from broadcast licensees is now being reviewed and a complete survey will be released later this year. The network political activities analysis has been completed and shows that the three national television networks reported political broadcasting charges totaling $8.9 million (as compared to $4.1 million in 1964) for the presidential primary and general election campaigns of 1968. Of these total network charges, $4.7 million was for program time and $4.2 million for commercial spots on the network. Approximately 36.5 hours of program time was purchased by the candidates and/or their supporters, 16 hours and 17 minutes of free time was made available by the networks, and commercially sponsored time totaled 70 hours and 58 minutes. These figures do not include spot announcements. Presidential and vice-presidential candidates themselves appeared on network television approximately 96 hours and 11 minutes. Mr. MACDONALD. This is a very sensitive area and I know you are well aware of it. I am sure there will be questions here, too, but when you say presidential and vice presidential candidates appeared 96 hours and 11 minutes, is any of that free time? Mr. HYDE. That is a breakdown of the paid time of $8.9 million-the only free time outside of news, and that is not their time. That is just what news judgment sees fit to present, and I have it here, 16 hours and 17 minutes of free time. Mr. MACDONALD. As you know, we did not suspend section 315 and I would like your opinion. We never really got it last year as to whether or not a permanent amendment of section 315 as applied to presidential and vice presidential candidates would be in order. Mr. HYDE. We supported the proposal to waive or suspend regulations with respect to presidential and vice-presidential candidates. I think I can speak for the Commission on this and say the Congress should amend the law and limit the application of 315 to candidates of major parties. I think if you would do this you would take up the challenge of the broadcast industry that they would provide more free time if it were not for the liability or responsibility to present fringe candidates which now obtains when they present a candidate for free. Mr. MACDONALD. How would you touch upon that amendment? Mr. HYDE. I would suggest that it be limited to candidates of major parties but I would have some kind of a definition by which you could define a major party and I think it might be in terms of the percentage of the votes cast in the last previous election Mr. MACDONALD. To take an example, I am thinking of George Wallace. He was not a candidate in the election prior but definitely was thought to have been a major candidate prior to counting the ballots. Mr. HYDE. I think any definition you would adopt would have to recognize George Wallace as a major ticket. It was an important election factor. It was not like a fringe candidate who has no followers, who has no possibility of winning in a national election. Those fellows could be taken care of under the fairness doctrine, but a person who attracts as big a following as George Wallace is a serious candidate. Mr. MACDONALD. You just prefaced that by saying a man who could win the national election." Mr. HYDE. No; I say the test should be in terms of some percentage of a party classified as a major party which ought to be one that had attracted a sizable vote, one that would indicate some public interest in his candidacy. I think there should also be provision for a possible new party and that could be taken care of in terms of petition. The law could provide that a candidate who is supported by a petition of a given number of voters, and I would not presume to say the exact figure at this moment, would be exempt from 315. I can supply you a written suggestion on this. Mr. HARVEY. Right on that point, would the chairman predict that the Prohibition Party couldn't get a significant number of signatures? Mr. HYDE. I would say the definition should be broad enough to permit the appearance of any candidate who is going to figure seriously in the election. Mr. HARVEY. My point was the securing of signatures on a petition is about the easiest thing in the world by the Vegetarian Party or Prohibition Party or any other party. It seems to me that as a basis for determining whether or not they are going to get this time— Mr. HYDE. Don't you think you should provide some way to take care of that eventuality when a personality like Teddy Roosevelt would declare the inauguration of a new party Mr. VAN DEERLIN. If the chairman would yield, there were three candidates in 1968 who had a mathematical chance of becoming President. Those were Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, and George Wallace. When I say mathematical, I mean there were no circumstances under which anyone else could be elected because no one else had qualified in States with enough combined votes to achieve a majority in the electoral college. Why not limit the free TV time to those men who are qualified candidates in a sufficient number of States, States having a majority of votes in the electoral college? Would that get you out of the woods? You have been rather undecided here. Mr. HYDE. No, I am going to offer you a specific bill on this if you would permit, but I do urge on you when you undertake to limit 315 to candidates for public office, that we don't limit it to presidential candidates. Let us take in Senators and Congressmen and Governors and mayors. I should have said Congressmen first. Mr. HARVEY. Let me just suggest Mr. MACDONALD. May I just continue for a monent and then I will yield? You raised a point there. I was thinking of just the opposite. This committee and the Congress adopted and passed the Public Broadcasting Act. There was great hesitancy that the public broadcasting company be used for propaganda purposes so it was written into the law that no educational station could endorse or support any political candidate-any-and that, of course, I guess, would include Congressmen. What would you think of a similar provision relating to commercial stations providing that they in turn could not support a candidate for any office. Mr. HYDE. I would urge that you should not enact such a restriction on the broadcast licensee. I have doubts that it would be constitutional. Mr. MACDONALD. Why would it not be constitutional, Mr. Chairman? Mr. HYDE. It would deprive this class of citizen of viewpoint on an issue. Mr. MACDONALD. On who should hold office and by having the FCC grant a license to a group, do you think that that confers such a degree of wisdom on those people who are fortunate enough to be given this license to make a lot of money and then go around and pick political candidates all over the country. I can't believe that you feel that way. Mr. HYDE. If we limit free speech to people whom we consider wise, we will have put a big limitation on free speech. Mr. MACDONALD. And these hearings would not go as well as they appear to be going, but do you not feel that these people are put in a very privileged position in the first place by getting use of what is a public, not a private, a public franchise and then through various means they currently support candidates, as I am sure you must know. Mr. HYDE. Yes, they do in some instances. Mr. MACDONALD. I for one think that is entirely wrong. Mr. HYDE. We try to balance this thing. We try to prevent licensees from taking advantage of the fact that they happen to be operators of TV and radio stations by the Fairness Doctrine and particularly by the rules which we issue applicable in situations where stations endorse political candidates or where there is a personal attack situation. That is one of the reasons for those rules. Mr. MACDONALD. I understand that, Mr. Chairman, and I am trying to help you really, but you would not be relieved of many headaches that grow out of the Fairness Doctrine and 315 and equal time if commercial stations like their educational brothers were prohibited from supporting a political candidate. Would that not help you? Mr. HYDE. We would be relieved of certain duties and some decisions, but at a cost, which I don't think that we would want to accept. Mr. MACDONALD. Could you expand on that? Mr. HYDE. I think in principle it would be a qualification on free speech and I do not think we ought to indulge in such qualifications. It would be a limitation. Why should we deprive anyone from expressing his viewpoint on an election issue? Mr. MACDONALD. Because you have a captive audience in a sense. If you like to turn over political control to the entire metropolitan Boston area, you could do it by doing just what you say, to give the three commercials stations there the power to support people for office from alderman up to President and I, for one, do not think they should be given that power, even though you in your wisdom have seen fit to give them a license. Of course, sometime you take it back, such as you did in Boston. I don't know whether Channel 5 got less smart. I don't know that much about the case and I don't want to, but I think you are being shortsighted in running your own department in not wanting to get rid of these headaches, come election time, you are complaining of. Mr. HARVEY. I just wanted to urge the Chairman, when you come forth with that bill to follow the suggestion of Mr. Van Deerlin which I wholeheartedly concur with, because I think when you are talking about what the prerequisites should be, either having had a certain percentage of the vote in the last election or being qualified in a sufficient number of States or good qualifications in contrast to a sufficient number of signatures on a petition which I would regard as wholly not valid. I don't care how many there are. Mr. HYDE. It apepars to be an excellent suggestion. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Did I understand you to say your bill would cover other than presidential candidates? Mr. HYDE. Yes, I will submit a full text. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. How soon will we get this? Mr. HYDE. Tomorrow. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. What happened last time is that we got into the heat of a political campaign, and members of the committee who are estimable and very erudite men began thinking in terms of the campaign. If we can get it now at a time we are all sitting as Solomons Mr. BROWN. You are not thinking politically. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Never. Mr. HYDE. We will get it to you promptly. Mr. MACDONALD. Just for clarification, this extends not just to the President and Vice President but Senators, Congressmen, mayors? Mr. HYDE. The suggestion I had in mind would apply to all candidates in the regular election. I would start there. I do not have a recommendation at the moment for the primaries but for the election of all candidates. Mr. MACDONALD. We will be delighted to have it. (The following letter and attachments were received by the committee :) FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Hon. TORBERT H., MACDONALD, I had previously suggested this approach in Hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications of the Committee on Commerce on bills to amend section 315 held July 18, 19, and 20, 1967. I would be pleased to discuss the proposal further if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, ROSEL H. HYDE, Chairman. MEMORANDUM OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CONCERNING AN APPROACH TO REVISION OF SECTION 315 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT This memorandum explains a draft proposal, attached hereto, on an approach concerning the amendment of section 315 of the Communications Act with respect to the apportioning of free time among legally qualified candidates for public office. The problems which have arisen under section 315 are in its requirement of equal free time to all legally qualified candidates, and this proposal therefore does not deal with paid political broadcast time. Where a station licensee sells time to one legally qualified candidate for a public office the requirements of section 315 would remain the same. Where he gives time, the essence of the proposal would be to limit the requirement for equal time to those candidates who demonstrate that they are substantial factors in the election. The attached draft deals with the problem under section 315 of requiring stations to give equal time to "fringe" candidates where free time is given to candidates in whom there is substantial public interest. The proposal covers only general elections. In primary elections the present provisions of section 315 would remain fully applicable. While there may also be primary elections where some revision of section 315 would produce salutary results, the formula used in this proposal could not be applied, since it is basically tied to the success a candidate's party achieved in the previous elections. No practicable alternative for primary elections has presented itself at this time, and no change in the equal time requirements of section 315 with respect to primaries is being suggested. The draft proposal provides that whenever a broadcast licensee permits a legally qualified candidate for President or Vice President in the general election to use its facilities free of charge, it must provide an equal opportunity to every other such candidate who (i) is the nominee of a political party which appeared on the ballot for those offices in the last election in at least 34 of the several States, and whose candidates received at least 2 per centum of the total popular vote cast; or (ii) is supported in his candidacy by petitions filed under the laws of the State in which they are filed. In addition, his name would have to of signatures equal to at least 1 per centum of the total popular vote cast in the preceding presidential election and which signatures are valid under the laws of the State in which they are filed. In addition, his name would have to appear on the ballot in at least 34 of the several States. In those cases where a legally qualified candidate for one of these offices does not meet the requirements of (i) or (ii) supra, he would be entitled to equal opportunity on stations located in States where his party received at least 2 per centum of the total popular vote cast in the preceding presidential election or if his candidacy is supported by petitions filed under the laws of the particular State which in the aggregate bear a number of signatures equal to at least 1 per centum of the total popular vote cast in such State in the preceding presidential election. With respect to legally qualified candidates who do not met any of the above criteria, licensees would still be bound by the requirements of the "Fairness Doctrine," but they would not be required to afford equal opportunity. Legally qualified candidates for all other public offices whether Federal, State, County, Municipal, or other political subdivisions-would be afforded equal opportunity if (i) they are the nominee of a political party whose candidate in the preceding general election received at least 2 per centum of the total popular vote cast for that office; or (ii) the candidacy is supported by valid petitions filed under the law of the State which in the aggregate bear a number of signatures of persons eligible to vote for that particular office equal to at least 1 per centum of the total popular vote cast for that office in the preceding general election. A licensee would be bound by the "Fairness Doctrine" with respect to any legally qualified candidate for any such office who does not met the above criteria. The attached draft proposal thus is based upon the approach that the entitlement of legally qualified candidates for the Office of President or Vice President to equal free broadcast time should bear a realistic relationship to the demonstrated interest of the public in their candidacy. If a legally qualified candidate for the Office of President or Vice President is the nominee of a political party which appeared on the ballot in at least 34 of the States in the preceding presidential election, and whose candidates in that election received 2 per centum of the total popular vote, he is entitled to equal time. Whether the qualifying percentage should be 2 per cent or some other figure is, of course, a policy question, and the 2 per cent standard requires further study. However, it should be noted on this question that in the 1948 election the candidates of the States Rights Party and the Progressive Party each received slightly more than 2 per cent of the total vote. (A listing of their vote percentages is appended hereto.) The draft is also based on the proposition that even though a party received 2 per cent of the total vote, national coverage would not be mandatory unless it was on the ballot in at least 34 States. For it would not seem equitable to require national coverage upon an equal time basis where the party itself had made no national effort or showing. Provision is also made for candidates of parties which did not exist at the time of the preceding presidential election, candidates who are independent, and candidates whose parties may be making a nationwide effort for the first time. In these cases, equal time on a national basis may be secured by petitions with a number of signatures equal to at least 1 per cent of the total vote, if the candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot in at least 34 States. The validity of the petitions would be a matter of State law. Here again the appropriateness of the 1 per cent figure may require further study. This figure was selected, rather than the 2 per cent figure, because of the greater difficulty inherent in the petition route. Where a candidate does not make a nationwide effort, he may nevertheless secure equal time in individual States where his candidacy is supported by petitions filed under the laws of the particular State with signatures equal to at |