For Immediate Release
Washington, D.C.
July 9, 1997

               Comments of Commissioner Rachelle Chong
                        at FCC Agenda Meeting

     Mr. Chairman:  I cannot, in good conscience, vote to
open an FCC inquiry into liquor advertising.  

     I too am very concerned about the serious societal
problems of alcoholism, underage drinking and drunk
driving.  I do not believe, however, that this proposed FCC
Inquiry is the best way to address those issues.  I think these
issues are best handled directly through enforcement of the
laws against misuse of alcohol, not indirectly through this
proposed inquiry.

     I understand the arguments that some alcohol
advertising may be misleading and may encourage underage
drinking.  I agree that these are important issues that should
be dealt with by government authorities.  

     To the extent liquor advertising is misleading or
directed to underage audiences, however, the right authority
to take action is the Federal Trade Commission.  The FTC
has expertise on advertising matters.  Indeed, the FTC has
two ongoing investigations of alcohol advertising.  Moreover,
we have a longstanding agreement with the FTC that says the
FTC "will exercise primary jurisdiction over all matters
regulating unfair or deceptive advertising in all media,
including the broadcast media."  Why can't we let the FTC
do its job? After all, this agency already has a huge workload,
and we shouldn't duplicate the efforts of other parts of the
government.

     I am not persuaded by arguments that the FCC should
investigate truthful liquor advertising directed at adults
because of our mandate to ensure that broadcasters serve the
public interest.  In my view, the FCC's general public interest
mandate is not a plenary authorization to conduct broad-
ranging inquiries -- ultimately aimed at dictating program
content.  This characterization of the public interest mandate
puts us on a slippery slope -- a slope leads away from
important First Amendment freedoms.  

     As the Supreme Court has recognized, truthful
advertising -- including liquor advertising -- is entitled to
protection under the First Amendment.  We cannot ignore
this holding of the highest court in the land.

     Moreover, from a practical point of view, if we start
this investigation under our broad public interest mandate,
would we then have an obligation to also investigate car
advertising that features air bags and sugared cereal
advertising?  I see no logical or constitutional distinction
between the arguments about liquor advertising and any other
legal product where health and safety concerns have been
raised.

     Now, there is a way to make reasonable judgments
about whether the FCC should investigate truthful advertising
of legal products.  The courts have told us we should look to
the law.  You see, in the past, the courts have recognized that
a Congressional judgment -- as expressed in a statute -- that
the FCC ought to restrict the advertising of certain products is
entitled to judicial deference.  So, I believe we must look to
whether Congress told us to look at the liquor ad issue or not. 
Congress has not passed such a law. 

     I disagree with two of my colleagues that this Notice
is "just a simple fact finding."  Having read the Notice, it
goes well beyond mere fact finding.  First, the Notice
assumes there is a problem that the FCC should fix, pursuant
to our public interest authority over broadcasters.  Second,
the Notice asks about regulatory means to solve the problem,
such as ways to ban, counter and restrict liquor advertising,
including such things as requiring a V-chip type approach to
allow viewers to block out certain ads.  In my view, it is not
"neutral" to tell the broadcast industry that it is responsible
for a bigger societal problem, and ask whether they or the
government should do something about it. 

     Mr. Chairman, because of the foregoing, I
respectfully will not vote to approve this item.

                                  ##