Today my office filed a lawsuit challenging the LA Metro’s policies and practices censoring political advertising.
Metro purports to only allow commercial advertising (which “must promote for sale, lease or other form of financial benefit a product, service, event or other property interest in primarily a commercial manner for primarily a commercial purpose”). And it seeks to keep out any advertising that “comments on issues of public debate.”
But in practice, Metro regularly allows advertising that comments on issues of public debate and advertising that does not propose a commercial transaction. Metro just rejects the advertising when it doesn’t agree with the advertiser’s message.
Metro ran noncommercial advertising about homelessness (an “issue of public debate”) by the United Way that did not propose a commercial transaction.
And it ran advertising telling people to “get the facts” about the Covid-19 vaccine that does not propose a commercial transaction.
It ran advertising from the Foundation for a Better Life—founded and funded by billionaire conservative activist Phillip Anschutz to “promote good values.” The Foundation’s website declares “We don’t sell anything or accept monetary donations.” And it certain comments on issues of public debate, including commentary that police officers are the “brave” and “answer the toughest call.”
But when People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals asked Metro to run this ad, Metro wouldn’t allow it, claiming it doens’t run noncommercial advertising that comments on issues of public debate.
Our lawsuit alleges that Metro uses unfettered discretion to selectively apply its purported prohibition on non-commercial advertising and messages that comment issues of public debate to let in messages it wants and keep out messages it doesn’t want. The First Amendment prohibits this kind of viewpoint discrimination by government actors.
But even if Metro consistently applied and enforced its policies, they would still result in viewpoint discrimination. Allowing commercial advertisers to promote themselves while shielding them from criticism is the government deciding one viewpoint is more valid than another. For example, Metro allowed Jack in the Box to run this advertisement for “popcorn chicken” while prohibiting PETA’s ad responding that chickens are not popcorn and should not be killed for food.
The case is filed in the Central District of California. The case number is 21-cv-7662.