November 14, 1996
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
November 14, 1996
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Gerald Zero, Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters Local Union 705
1645 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60612
Labor Beat-Committee for
Labor Access
37 S. Ashland Avenue
Chicago, IL 60607
Chicago Access Corporation
322 S. Green
Chicago, IL 60607
Ron Carey Campaign
c/o Nathaniel K. Charny
Cohen, Weiss & Simon
330 W. 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036
Bradley T. Raymond
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik, Raymond,
Ferrara & Feldman, P.C.
32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
James P. Hoffa
November 14, 1996
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. P-1107-RCS-CHI
Gentlemen:
A pre-election protest was filed pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules
for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) by
James P. Hoffa, a member of Local Union 614 and a candidate for general president. The protester alleges that a television program aired on a public access channel operated by the Chicago Access Corporation (“Chicago Access”) impermissibly supported the campaign of
Ron Carey, a candidate for reelection as general president. Mr. Hoffa alleges that Chicago Access, the Committee for Labor Access (“CLA”), Labor Beat, the Carey campaign and
Gerald Zero, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 705, contributed to Mr. Carey’s campaign when Chicago Access played the Carey campaign video entitled, “No Mob Rule,” and conducted an interview with Mr. Zero.
James P. Hoffa
November 14, 1996
Page 1
Greg Boozell, program director for Chicago Access, responds that programs which appear on the public access channel are aired free of charge if a non-profit organization or resident submits a tape. Mr. Boozell notes that the station has previously aired a call-in talk show, “Hispanic Labor Conference,” on which Mr. Hoffa appeared. Mr. Boozell also states that after the protested program aired, he spoke with a representative of Mr. Hoffa and offered
Mr. Hoffa the opportunity to submit a tape at any time, which would be aired on Chicago Access. The program aired on “Labor Beat,” which is produced by CLA. Larry Duncan, chairperson for CLA, states that “Labor Beat produces its own shows and expresses editorial opinions.” It admits it made a decision to do a pro-Carey show.
This protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Julie E. Hamos.
Chicago Access is a public access cable station for the City of Chicago. CLA is a non-profit organization whose mission is to get out labor’s message on cable television and to cover labor news otherwise ignored by traditional media. CLA is funded from sales of its videos and grants from a variety of sources. It has no paid staff. “Labor Beat” is a program produced by CLA and aired on Chicago Access, which reports on labor news “with a rank-and-file orientation,” according to Mr. Duncan.
The “Labor Beat” program which is the subject of this protest aired on October 17
and 18, 1996. A videotape of the program was reviewed during the investigation. The program consisted of three segments: a very short introduction by Hillary Diamond of “Labor Beat,” the complete airing of “No Mob Rule,” and an interview with Mr. Zero by Ms. Diamond.
“No Mob Rule” has previously been reviewed by representatives of the Election Officer. In Passo, P-921-LU705-CHI (September 26, 1996), the videotape was described as follows:
The tape showed scenes from the IBT Convention and was critical of James P. Hoffa, candidate for general president and William T. Hogan, Jr., candidate for secretary-treasurer. The tape was produced by the Carey campaign as a Carey campaign video. It is identified as such on the video. It was plainly campaign material.
The interview of Mr. Zero by Ms. Diamond followed the videotape. Commenting on the video, Mr. Zero stated that it is “clear that the Hoffa forces were trying to disrupt the Convention” and that Mr. Carey’s response was “masterful.” Mr. Zero discussed the Consent Decree as it has affected the IBT and the actions taken by the Convention delegates on alleged ethical practice violations. Mr. Zero was questioned about Mr. Carey’s actions trusteeing local unions, a defamation lawsuit filed by Mr. Carey, and the government’s continuing role in the IBT. He was asked by Ms. Diamond, “How does the election look at this point?” to which
Mr. Zero responded, “Carey will win.” The program closed to music and graphics identifying CLA as the producer of “Labor Beat.”
James P. Hoffa
November 14, 1996
Page 1
Article XII, Section 1(b)(1) of the Rules states, in pertinent part:
No employer may contribute, or shall be permitted to contribute, direct or indirectly, anything of value, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of that contribution is to influence, positively or negatively, the election of a candidate. No candidate may accept or use any such contribution.
As previously stated, Chicago Access is a public access television station. Under federal law, such stations operate on cable frequencies reserved by the United States for public use. The reservation of those frequencies by the government means that their use for a public access broadcast is the use of a public resource, not the use of something owned or controlled by the broadcaster. Here, the evidence demonstrated that Chicago Access functions more as an electronic bulletin board open to any IBT candidate without discrimination. Chicago Access has specifically stated it would air a submission from Mr. Hoffa. The Election Officer finds that under these circumstances, the broadcast by Chicago Access did not embody a contribution of money or other thing of value, but is a public resource open to all. Therefore, the Election Officer finds that the public access broadcast in question did not involve a violation of the Rules by Chicago Access.
CLA, however, exercised editorial discretion in the selection of pro-Carey programming. In particular, it decided to allow Mr. Zero to show a campaign videotape on the “Labor Beat” show. Therefore, CLA as the producer of the “Labor Beat” program must be analyzed under the Election Officer’s decisions pertaining to media communications. The Election Officer has recognized a broad exception to the rule on campaign contributions for “publications intended for and disseminated to the general public,” as to which “[t]he First Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution requires . . . the greatest latitude in exercising the right to communicate.” Hoffa, P-743-IBT-SCE (May 23, 1996). Thus, under a “media exception” to the regulation of campaign contributions, the Election Officer does not exercise jurisdictions over “newspaper or magazine articles published by entities which are not owned or whose editorial policies are not controlled by candidates or committees acting on behalf of candidates.” The media exception also applies to cable and broadcast media. Pressler, P-365-LU705-CHI (February 22, 1996).
In Rockstroh, P-1003-JHC-EOH (November 5, 1996), the Election Officer reaffirmed that the media exception applies to editorial decisions about the coverage given to International officer candidates, even where a media entity publishes or broadcasts an opinion related to the IBT election. “The fact that coverage was friendly in tone [to one candidate] was an editorial decision outside the scope of regulation under the Rules.” The decision further noted that “commentaries and editorials are also legitimate media functions.”
James P. Hoffa
November 14, 1996
Page 1
However, the Election Officer, in Rockstroh, found that the media exception did not extend to those circumstances where the entity goes beyond the media function of expressing facts and opinions to directly providing material assistance to a candidate by advertising how to contribute money to the candidate. In that case, the Election Officer found that a cable television show about trucking made a campaign contribution to the Hoffa campaign by preparing and showing the audience a specially-created graphic displaying the address and telephone number to contact in order to make a contribution to the Hoffa campaign.
Here, CLA and “Labor Beat” were fully protected by the media exception in deciding to interview Mr. Zero and in allowing Mr. Zero to express his views on the campaign. However, CLA and “Labor Beat” are not protected by the media exception for broadcasting, in its entirety, the Carey campaign tape, “No Mob Rule.” The campaign tape was not subject to any news comment or analysis, and it prominently featured the Carey campaign logo, address and telephone number at the end. In uncritically airing the entire video, CLA and “Labor Beat” ceased communicating their own thoughts and opinions and simply became a vehicle for the Carey campaign to directly communicate its own campaign message. By doing so, CLA and “Labor Beat” went beyond their media function and directly provided material assistance to the Carey campaign by, in effect, donating air time on a regularly scheduled television show to the Carey campaign.
Under the Rules, contributions from employers are strictly prohibited. Under Article XII, Section (1)(b)(5) of the Rules, “[n]othing herein shall prohibit any candidate from accepting contributions made by any nonmember who is not an employer.” CLA, which produces the program, is a non-profit organization with no paid staff. Based upon this evidence, the Election Officer finds that CLA is not an employer, under the Rules and, thus, did not violate Article XII, Section 1(b). See Rockstroh. Since the program aired on Chicago Access, there were no revenues from the broadcast and no paid advertisements. The Carey campaign must report a contribution from CLA and Labor Beat on its next Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Report, and must demonstrate an appropriate means of valuing the contribution herein. Id.
The Election Officer finds that Mr. Zero did not violate the Rules. Like any IBT member, Mr. Zero’s right to support and campaign on behalf of any candidate is protected by Article VIII, Section 11(a) of the Rules. He has a right to espouse his views to the broadcast media so long as no prohibited resources are utilized. No evidence has been presented to show that Mr. Zero used such resources to campaign on Mr. Carey’s behalf.
For the foregoing reasons, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax (212) 751-4864
James P. Hoffa
November 14, 1996
Page 1
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zack Quindel
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master
Julie E. Hamos, Regional Coordinator