The Trump presidency ought to be an education for progressives in the ways government overregulation can distort politics and business. For the latest example, see the spat between Stephen Colbert and his network, CBS, around the equal-time rule. The controversy might make for good ratings and fundraising appeals, but Congress could address the underlying issue simply by repealing the outdated regulation — or eliminating the Federal Communications Commission altogether.
Passed by Congress as a part of the 1934 Communications Act, the equal-time rule says that if a broadcast station features a candidate for public office, it “shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office.” The FCC is charged with enforcing it. On Monday, Colbert said that CBS prohibited him from airing an interview with Texas Senate candidate James Talarico (D). He claimed the network’s lawyers were worried about clashing with the FCC.
CBS told a different story. It said Colbert wasn’t prohibited from airing the interview, but rather warned that it might “trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett.” Talarico, a state representative, and Crockett are the leading contenders for the Democratic nomination in the 2026 Texas Senate race. The network claimed it presented Colbert with “options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.”
On Tuesday night, Colbert rebuked the network again, but the finger-pointing misses the point of how a zombie regulation created this mess in the first place.
The government shouldn’t be dictating the political content of late-night television — or of any other entertainment Americans choose to consume. But that’s exactly what the equal-time rule does. It is rooted in an entirely different technological landscape; in the early 20th century, scarce radio frequencies meant that the means of mass communication were limited. That’s why Congress saw fit to try to mandate that all candidates got a hearing.
Since the advent of cable news and the internet, the possibilities for transmitting information and entertainment have exploded. Colbert’s Talarico interview, for example, was posted on YouTube, where it already has more than 6 million views — far more than it probably would have received if not for this controversy. Politicians can compete for attention without government help.
The equal-time rule hasn’t been vigorously enforced in recent years, reflecting its obsolescence. But as with many outdated business regulations, Congress hasn’t bothered to revoke it. The Trump FCC, headed by Chairman Brendan Carr, has eagerly taken the opportunity to tweak liberal media companies. Last month, it released a notice declaring that “a program that is motivated by partisan purposes, for example, would not be entitled to an exemption” from the equal-time rule. On Wednesday, Carr doubled down on his authority to enforce it.
This flap was made possible by overzealous regulation, which Congress could set aside at any time. The American people don’t need bureaucrats to vet their news or entertainment, but that’s exactly what the equal-time rule encourages. Keeping it in place is a political choice.
The post What Stephen Colbert’s spat with CBS is really about appeared first on Washington Post.
