Equal Opportunity – Law Street

Trump’s SNL Appearance Could Lead to Free Airtime for GOP Candidates

Kevin Rizzo — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 19:42:53 +0000

Image courtesy of [Brennan Schmidt via Flickr]

On Saturday, November 7, Donald Trump will host Saturday Night Live, which in addition to being particularly entertaining television could lead to free airtime for his opponents.

Dating all the way back to the Communications Act of 1934, broadcast channels that feature a candidate for federal office provide “equal opportunity” to opposing candidates who request their airtime. While there are several notable exceptions for news programming, this rule basically entitles Trump’s opposition to request free airtime on all NBC affiliates that air Saturday Night Live.

Because Trump is hosting the show, he will probably get somewhere between 20 to 25 minutes of airtime, which means that if his opponents submit free time requests NBC affiliate stations could be on the hook for a lot of free airtime. But this is also where several questions emerge. Equal opportunity only applies to “qualified candidates,” which according to the rule must have filed all of the necessary paperwork and made a “substantial showing” of his or her intention to seek the nomination. Any Republican who can prove that he or she is a qualified candidate may be entitled to free airtime.

The rule applies to all NBC affiliates that air SNL but not the network itself, meaning that individual stations would be charged with negotiating equal opportunity airtime. So far, most campaigns have focused on early primary and caucus states like Iowa and New Hampshire, which means that candidates’ requests may not meet the requirements in all states. Requests also need to be made within a week of Trump’s SNL appearance, but if airtime is granted candidates are entitled to do whatever they want with it.

While news programming is exempt from the equal opportunity rule, Saturday Night Live is subject to equal opportunity requests. In fact, this came up recently when Hillary Clinton made an impromptu appearance on the show. Her brief part in a sketch caused the New York NBC affiliate to notify the FCC that Clinton appeared on air without charge for three minutes and 12 seconds. As a result, Clinton’s opponents in the Democratic party were entitled to make equal opportunity claims, and one of them did. Lawrence Lessig, who at the time was running for president as a Democrat (but no longer is) asked 47 NBC affiliates for the same amount of airtime that they afforded to Clinton.

This is not the first time an equal opportunity issue has come up with a Saturday Night Live host. As Politifact points out, the show had Al Sharpton host back in 2003, which sparked concern over how the network would deal with equal opportunity claims. Senator Joe Lieberman, one of Sharpton’s opponents for the Democratic nomination, made a request and ended up getting free time–he was given a 28-minute segment to air a town hall discussion on NBC affiliates in California and Missouri. But based on the show’s opening scene in 2003, it’s pretty clear that they knew what they were doing when they invited Sharpton to host. Check out the video:

The rule’s original intention makes sense when you consider the media landscape several decades ago–broadcast television had much less competition than it does today and networks had significant of influence over the information people were exposed to. This rule essentially prevented networks from special treatment to specific candidates. But now, the idea of equal opportunity may seem a little weird. With the rise of cable and the internet, the media is much more fragmented than it was in the past, yet this rule only applies to broadcast media.

As Phillip Bump at the Washington Post points out, if Trump’s episode of SNL was only shown online, rather than broadcast over public airwaves, the rule would not apply. Some argue that equal opportunity is simply outdated and that the FCC should get rid of it. After all, the Federal Elections Commission is still able to punish media outlets if it considers their treatment of was candidate unfair. But barring a significant reinterpretation of the law, it looks like it will continue to be an option for candidates during this election cycle.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s SNL Appearance Could Lead to Free Airtime for GOP Candidates appeared first on Law Street.

Affirmative Action Laws: A History of Political Controversy

John Gomis — Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:25:45 +0000

Image courtesy of [MIKI Yoshihito via Flickr]

In our increasingly diverse society, one debate that’s pretty common to hear floating around is about “affirmative action.” Particularly in regards to college admissions, both proponents and critics of the programs have a lot to say. Read on to learn about the history of affirmative action policies, and the arguments for and against them.

What is Affirmative Action?

Affirmative action is defined as “a policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment.” AA has existed since the Civil Rights Movement. It began with President John F. Kennedy’s passage of Executive Order 10925, which required government contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” This essentially mandated that anyone hired by the federal government could not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.

According to current federal AA law, schools giving race-based admissions must meet the strict scrutiny rule. This rule was recently reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2013 Fisher v. University of Texas. If race is used in college application admissions, then the school (or the government if it is a state school) bears the legal burden of demonstrating that it was done because it is “closely related to a compelling government interest” and “narrowly tailored” to meet that interest. The school must also demonstrate that race-neutral alternatives are not viable in that case.

The debate over AA was also invigorated in 2014, with the Supreme Court Decision Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. The state of Michigan had banned AA policies at their universities. The court decided that Michigan’s ban of the policies did not violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the Schuette decision. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor stated:

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.

However, AA policies are not consistent state-by-state, and the Schuette case is just another example of the flexibility that states are allowed to take with their policies.

Since JFK’s executive order, AA policies have been modified and refined by the legislature and the courts. In fact, many sociologists and other experts have reach opposing conclusions about the efficacy of AA on redressing the effects of historical discrimination. This has led to AA becoming a source of significant political controversy. AA has been both implemented and enforced at both the federal and the state levels. Individual states can have vastly different AA policies from the federal government and from each other. AA is primarily implemented through efforts to “improve the employment and educational opportunities of women and members of minority groups through preferential treatment in job hiring, college admissions, the awarding of government contracts, and the allocation of other social benefits.”

What’s the argument to get rid of Affirmative Action?

Proponents of repealing AA argue that the policy of considering the race of potential beneficiaries disproportionately benefits upper and middle class racial minorities at the expense of poor Caucasians. Since a larger proportion of minorities are poor than Caucasians, class-based AA would help poor racial minorities more than it would help poor Caucasians. AA can disproportionately harm certain minority groups while benefiting others. For example, Asian Americans have more difficulty getting into top private universities than African Americans, Latino Americans, and Caucasians. Affirmative Action is reverse-discrimination and it requires the same discrimination that it is supposed to prevent, therefore it is counterproductive. In many cases, it can require less qualified or unqualified applicants to be accepted into positions at the expense of qualified applicants resulting in their eventual failure.

What’s the argument to keep Affirmative Action policies in place?

Opponents of repealing AA argue that ensuring equality of opportunity regardless of one’s background creates the best possible social, cultural and economic future for the people of the United States. Equality is also most conducive to the strength of the U.S. national defense. Failing to provide such equality would be contrary to the principles that led to the founding of the United States. Some argue that AA should be class-based only. However, racial minorities of all socioeconomic classes are vulnerable to discrimination and many minorities in all classes become victims of discrimination. Therefore, in order to be effective AA must be race based as well. Studies have shown that people with “black sounding” names are less likely to be contacted for job interviews than people with “white sounding names. AA has contributed to the creation to the “black middle class” as well. Finally, studies have shown that minority students are more likely to experience hostility and negative treatment in states that ban AA than in states that utilize it.

Conclusion

Affirmative action policies are a common cause of debate, especially when it comes to our public universities. While they certainly have proved their benefits, there are also valid concerns about the ethical benefits and detractors of the policies.