Title:  Fair elections vs. freedom of the press

So that the electorate may make informed decisions the constitution provides
for freedom of the press and freedom of speech.  Yet in this election year the
national television networks have methodically ignored all of the third party
candidates to such an extent that none have been able to communicate with the
electorate effectively.  Is this form of selective reporting protected by the
constitution?  Or is it so contrary to the intent of the first amendment, and
such a gross violation of the rights of these candidates to speak to the
voters, and of the voters to choose among all candidates, that it leaves the
networks vulnerable to legal action?

There is no question that to win an election a candidate must be seen on TV,
and seen often, or that candidates excluded from the airwaves are unelectable. 
Yet the silent treatment is all the networks offer third party candidates.  The
networks provide the two major party candidates with thousands of minutes of
free coverage but Mr. Nader and Mr. Buchanan receive no more than 1/100th of
that (Mr. Browne and the others, none at all.)  What little coverage the
networks do provide to third party candidates is usually of a negative nature
and is often limited to the mandatory "third party questions" that seek to
delegitimize such candidates:  "Isn't a vote for you a wasted vote", "Wouldn't
you better achieve your goals by withdrawing from the race so that candidate X
can have your supporters' votes?", and "Do you really think you can win?". 
There is an inverse correlation between the size of the expected audience for a
show and the amount of coverage provided on it to third party candidates. 
During the critical evening news there is almost no coverage but some time is
allotted on the Sunday morning talk shows - which almost nobody watches.  Nor
have the networks made any obvious attempts to provide fair coverage in some
other manner, for instance, by hosting an open event where all candidates might
appear together on equal footing and be seen by a reasonably large audience.

The national television networks would certainly make a tempting legal target
for the third parties or for a class action suit by the voters themselves.  The
networks have a huge amount of money, including hundreds of millions of dollars
which the two major parties and their candidates for federal offices will spend
on TV ads this year.  The ultimate goal of such a suit need not be to collect
damages. Rather it could be to use a court victory to force the television
networks to use some of their wealth to provide fair coverage in all future
elections as a precondition for being allowed to operate at all.  Such a result
could potentially achieve effective campaign reform in a manner that the two
major parties would not be able to block.

It should be easy enough to demonstrate in court that the actions of the
networks strangle third party candidacies.  Even the sole exception proves the
rule - Minnesota Gov. Ventura was elected after he was able to work around the
television lockout by appearing in his state's debates, and his poll numbers
rose following his increase in coverage.  Making the constitutional case that
the rights of the candidates and voters outweigh the rights of the press would
be more of a challenge.  Surely though there must be lawyers who are willing
to try.



David Mathog
Arcadia, CA
mathog@caltech.edu