November 2015

[Commentary] Presidential hopeful Donald Trump this weekend is poised to do for the Republicans what Hillary Clinton has done for the Democrats: trigger the “equal time” doctrine with an appearance on “Saturday Night Live.”

The Radio Act of 1927 created the equal-time doctrine when airtime was a scarce commodity, so important for electoral success that federal regulation was deemed the only way to protect the public interest. Lawmakers’ intention was to foster debate. But in practice the doctrine often has the opposite effect. Now the biggest issue may be technological. Thanks to new content-distribution methods—cable, satellite and the Internet—the once “scarce” resource of broadcast airtime has given way to an endless array of opportunities. Holding a small number of broadcast stations and cable and satellite operators to a century-old standard makes little sense. Given the few situations that now trigger the equal-time doctrine, the explosion in available media outlets, and the government’s strained interpretations of the rule, it is hard to imagine how the doctrine yields more speech than it chills.

[Boliek, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Muller are associate professors of law at Pepperdine University]

Over the last few years, so-called sharing companies like Airbnb and Uber — online platforms that allow strangers to pay one another for a room or a ride — have established footholds in thousands of communities well before local regulators have figured out how to deal with them. Now, as cities grapple with the growth of these services and try to pass rules for how they should operate, the companies are fighting back by turning their users into a vast political operation that can be mobilized at any sign of a threat.