Public relations and Corporate Speech (still under construction)

National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1978 -- A state statute prohibited commercial businesses from getting involved in public affairs unless they were directly affected. 1st National campaigned against a progressive personal income tax. Court held that non-media corporations have at least some first amendment rights.

Consolidated Edison Co. v. PSC NY 1980 -- Con-Ed inserted a promotion of good old clean, safe, nuclear power (watch out for the three eyed fish) in its regular monthly bills. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a group opposed to nuclear power, wanted to insert anti-nuclear power arguments into consumers bills also. Since there was no guarantee of access under Miami Herald v. Tornillo or Red Lion v. FCC (which applies only to scarce airwaves), the PSC told Con Ed to stop advertising controversial stuff.
The NY supreme court said that was reasonable time, place and manner restriction on free speech. US supreme court reversed, said the ban wasnt reasonable time place restriction or narrowly tailor way to serve a compelling state interest. Prior restraint on commercial speech has to be content neutral. The case led to a test for restrictions on corporate speech:

Restrictions are constitutional only if one of the following apply:

• If the restriction is a narrowly drawn means of serving a compelling state interest. OR
• If the restriction is a time, place or manner restriction leaving open ample alternate channels of communication; OR
• If the restriction is a narrowly drawn regulation applying to only a few special circumstances, such as protests at a military base.

The right to advertise / Access to the media

There are three advertising media to consider in this area:

• Public media, that is, media controlled by city and state governments, such as bus or subway ads;
• Broadcast media, that is, radio and television;
• Print media, of course, newspapers and magazines.

Lehman v. Shaker Heights 1974 -- This is a public media case and it resulted in the Lehman rule. Here a candidate for office wanted to advertise on a city-run bus line. The Supreme Court said that the city was free to limit its advertising to commercial products only so long as it did so consistently. If all political ads are rejected there is no discrimination.

Friends of the Earth v. FCC 1971 -- This is a broadcast media case. When the FCC first moved against tobacco advertising, in 1967, it did so under the "Fairness Doctrine" which said that viewpoints must be allowed to compete on television. The tobacco industry's ads were countered under the Fairness Doctrine by ads urging people to quit smoking starting. The Friends of the Earth, an environmental public intertest group, sued the FCC under the Fairness Doctrine saying it should be able to counter gasoline a nd automotive advertising for high octane gas guzzling cars. In 1974 the FCC reinterpreted the Fairness Doctrine as not giving a right of reply in cases involving commercial advertising. Later the entire Fairness Doctrine was scrapped.

** Miami Herald v. Tornillo 1974 -- This case involves the print media. Here the Supreme Court said that a Florida law imposing a "right of reply" on the print media was not constitutional. A candidate for public office insisted that the Herald print his advertisement responding to a Herald editorial, and the Herald refused. The court said that the print media had a right to control its contents without government interference. While the press should be responsible, Chief Justice Warren Burger said, "like many other virtues it cannot be legislated."

Note, however, that under anti trust laws, even a newspaper cannot reject advertising concerning activities that are in competition with the newspaper's business.