The Center for American Rights (CAR) has filed formal complaints with both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in response to clear sponsor favoritism in the Harris-Trump debate broadcast by ABC News on September 10, 2024.

The ABC debate was the first ever to incorporate so-called live fact-checking by the moderators, a tactic which co-moderator Linsey Davis frankly acknowledged was designed to target former President Trump. No surprise, then, that the moderators checked Trump five times, and did not give a single correction to Vice President Harris, even as she pushed inaccurate information.

Under long-standing federal laws administered by the FCC, debate sponsors must avoid “broadcaster favoritism” that “further[s] the candidacy of any particular individual” through a debate. ABC failed these standards by structuring the debate in favor of Harris while unfairly and intentionally targeting Trump. 

Broadcasters are required to serve the public interest in exchange for their access to the public airwaves, and the FCC is authorized to review their licensing if they fail to meet this standard. Slanting the debate could influence public opinion in ways that undermine democratic processes, which is why the FCC’s standards for candidates’ use of the airwaves are built on neutrality and fairness.

“The Supreme Court once said that debates should be about the public hearing from the candidates, not the moderators. ABC News clearly got that backwards in its debate earlier this month,” said Daniel Suhr, President of the Center for American Rights. “The FCC has rules that ensure broadcasters are even-handed in their treatment of candidates, so as not to abuse the public airwaves to advance one candidate over another. ABC News failed in its duty to provide a fair and neutral forum and needs to be held accountable.”

Long-standing federal campaign finance rules against corporate influence in elections have a limited exception for debates, as long as they are not staged to “advance or support one candidate over another.” To avoid an illegal corporate contribution, a debate must provide “fair and impartial treatment of candidates.” The debate was anything but “fair and impartial”—it was designed and delivered as a hit-job on Trump, and thus was a campaign contribution to Harris.

“Americans’ trust in the media is at an all-time low, and for good reason,” said Patrick Hughes, Chairman of the Center for American Rights. “ABC and other outlets have increasingly injected their own biases into their reporting. Even with 67 million people watching, they felt emboldened enough to interfere in this historic presidential election. The FEC complaint demonstrates that ABC’s actions amounted to an illegal corporate contribution, as they unfairly supported one candidate over another in clear violation of campaign finance laws.”  

CAR’s complaints call on the FCC and FEC to conduct thorough investigations into the conduct of ABC News and its moderators during the debate, ensuring future adherence to standards of fairness and neutrality. 

CAR’s complaint reiterates that accountability for debate bias does not interfere with the First Amendment. All broadcasters who are entrusted with access to the public airwaves must comply with FCC rules, including those on equal treatment of candidates, and all corporations, including broadcasters, must comply with FEC rules, including the limited safe-harbor for neutral debates.

The complaints were filed by Supreme Court winning lawyers, Patrick Hughes and Daniel Suhr, who are known, respectively and then collectively, for their leading roles in Janus v. AFSCME and BST Holdings, LLC v. OSHA. Hughes and Suhr are also representing the student victims at Columbia University in their suit against the organizers of the illegal encampments on campus last spring. 

FCC COMPLIANT

FEC COMPLAINT

For more information, please contact: media@americanrights.org