[Dixonary] OT: Robo Calls from Politicians

[Guerri Stevens]

I'm responding to Dan, but didn't want to keep this in the original thread.

I am still pondering my options to get this stopped. I think it is
unethical, immoral, unconscionable for the candidates to make so many
calls. Do they change anyone's mind, except possibly in a negative
direction?

My first action will be to write my Representative and ask that the "do
not call" be changed to apply to all calls, including political calls.
My second will be to write/call the candidates and suggest that they
apologize. Like they care! Maybe I will try to get party headquarters.
Which makes me wonder: what is the makeup of the people called? It was a
Republican primary, but in South Carolina the primaries are open. Any
registered voter can vote in any primary, but only in one. So Democrats
and independents could have voted. Therefore, it is possible that the
robo calls went out to everyone!

Supposedly, at least in SC, it is illegal for an automated message to be
delivered to a person. In other words, if you answer, the "caller" must
hang up, but if your voicemail answers, the call can continue. This is
not enforced, and probably not enforceable. But when it hit the news a
few days ago, the calls were dramatically reduced for about a day, then
they resumed.

I suspect that if you complained to a candidate, you'd find the
candidate hiding behind a PAC: "that wasn't me, it was XYZ PAC and I
have no control over it". Isn't "accountability" a campaign issue?

I actual got a call yesterday from a human. She reminded me to vote and
especially to vote for Romney. I wasn't sure it was a robo call, so I
asked "are you a human" and she said "yes"!

I found these sites:

The site below will, for a fee, send a message to all political parties,
candidates, and PACs saying you don't want to be called. But there would
be no way to enforce that.

http://www.stoppoliticalcalls.org

I didn't look at the one below, but the brief description suggests that
you can make robo calls *to* the politician. I considered a personal
campaign of making non-automated calls to campaign headquarters but I
don't know enough people that might be convinced to do it along with me.
It would have to be enough calls to clog their phone systems.

http://www.reverserobocall.com/

--
Guerri

[Steve Graham]

>>I am still pondering my options to get this stopped. I think it is
unethical, immoral, unconscionable for the candidates to make so many calls.
Do they change anyone's mind, except possibly in a negative direction?<<

As long as people vote for candidates who indulge in this, the calls will
continue.

[Dave Cunningham]

I think the exemption for political and charity calls was made after
substantial discussion, and concerns about placing limits on non-
commercial free speech.

Dave

On Jan 22, 5:43*am, Guerri Stevens <gue... (AT) tapcis (DOT) com> wrote:
> I'm responding to Dan, but didn't want to keep this in the original thread.
>
> I am still pondering my options to get this stopped. I think it is
> unethical, immoral, unconscionable for the candidates to make so many
> calls. Do they change anyone's mind, except possibly in a negative
> direction?
>
> My first action will be to write my Representative and ask that the "do
> not call" be changed to apply to all calls, including political calls.
> My second will be to write/call the candidates and suggest that they
> apologize. Like they care! Maybe I will try to get party headquarters.
> Which makes me wonder: what is the makeup of the people called? It was a
> Republican primary, but in South Carolina the primaries are open. Any
> registered voter can vote in any primary, but only in one. So Democrats
> and independents could have voted. Therefore, it is possible that the
> robo calls went out to everyone!
>
> Supposedly, at least in SC, it is illegal for an automated message to be
> delivered to a person. In other words, if you answer, the "caller" must
> hang up, but if your voicemail answers, the call can continue. This is
> not enforced, and probably not enforceable. But when it hit the news a
> few days ago, the calls were dramatically reduced for about a day, then
> they resumed.
>
> I suspect that if you complained to a candidate, you'd find the
> candidate hiding behind a PAC: "that wasn't me, it was XYZ PAC and I
> have no control over it". Isn't "accountability" a campaign issue?
>
> I actual got a call yesterday from a human. She reminded me to vote and
> especially to vote for Romney. I wasn't sure it was a robo call, so I
> asked "are you a human" and she said "yes"!
>
> I found these sites:
>
> The site below will, for a fee, send a message to all political parties,
> candidates, and PACs saying you don't want to be called. But there would
> be no way to enforce that.
>
> * * *http://www.stoppoliticalcalls.org
>
> I didn't look at the one below, but the brief description suggests that
> you can make robo calls *to* the politician. I considered a personal
> campaign of making non-automated calls to campaign headquarters but I
> don't know enough people that might be convinced to do it along with me.
> It would have to be enough calls to clog their phone systems.
>
> * * *http://www.reverserobocall.com/
>
> --
> Guerri
>
>

[Tim B]

> I think the exemption for political and charity calls was made after
> substantial discussion, and concerns about placing limits on non-
> commercial free speech.

This interpretation of "free speech" worries me. Don't I have an equal right to not hear? It's
puzzled me in US airports that people with no business there seem to have a right to clutter the
place up and say whatever they wish, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with an airport. As I
understand it, "free speech" has to do with not limiting what someone may say in a place and
situation where they have reasonable cause to be saying something; it's not about giving people the
right to be somewhere (such as at the other end of my phone line) which they would not otherwise have.

Best wishes,
Tim B.

[Dave Cunningham]

Tell it to the courts then.

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/ccp-helps-secure-a-win-for-free-speech-in-indiana
28 Sep 2011

"Judge William T. Lawrence of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana issued an injunction today against
enforcement of an Indiana law barring prerecorded telephone calls that
contain a political message. Patriotic Veterans argued that the law
violates the free speech rights of advocacy organizations like the
Illinois-based non-profit, which makes political calls in advance of
general elections. Patriotic Veterans is represented by Paul Jefferson
of the Indianapolis firm of Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, and the Center
for Competitive Politics of Alexandria, Virginia. The Court held that
Federal law preempted the Indiana statutory regulation prohibiting
automatic calls."

Absent a SCOTUS case, that district now has a binding precedent.
AFAICT this was the first Federal District Court decision in this
area.

Dave



On Jan 22, 8:39*am, Tim B <dixon... (AT) siam (DOT) co.uk> wrote:
> > I think the exemption for political and charity calls was made after
> > substantial discussion, and concerns about placing limits on non-
> > commercial free speech.
>
> This interpretation of "free speech" worries me. Don't I have an equal right to not hear? It's
> puzzled me in US airports that people with no business there seem to have a right to clutter the
> place up and say whatever they wish, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with an airport. As I
> understand it, "free speech" has to do with not limiting what someone may say in a place and
> situation where they have reasonable cause to be saying something; it's not about giving people the
> right to be somewhere (such as at the other end of my phone line) which they would not otherwise have.
>
> Best wishes,
> Tim B.
>
>

[Dodi Schultz]

On 1/22/2012 11:36 AM, Dave Cunningham wrote:

> Tell it to the courts then.
>
>
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/ccp-helps-secure-a-win-for-free-speech-in-indiana
>
> "Judge William T. Lawrence of the United States District Court for
> the Southern District of Indiana issued an injunction today against
> enforcement of an Indiana law barring prerecorded telephone calls
> that contain a political message. Patriotic Veterans argued that the
> law violates the free speech rights of advocacy organizations like
> the Illinois-based non-profit, which makes political calls in advance
> of general elections. Patriotic Veterans is represented by Paul
> Jefferson of the Indianapolis firm of Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, and
> the Center for Competitive Politics of Alexandria, Virginia. The
> Court held that Federal law preempted the Indiana statutory
> regulation prohibiting automatic calls."
>
> Absent a SCOTUS case, that district now has a binding precedent.
> AFAICT this was the first Federal District Court decision in this
> area.

I suspect that Dave is right. It's basically a First Amendment question.
But of course the writers of the First A were thinking of street-corner
speeches and political tracts that one could listen to / read or not, as
one chose—not being trapped in your home and forced to listen, which smacks
more of /1984/ than Constitutional freedom. (And you are, essentially,
forced: Are you not going to pick up your phone or listen to your messages
when it might be something urgent from family or friends?)

—Dodi

[France International/Mike Shefler]

Guerri,

If you don't have caller id, it is a great help for these types of
calls. I simply don't answer calls from those who block their numbers,
although lately politcal robocalls have come up on my caller id as
"Political call". Truth in advertising I guess.

--Mike

On 1/22/2012 5:43 AM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
> I'm responding to Dan, but didn't want to keep this in the original
> thread.
>
> I am still pondering my options to get this stopped. I think it is
> unethical, immoral, unconscionable for the candidates to make so many
> calls. Do they change anyone's mind, except possibly in a negative
> direction?
>
> My first action will be to write my Representative and ask that the
> "do not call" be changed to apply to all calls, including political
> calls. My second will be to write/call the candidates and suggest that
> they apologize. Like they care! Maybe I will try to get party
> headquarters. Which makes me wonder: what is the makeup of the people
> called? It was a Republican primary, but in South Carolina the
> primaries are open. Any registered voter can vote in any primary, but
> only in one. So Democrats and independents could have voted.
> Therefore, it is possible that the robo calls went out to everyone!
>
> Supposedly, at least in SC, it is illegal for an automated message to
> be delivered to a person. In other words, if you answer, the "caller"
> must hang up, but if your voicemail answers, the call can continue.
> This is not enforced, and probably not enforceable. But when it hit
> the news a few days ago, the calls were dramatically reduced for about
> a day, then they resumed.
>
> I suspect that if you complained to a candidate, you'd find the
> candidate hiding behind a PAC: "that wasn't me, it was XYZ PAC and I
> have no control over it". Isn't "accountability" a campaign issue?
>
> I actual got a call yesterday from a human. She reminded me to vote
> and especially to vote for Romney. I wasn't sure it was a robo call,
> so I asked "are you a human" and she said "yes"!
>
> I found these sites:
>
> The site below will, for a fee, send a message to all political
> parties, candidates, and PACs saying you don't want to be called. But
> there would be no way to enforce that.
>
> http://www.stoppoliticalcalls.org
>
> I didn't look at the one below, but the brief description suggests
> that you can make robo calls *to* the politician. I considered a
> personal campaign of making non-automated calls to campaign
> headquarters but I don't know enough people that might be convinced to
> do it along with me. It would have to be enough calls to clog their
> phone systems.
>
> http://www.reverserobocall.com/
>

[EnDash@aol.com]

I disagree with the courts and pols that there is any First Amendment right
whatsoever to make robocalls, political or otherwise, to anyone's private
phone. They are intrusive, annoying, deceptive (not knowing who it is until
you've run out of the shower to answer), and really no enhancement to the
free speech rights of the political classes who have so many more ways to
speak out to the public.

There are also commercial robocalls which are extremely annoying. You
answer, and there is nobody there. The reason for this is a really nasty
technique that causes this. A computer dials several number simultaneously. The
first one that answers is transferred to a sales pitchman; the rest are
disconnected. So, for every completed call, several other people are
inconvenienced and have no opportunity to complain or to report the offender in the
recipient's number is on the federal do-not-call list. This is so pervasive
that sometimes the phones for our two different telephone lines ring almost
simultaneously -- which we take as a clue to answer neither.

We have also been getting almost daily calls from some alternate electric
company that wants to switch us from ConEd. Thing is, our electricity is
included in our rent, and we have nothing to do with ConEd or any other
supplier. If you do pick up, though, they ask you to press a number if you want
to talk to a rep. I did so last week and started giving the person a little
speech about the liability they were exposing themselves to, etc. She
disgustedly agreed to take our name off their calling list. No calls from them
since, but we'll see.

-- Dick


In a message dated 1/22/2012 12:21:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
DodiSchultz (AT) nasw (DOT) org writes:

I suspect that Dave is right. It's basically a First Amendment question.
But of course the writers of the First A were thinking of street-corner
speeches and political tracts that one could listen to / read or not, as
one chose—not being trapped in your home and forced to listen, which
smacks
more of /1984/ than Constitutional freedom. (And you are, essentially,
forced: Are you not going to pick up your phone or listen to your messages
when it might be something urgent from family or friends?)

[Guerri Stevens]

We don't have caller ID. However, we have noticed that many, but not
all, auto-dialed calls allow the phone to ring only 4 times before
giving up. So we don't answer until at least ring 5, and maybe ring 6.
My husband is getting tired of waiting, though, and answers then hangs up.

Guerri

France International/Mike Shefler wrote:
> Guerri,
>
> If you don't have caller id, it is a great help for these types of
> calls. I simply don't answer calls from those who block their numbers,
> although lately politcal robocalls have come up on my caller id as
> "Political call". Truth in advertising I guess.
>
> --Mike
>
> On 1/22/2012 5:43 AM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
>> I'm responding to Dan, but didn't want to keep this in the original
>> thread.
>>
>> I am still pondering my options to get this stopped. I think it is
>> unethical, immoral, unconscionable for the candidates to make so many
>> calls. Do they change anyone's mind, except possibly in a negative
>> direction?
>>
>> My first action will be to write my Representative and ask that the
>> "do not call" be changed to apply to all calls, including political
>> calls. My second will be to write/call the candidates and suggest that
>> they apologize. Like they care! Maybe I will try to get party
>> headquarters. Which makes me wonder: what is the makeup of the people
>> called? It was a Republican primary, but in South Carolina the
>> primaries are open. Any registered voter can vote in any primary, but
>> only in one. So Democrats and independents could have voted.
>> Therefore, it is possible that the robo calls went out to everyone!
>>
>> Supposedly, at least in SC, it is illegal for an automated message to
>> be delivered to a person. In other words, if you answer, the "caller"
>> must hang up, but if your voicemail answers, the call can continue.
>> This is not enforced, and probably not enforceable. But when it hit
>> the news a few days ago, the calls were dramatically reduced for about
>> a day, then they resumed.
>>
>> I suspect that if you complained to a candidate, you'd find the
>> candidate hiding behind a PAC: "that wasn't me, it was XYZ PAC and I
>> have no control over it". Isn't "accountability" a campaign issue?
>>
>> I actual got a call yesterday from a human. She reminded me to vote
>> and especially to vote for Romney. I wasn't sure it was a robo call,
>> so I asked "are you a human" and she said "yes"!
>>
>> I found these sites:
>>
>> The site below will, for a fee, send a message to all political
>> parties, candidates, and PACs saying you don't want to be called. But
>> there would be no way to enforce that.
>>
>> http://www.stoppoliticalcalls.org
>>
>> I didn't look at the one below, but the brief description suggests
>> that you can make robo calls *to* the politician. I considered a
>> personal campaign of making non-automated calls to campaign
>> headquarters but I don't know enough people that might be convinced to
>> do it along with me. It would have to be enough calls to clog their
>> phone systems.
>>
>> http://www.reverserobocall.com/
>>
>

[Guerri Stevens]

Ordinarily such calls would be a minor nuisance. But during the
campaign, there were lots of them. It was more the sheer number of calls
than the fact that they were occurring that got my ire up. I heard from
John McCain and Chris Christie. I heard from all the candidates. I heard
from their neighbors, their friends and their enemies. I heard from
their families. The only ones I didn't hear from were their pets and I'm
not so sure about that - there were several calls that were nothing but
a long pause after my "hello". Probably a cat - a dog would have been
trained to "speak".

And there would be multiple calls in a single day supporting the same
candidate or attacking the same candidate. The worst offender was Mitt
Romney, probably because he had the most money. And at the end, calls to
remind me to vote, preferably for candidate X, depending on who was
doing the reminding.

The mailings were annoying as were the radio ads, and I presume the TV
ads (we rarely watch TV). But those are not nearly as intrusive as the
phone. I think the candidates could have been more sparing in their use
of it.

And you're right about picking up the phone, Dodi. It is hard not to. I
have been trying for years to discipline myself - if I don't want to
talk on the phone or don't have time or am in the middle of a meal, let
it ring! If the caller wants me, he or she will leave a message.


Guerri

Dodi Schultz wrote:
>
> I suspect that Dave is right. It's basically a First Amendment question.
> But of course the writers of the First A were thinking of street-corner
> speeches and political tracts that one could listen to / read or not, as
> one chose—not being trapped in your home and forced to listen, which
> smacks more of /1984/ than Constitutional freedom. (And you are,
> essentially, forced: Are you not going to pick up your phone or listen
> to your messages when it might be something urgent from family or friends?)
>
> —Dodi