Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, March 25, 1995 TAG: 9503270005
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CODY LOWE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LYNCHBURG LENGTH: Medium
The FEC is seeking to punish the network for a 30-second television commercial and two newspaper ads the commission says violated federal election laws. It is seeking fines equal to the amount of money spent to distribute the ads.
A key issue is whether the TV spots or newspaper ads specifically advocated the defeat of Bill Clinton for the presidency in 1992.
Federal law prohibits corporations from directly working to elect or defeat specific candidates in political campaigns unless they set up a separate monetary fund and a political action committee.
The Christian Action Network had done neither, but lawyer David Carroll of Columbus, Ohio, said it didn't need to because the ads did not call for the electorate to vote for or against any candidate.
The Lynchburg-based network, which lobbies for "traditional family values," says the ads only raised the issue of Clinton's support of homosexual rights.
The TV commercials showed Clinton's face superimposed over an American flag, then had his face transformed into a photographic negative image. The commercial went on to show pictures of gay men while an announcer described Clinton's "vision for a better America" as including "special rights [and] job quotas" for homosexuals.
At the end, the flag reappeared - this time without Clinton's face - and viewers were urged to contact the Christian Action Network for more information about "traditional family values."
The newspaper ads were written as "an open letter" to Clinton and Democratic Party Chairman Ron Brown. The ads said the TV commercials would be changed if Clinton would publicly dispute any point in them, and if he would "promise as president to veto legislation that gives gays specific protection under the Civil Rights Act and oppose affirmative action for gays."
Carroll said the ads involved "purely issues-oriented speech that cannot be regulated" by the election commission "or anyone else."
FEC lawyer Robert Bonham argued that, to the contrary, the ads "taken as a whole, in verbal and nonverbal ways" advocated the defeat of Clinton.
He said the "tone of speech" by the TV ad's announcer "conveyed a negative answer" to the question asked in the ad: "Is this your vision for a better America?"
He also said the overall visual message - the "photographic negative" image of Clinton and his photo's disappearance from the flag at the end of the ad - "literally conveyed the message that the viewer's vision should not include Bill Clinton."
Turk interrupted Bonham several times to ask if he supported the First Amendment right of free speech and to assert that the First Amendment "does not say [speech is protected] 'except in an election.'''
At the end of the brief hearing in U.S. District Court in Lynchburg, Turk said he would make a decision "soon" on the network's request to dismiss the complaint.
The issue came to trial when Christian Action Network President Martin Mawyer refused to pay a $125,000 fine proposed by the FEC last fall.
by CNB