Frank5

Broadcast is a concept that now is dead. (Un)fortunately, most tech people at TVs are engineers and they want to have a say. But if your docs are properly graded and delivered on a decent codec, they probably can pass the technical tests. Truth is that for how much we masturbate our minds about cameras, once you watch the final video, nobody can tell exactly which camera it was recorded with in the beginning. 

Yup.  Over the air broadcast offers a ton of channels here in SoCal.  I wasn't aware of how much exactly 'til I did a goofy KickStarter video 3 years ago:
https://vimeo.com/102553528
(music is not my choice, ha!)

The only thing you can do is ask what is acceptable to use (they'll normally have a list of cameras) & rent for this one job, if it pays or gets you more work then consider buying something to keep getting broadcast work. Also, ask if what you're using will be good enough.
Having worked for the BBC, I know that broadcast standards are pretty high & it is more to do with how they have to deliver the footage. Therefore DSLR footage just isn't going to cut it in most instances, because they have to compress the footage into a deliverable format & in most cases it will fall apart - hence the 100Mbit/s min requirement. The special permission aspect is almost certainly to do with the fact that they'll have to spend extra time/money getting your DSLR footage up to scratch & they really don't like doing this - they'll see it as a waste of time & money, unless your piece is something that is going to get a lot of interest/viewers (ratings, it's all about ratings).
Don't let something like renting out a camera for a job put you off - this is your break & treat it as such.

If you are thinking of going with the c100ii, unless you need the 60p and DPAF, I would consider just buying a used c100 mk1 from eBay. You can usually find them for $2000, I actually saw one go for $1600 a couple weeks ago. I saw a mark ii go for around $2500. The rental cost would be a quarter of that. So unless you are definitely using Canon EF glass for the DPAF and you need the 60p, the mk 1 may be more than enough and some people prefer the image from the mk 1 better.

Since you know what you're doing you won't have any issue with a bump up in camera gear.  I still think you'd be okay with what you're doing as is, but I suppose it depends on the situation you have to navigate with your particular TV station.  Getting your footage up-to-scratch probably isn't an issue for you at all.
Having a great camera is nice, no doubt.  If you're good, you should own or rent a great camera.  Doing so if fun and awesome  --but to think automatically that something is unworthy because of the tech of how it's acquired?  I just don't buy into that.  Everything is relative.  
FWIW, I have a colleague that's been shooting an emmy award winning sports program for 5 years on 8-bit Canon DSLR's.  (some of their cameras are as low-brow as the T2i) They broadcast their show all over the TeeVee airwaves.  Source camera has never been a problem.

It is ironic that networks require this since the technical quality they deliver is often so poor. Note this frame grab of NBC footage from the Olympics. It is smeared, blurry, full of artifacts. Their excuse would probably be "it's not us, it's Comcast". However transmission of network content is a signal chain that's only as strong as the weakest link. If they permit gross degradation of image quality at any point in the chain, then being persnickety about technical matters at other points is simply lost in the noise. It implies they don't really care about image quality.

 
The technical quality of NBC Olympic content delivered to end users was so bad that the below footage from 1894 was actually better. Imagine that -- some of the first film footage ever shot, and it's better than what NBC delivered. Despite having supercomputers on a chip, satellites in space, and optical fiber spanning the globe, the delivered quality was worse than an old piece of film.
 

Get a samsung nx500 for portability, hack it and you'll have h.265 at 180mb/sec. Then buy a nxl focal reducer to be able to use canon ff lenses (and many from other brands) on it with a 1.1x crop.

If you are used to shooting on Canon and have a well developed post workflow, then I'd stick with Canon.  I'm assuming you are not shooting extreme low light with the M1 and a 2.8 lens, so the XC10 might be your best bet to keep it small and unobtrusive.  Otherwise a C100 + ninja star, or 1DC.

export the master file in pro res and tell them you shot it on whatever their favourite camera is. 
 
If the image is broadcast legal, in focus and has minimal noise you should be fine. i suspect you probably lens your work nicely- which is where so much of the look comes from.
 
As a Gh4 user i can strongly reccomend going with that and speed boosters for your current lenses.

I say if you're comfortable with your gear and you feel it offers you creative flexibility, stick to it.
Have a conversation with the station manager.  
Send the broadcast station some of your work, have one of their goofball engineers scope it out, and just go ahead and ask for the special permission.  Broadcast specs are guidelines.  If it looks good and the story is good, they'll make exceptions.  If they don't, then there's something wrong with them not what you're providing them.  Good craft and story should trump limited specs.
You should see the stuff that's presented on the local PBS station where I'm at.  The fact that they shoot on "pro" cameras is irrelevant.  Bad shooting is bad shooting.
And if you're doing great audio then that already makes it better than most, so see what they say.

C100markII or C300(I or II) seem like a safe bet, very easy to use, the C100 is rather small as well (not M1 territory, but still), but you have to be specific with your codecs, C100 par example has a much lower bitrate than the afforementioned one.
You have to ask specifically what cameras do they accept, it will be a petty to create technical obstacles for no reason, and M1/2 are rather bad video cameras, you can easily surpass them and got better results.
Do you have a site? Your story sounds really optimistic and worthfollowing.
Goodluck!

Obviously, you should upgrade given the opportunity. With this post, be prepared to get a recommendation for almost every camera manufacturer. So, here's mine... I think your first inclination is the correct one... Get a C100 mkii and be done with it. But another question worth asking is... What lenses do you currently own?

Maybe a certain export setting will make your footage qualify. I remember someone telling me once they can't tell the difference. Not sure if that was for TV though. I saw something on TV obviously filmed with one of the crappy CCTV lenses the other day or a cheap wide angle convertor, so standards cant be that high. I would probably copy it to a USB, visit local TV store and plug it into the biggest TVs. If it looks good insist it meets their specs and you might be fine.

Thanks for your feedback. I shot with the Ms mainly out of habit and because I know exactly how to achieve with them what I want. It's time to upgrade after all. But the form factor is/was amazing.

Panasonic also has some very nice, small m43 cameras like the G7 and the GH4. With a speedbooster they can also use FF lenses. The well-built GH4 can output 10-bit 4K V-LOG to an external recorder. This won't give as much grading possibilities as a Blackmagic camera, but the 4K footage is still very nice.
Regarding shooting your doc on the EOS M1: it's possible, but why would you put so much effort in your sound, your lighting, your story, ... to then use a not-very-good camera? To me it would make more sense to get at least something like a Panny G6, Sony a6000, ... Or to rent a camera.

Or just go with a Blackmagic Pocket (+Speedbooster) if the portability is crucial to you.

I can't answer your question directly, but if I were in your shoes I'd most definitely take up the offer to have the work broadcast, and I'd rent the proper camera to shoot your documentary at appropriate spec. It sounds like your career is moving forward, no need to limit yourself to save a few bucks, as this next project will likely lead to more (larger in nature, I presume).