Commercial Break

In another major decision last week, the Supreme Court directed a chilly breeze down Madison Avenue's way. By a vote of 5 to 4, the court ruled that even truthful ads for lawful goods and services may be restricted by the state to protect the "health, safety and welfare" of its citizens.

The court's pronouncement grew out of a case from Puerto Rico, where the former owners of the Condado Plaza Hotel and Casino had invoked the First Amendment guarantee of free speech to challenge a local ban on advertising by gambling casinos. Because of the crime and corruption that gambling could attract, Puerto Rico could have outlawed betting altogether, stated Justice William Rehnquist for the court, and the "greater power to completely ban casino gambling necessarily includes the lesser power to ban advertising of casino gambling." More ominously for other advertisers, Rehnquist suggested that the same logic could be used to justify governmental restrictions on other "products or activities deemed harmful, such as cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and prostitution."

Antismoking champions cheered the ruling. Oklahoma Congressman Mike Synar last month introduced legislation that would strictly prohibit any tobacco ads. Such a ban could seriously hurt the financial health of many newspapers and magazines that rely heavily on their share of the nearly $3 billion a year spent by the tobacco industry on advertising and promotion. The ruling could spur a similar push to bar liquor ads. With the constitutional obstacles now largely out of the way, the tugging and pulling of lobbyists and lawmakers will decide whose commercial message is interrupted.