Should "Do No Call List" Apply to Political Campaigns?
There was a AAPC press conference this past Saturday in Santa Monica entitled "Calling Out the 'Do Not Call List.'" Several election phone consultants were on hand to talk about political speech and how holding campaigns to the federal "Do Not Call List" is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
I'll be the first to admit that I hate those annoying phone calls (PTL for Caller ID) but wonder if the commercial "Do Not Call List" should be applied to political campaigns. Maybe we should just single out those annoying 3 a.m. calls since some folks only pick up after six rings anyway. (Full Disclosure: I shot the footage, helped with outreach for the event and serve on the AAPC Communications Committee.)
Below are the speakers and video of the presser. Decide for youself ...
Speakers:
- Liz Welsh, President of Executive Communictions
- Brad Chism, President of zata 3
- Brad Gosselink, Chairman of zata 3
- Marty Stone, President of Stone's Phones
- Richard Kucinsky, President of Opinion Factor
- Mike Smith, ConnectCallUSA.com
Labels: 1st Amendment, AAPC, Brad Chism, Liz Welsh, Marty Stone, Political Speech
Posted by Edward Headington @ 3/19/2008 06:30:00 AM
4 Comments:
There is a third way. Citizens AND politicians should be able to voluntarily opt out of robo calls.
The bottom line is that these calls are not effective. Instead, they are cheap.
As I testified at the US Senate for Sen Feinstein 2.27 These calls are an epidemic and are invading the privacy of All American Voters.
Our members are taking a stand and saying enough is enough at the National Political Do Not Contact Registry at StopPoliticalCalls.org.
Here is a quote from a member this morning:
"I find it very frustrating... I tend to get calls at the WORST time. I have a one year old daughter, and it NEVER fails that the phone will ring when I put her down for a nap or for bed. Also my vote is PRIVATE... so who do you think you are calling with a survey to find out who I am voting for!!! Stop calling me."
Regards,
Shaun Dakin
CEO and Founder
http://www.stoppoliticalcalls.org
It's a tough call (no pun intended).
Fortunately, I've dropped my landline in favor of a cell phone which is in immanent danger of falling prey to advertisements of all kind in due course.
The first amendment argument espoused by the panel members is laughable. It's about money, survival of their niche industry and how to shape political campaigns to ensure their client is elected. It's all about the money.
However if they want to "donate" say $1 towards my phone bill for listening to their message, I would consider it. Remember it's about the money and my time.
Hey Shaun. Thanks for posting (and also you too Anon). I believe that Marty Stone alludes to your organization in the second or third video. I could be wrong but I think it's you he's talking about.
They also talk about "robo" calls and perhaps a limit placed on calls versus an all-out ban.
I vote YES to "Do Not Call" applications to Political Campaigns. If one lives in Los Angeles, one gets taxed by the City for these robo calls.
I say to Hell with both the calls and the phone tax! As a matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the phone tax charged by the City is found to be Federally unconstitutional.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home