have lost significant viewer share to streaming services, challenging the relevance of a rule established in an era where few television channels existed. Over-the-air broadcasting fell below 50% of total TV viewership for the first time last year, while streaming surged, indicating a societal shift in how information and entertainment are consumed. Given these changes, the equal time rule, which imposes strict limits and burdens on broadcasters, seems less crucial than it once was and raises questions about its practical effectiveness in a fragmented media ecosystem.

The equal time rule has historically created considerable challenges for broadcasters. The requirement to measure every second that a political candidate appears onscreen, ensuring that rival candidates receive equal airtime, has led to situations of confusion and administrative burden. Previous interpretations of the rule have been inconsistent—like when Arnold Schwarzenegger, upon announcing his gubernatorial candidacy, faced a request for equal airtime that was denied because his show segment was deemed a bona fide news interview. Similarly, when Donald Trump hosted “Saturday Night Live” during the 2016 campaign, competing candidates sought equal airtime, further illustrating the complexities and often arbitrary nature of the rule’s application.

The origins of the equal time rule lie in a political context vastly different from today, dominated by a limited selection of broadcast frequencies. The advent of diverse media platforms, including social media and streaming services, has transformed how Americans consume content and engage with political messaging. For many, non-broadcast platforms have become primary sources for political information—nearly 17% of American adults now source news from TikTok alone. Given this shift, the equal time rule appears antiquated and ineffective, relegating a burdensome regulation imposed on certain broadcasters while their cable and streaming counterparts operate under far lighter restrictions.

Ultimately, the equal time rule seems increasingly out of place and should be considered for abolition as society moves toward a more dynamic and decentralized media landscape. Instead of serving a critical public good, modern interpretations of the equal time rule present complications that do more to restrict than to promote democratic engagement. With the 2024 election cycle looming, the time has come to reevaluate and dismantle this outdated regulation, paving the way for a media environment that accurately reflects today’s varied landscape. The call for reform emphasizes the necessity of modernizing broadcast regulations to fit a media reality where competition and access have evolved beyond the imaginations of the rule’s creators, fostering a freer exchange of ideas—essentially underscoring the need to protect the democratic principle of fair access, not just the bureaucratic application of historical regulations.