Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Civic Stewardship Alliance asks the Court to stop further publicly funded broadcasts praising President Lang. In its final statement, the Alliance also asks for an official cutoff date so it can ensure that no future propaganda is aired using public money. The Federal Public Information Office asks the Court to deny or narrow that request. 2. The supplied rules require the party seeking relief to support it with specific facts, records, or testimony. Suspicion alone is not proof, and a remedy should match the harm shown. The Court applies those rules to the hearing record and does not treat either side’s arguments as evidence merely because they were stated in submissions. Issues for determination 3. The material questions are whether public funds paid for the October 6 broadcast; whether further publicly funded broadcasts are likely; and what the recording establishes about the advertisement’s content. The Alliance bears the burden on the first two questions because it seeks an order based on those claims. The Alliance also bears the burden of supporting its characterization of the advertisement. Submissions of the parties 4. The Alliance argues that the October 6 ad aired after the Office announced a move to outside funding, but that the announcement gave no exact cutoff. It says the ad praised the President and that public money should not be used for that purpose. It argues that the uncertainty about the payer and cutoff supports its request, and ultimately asks for an official cutoff date and assurance against future taxpayer-funded propaganda. 5. The Office responds that the record does not identify who paid for the October 6 airing or show a specific future publicly funded booking. It relies on the October 5 announcement that future advertisements would move to outside funding that week, while acknowledging that the announcement gives no exact cutoff and does not say existing bookings were canceled. The Office also points to the government-service link in the recording and asks that the request be denied or limited to what the evidence supports. Evidence and findings 6. The recording, presented as exhibit-5-e1 and also reflected in exhibits 6-e1 and 8-e1, is clear evidence that an advertisement aired in Washington, D.C., on October 6. It shows President Lang and includes the line, “President Lang is delivering for families.” It ends with a government-service information link. The recording does not identify who paid for that airing. The Court therefore finds that the ad contained presidential praise and service information, but does not find that it was only presidential promotion. 7. The October 5 written announcement, presented as exhibits 2-e2, 4-e2, 6-e2, and 8-e2, says future advertisements would move to outside funding that week. It gives no exact cutoff date and says the fictional Lang Public Leadership Fund would not reimburse costs of advertisements already aired. The announcement is evidence of a planned transition, not proof of the payer for the October 6 airing or proof that existing bookings were canceled. 8. The Office states that it has no booking record showing whether a public booking remained after the switch. That statement does not prove that no such booking existed. It does, however, confirm that the record contains no specific future public booking. The Alliance supplies no additional payment record, booking information, or witness account identifying a payer or a likely future publicly funded airing. Reasons 9. On the October 6 payment question, the Alliance has not met its burden. The recording proves the broadcast occurred, but it does not show its funding source. The timing—one day after the announcement—raises a question, but the announcement itself does not answer it. It describes a future transition and expressly does not establish payment for advertisements already aired. The Alliance’s argument that the Office should explain the source is not a substitute for evidence that public funds paid for this broadcast. Under the supplied rules on proof and reliable records, this issue is not proven. 10. On the likelihood of future publicly funded broadcasts, the Alliance again has not met its burden. The announcement leaves uncertainty about the precise cutoff and existing bookings. The Office candidly acknowledges that it cannot confirm whether all bookings were canceled. But uncertainty on the defendant’s side does not establish the plaintiff’s claim. There is no identified future airing, public booking, or other specific evidence showing that another broadcast is likely to be paid for publicly. The planned move to outside funding is some evidence of a transition, but its lack of detail does not establish a likely public payment. This issue is not proven. 11. The content issue is established only in part. The recording directly shows a line praising President Lang and a government-service information link. The Alliance is therefore right that the ad included presidential praise. The Office is right that the ad also had a service-information component. The evidence does not support the Alliance’s broader characterization that the advertisement was only presidential promotion. In any event, content alone does not prove public payment or a likely future public broadcast. 12. The Alliance’s final request for an official cutoff date is not supported by the supplied rules or evidence. The record establishes that the announcement did not state an exact date, but it does not establish a basis for ordering the Office to set one. Nor does the record support an order assuring that no future propaganda will be aired with public money. Such relief would extend beyond the specific, proven facts. Under the rule that a remedy should match the harm shown, the Court cannot grant that broader request on this record. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for the Federal Public Information Office. The Alliance’s request to stop further publicly funded broadcasts is denied because it has not proven that public funds paid for the October 6 broadcast or that a further publicly funded broadcast is likely. The Alliance’s request for an official cutoff date and assurance against future taxpayer-funded propaganda is also denied. No payment is awarded to either party. This judgment decides only the request on the evidence presented; it does not find that the October 6 broadcast was privately funded or that all future bookings were canceled.