But banning them is wrong and takes us down a slippery slope of banning political speech.

Uh, no it's not.

I paid for that land-line into my home. That phone is located in my home. That phone is for my own, personal use as I see fit. If you want me to to listen to your political speech, then buy a radio ad or a billboard down the road from where I live.

I hate robo calls and refused to use them. They are so irritating I can't imagine they persuade anyone to change their mind about an issue or candidate. If you get a robo call from your candidate, you're annoyed. If you get a robo call from the other candidate you have another reason to dislike them.

Kari: Apples and oranges. By having a mailbox out on the road, I agree to accept all mail delivered to me. If I choose not to have a mailbox, they just can't throw it on my driveway. If I own a TV, I can block channels, I can subscribe to TIVO, and I can turn it off. And if I put a sign on my property that says "no trespassors" then yes, I can prosecute all canvassers.

When there are dozens of outlets for legit free speech, I'm not concerned about this intrusion in my life.

"Hi guys, this is Jenny and I just wanted you to know that you are pre-approved for a satellite TV system!"

Ban those suckers.

I personally hate robo-calls as well and I've never heard anyone else say they like them. I do understand the free speech issues, but I'm curious--

Has anyone reading this ever listened to an entire robo-call? If so, did it influence/change your view/vote?

I'm just wondering if they ever are effective, since, like I said, I've never found anyone that didn't hate them and the campaign from which they originated. And I don't buy the old "if it wasn't effective, they wouldn't use it" argument. I think robo-calls, at least the mass-market ones used in the last campaign, are new enough to the game that no one really knows how well, or if, they work. Maybe someone out there has the numbers/percentages on their effectiveness?

To clarify: 1. I support an opt-IN agreement (I hate all those opt-out agreements in small print)

1. I did listen to ALL of the robo-calls I received this last election.

2. I do not find them an effective use of educating the public.

Off topic but Schaufler rarely makes news. Is is true that he is the only D not on board for SB366 ( School Impact Fees) ??

Scott in Damascus,

On the federal level, you have the ability to "opt-out" of automated marketing calls via the federal do-not-call list. Do a quick google search to place your number on the list. In regards to political robocalls, you can "opt-out" of those calls at least here in Oregon, by contacting your county elections office and have your phone number taken out of your voter file.

Let's remember that there are two different types of calls, automated telemarketing calls and political/non-profit calls. Once you get onto the federal do-not-call list, there are major fines for those telemarketers who call you against your wishes.

As far as the political calls, what most people dislike is the unethical use of these calls. Just like those negative broadcast and print ads. Its the exact same beast. That is why I advocate the same disclosure rules for political robocalls that govern those other mediums.

I would take it one step further and 1)mandate the use of caller ID so people can know who is calling them and 2) an opt-out option that callers can take to be taken off the lists. You don't currently have that option for political broadcast and print ads.

There are postive uses for these calls which are not taken into account. Robocalls can help increase voter turnout. For instance, just today we find out that in West Linn, an important Police levy failed to pass because less than 50% of the voters actually voted. GOTV robocalls would have been an inexpensive way to help turn out voters by reminding them of the importance of the election.

Also, legislators use them to inform constituents of important events such as town hall meetings and issue forums. Torrid Joe brings out robo-polling and its importance. This legislation is just too broad.

A lot of commenters have made the point that in terms of practicality, robo-calls are not terribly effective.

However, not all robo-calls are alike, or serve the same purpose. Robo-calls are not very effective in presenting new, positive information -- especially for a candidate campaign -- but can be very effective to respond to a last minute attack on a candidate or measure. In that sense, they are really useful tools, especially for under-funded efforts. An opponent's mail piece could cost more than .75 a piece; for about .05 a campaign can quickly and effectively blunt the attack. That's happened in more than one winning campaign I've managed.

Also, seniors listen to these messages. When coordinated with the timing of earned media, direct mail, or T.V., they actually do have some value.

I am surprised that Senator Metsger and Rep. Schaufler have never used these in their own campaigns, but more power to 'em if that's the case. I agree with the commenter above that they're not an ideal way to have a dialogue with voters, but neither are :30 T.V. spots either, imo.

As an admitted partisan who has run many under-funded but successful races, I don't like the idea of giving up an effective tool to help respond to last minute attacks. I think this bill has media value for the sponsors, but although I'm no constitutional lawyer, I'd be surprised if at least a ban on ballot measure robo calls wasn't overturned.

I have heard negative feedback about robocalls ever since I first heard them in the late 90's. Still, they should not be banned anymore than live calls, canvassing, or lawn signs should be banned.

I neither like or dislike the robo-call. Actually, I kinda like em' and think we need em as they still do reach the folks we need to reach. There have been plenty of campaigns that benefit from the robo-dial and the patch-through function.

Outside of my feelings on all this...

Why on earth are two D's and more importantly these two guys doing this right now? Is this what we're using the majority for down there in Salem? Last I checked, the folks out in Hood River have some of the highest numbers of uninsured kids in the state & I'm sure the folks in district 48 might like to see a rainy day fund worked on instead of this?

Maybe when these guys start doing town halls and nobody shows up cause the groups that support them can't turnout their membership as well without a pre-recorded message they'll feel different.

Robofan

A much slimier kind of robocall is the one I found on my answering machine yesterday, and have recieved before:

Hi, Mr. Hoffman, my name's Dolores Murphy, with Congressman Tom Cole, of the National Republican Congressional Committee in Washington. We wanted to recognize you with our National Leadership Award, and I need to speak to you about a press release we want to send out. Again, my name is Dolores Murphy, and my number is 1-877-213-0603. Please call me as soon as you get this message. Thank you, and goodbye.

Needless to say the National Leadership Award is entirely fictional. It seems that if you call that number, they simply squeeze you for contributions. See here for more details... apparently they've been doing this for years. If Oregon banned only these, I wouldn't complain.

Robocalls can be effective. A robocall with the presidents voice to tell members of his party to vote is very effective as the GOP did in Cali a while back. Also its an easy way to put out smear attacks. A good "hey did you know that opponent x is a druggie and kicks dogs" kinda of think. I think that any time you ban a type of political freedom you in intrude on free speech. Political speech is the most heavily protected type of speech so agruments becuase we can ban companies telemarketing calls might not fly in terms of political speech.

It's funny how Frank Dufay is conflating a telephone call with breaking and entering. Volunteers leave messages toward the end of campaigns too; I wonder if Frank feels the same way about those.

With all due respect, it's Frank who needs to "get a grip." It's always amusing to see self-proclaimed experts at what's effective in a campaign from people who've never actually run one.

I'm as ACLU as they come and I have no problem whatsoever extending the Do-Not-Call list to cover political uses. Does anyone think that political campaigns should be able to send unsolicited faxes? IIRC, they are not exempt from the junk fax laws--why should they be exempt from Do-Not-Call lists.

Every single argument posted above against allowing people to give themselves respite from the bombardment and harassment of robocalls has one thing in common: they are all arguments from self-interest where politicians or hacks try to justify their favorite invasive nuisance by arguing that the intensity of their desire to use robocalling (it's cheap, my message was really important, blahblahblah) outweighs the desire of the phone owner --- the one who pays for it, and puts it in her own bedroom --- to avoid being harassed and to keep the line clear for the calls desired.

Anyone who uses robocalls to campaign for themselves is sending a clear message that their ego is out of control and that they see voters as nothing more than instruments to be manipulated for the benefit of the caller.

But a LOT of robocalling is negative, rather than positive. So even if they obey the rules on identifying the sponsor, you still get push-polling and hit pieces. Fine, pols can spread scurrilous statements about each other all they want--but don't pretend that voters who want OUT of that cesspool are somehow a threat to the Constitution. They didn't say you couldn't robocall anyone else--they just want to be left alone themselves.

The most precious right in society is the right to be left alone -- somebody (OW Holmes maybe).

I guarantee you there are people out there who vote based off of information they listened to in a robocall and little else. They wouldn't do them otherwise. I know, I'm not happy about it either.

Robocalls are the worst form of communication that a campaign can use. They should be banned for a host of smart reasons already identifed by other comments. I agree completely with JMG and DuFay.

But my biggest concern about robocalls is that it is just another way to keep real live people from communcating political messages. Politics is leaving behind the person to person contact of political action and organization because consultants have lowered the political debate to the same level as selling soap. Politics marketed like a product is the first step IMHO of losing the reason campaigning.

Today campaigns rev up the money machine, the advertisers, the direct mail mavens, the message honchos and neglect to think of person to person contact. If I get a call from a live person telling me why they support Joe Doaks then I will be more inclided to listen. If they know on my door, they get a welcome.

Robocall me and I want to start looking at the alternatives. Robocall my senir citizen parents and you can easily expect a negative NOT a positive reaction.

Boys quit selling your services long enough please to see the loss to political action you are creating by automating the most important theing you can do in politics - organize.

The hyperbole in this thread is a little over the top.

As was said, most robophone calls are for GOTV among voters already ID'd as supporters. Or they're used to reach voters whose membership in a certain group leads the campaign to assume that the voter is already on board with their candidate or issue. They're not used for persuasion calling, so the constant repitition that "they don't change any minds" is irrelevant.

If campaigns had limitless time and resources, they'd spend more time on pursuasion. In the real world, they make tactical decisions about which groups of people to turn out and which ones to work on with messages designed to sway undecideds.

This scenario of "I was just beginning to savor that mouthful of food with my loved ones when the phone rang and suddenly my blissful mealtime went to shit" is deranged, on several levels. If this is what gets you upset you need help from someone, but the Legislature isn't it.

John

Gosh, John, calling people "deranged" because they are sick and tired of machine-fed spam and robocalls is sure to win a lot of support! Good thing for you to post on the internets where anyone who knows how to use the Google can find out what you think of voters (who overwhelmingly HATE these things).

I sure appreciate being told I need professional help just for objecting to having hacks turn my activism and involvement with progressive organizations into an excuse for harassing me in my own house.

Look, it's OREGON, home of MAIL BALLOTING, so your "robocalls mainly are for GOTV" just doesn't wash. Besides, if I can't opt-out of YOUR robocalls then I can't get away from the BS push-polls and hit calls from the other side.

Respond to the proposal, not the straw man.

"In Oregon, Senate Bill 863 would ban all prerecorded messages, unless the recipient has consented"

So it doesn't say ban robocalls. It says no robocalls without consent of those called. That's it. It simply means that you have to put a sentence on your forms saying "We use automated dialers to help spread the word. May we include you on our dialing list?" That's it.

Of course, the hostility to this proposal is that robocallers KNOW how much people hate these calls, and you know that few of us will sign up to be robocalled--in other words, you don't really want to give us a choice about it because it's inconvenient for you.

I've done everything possible to avoid these calls---I'm on the do-not-call lists, I have an unlisted/unpublished number, and I'm careful about who I give my number to. But robocallers can still get my number from people who carelessly share that number. So I'm just supposed to grin and bear it?

If you keep pushing it, you're going to see a "robocall me=lose my vote" backlash.

As for the argument that "the calls won't stop, you'll just have live callers" that's simply besides the point. If you call me with a human, I have an opportunity to say "I don't want to be called, please take me off your calling list" if I want, and the human caller can say "OK, sorry," and feed the information back. (That and the increased cost of human callers means that the problem is several orders of magnitude smaller.)

Kari, Please do not mischaracterize my comment as anti technology or internet. Obviously, I make full useof the tech as I have wandered my way to Blue Oregon.

What make s the internet successful is the freedomof the user to select and choose the information and places to be. What makes the internet not successsful are uninvited overtures like spam, viruses and pop-ups - all things that have spawned an entire sub industry sector.

Robocalls = Spam and Pop-ups in that they are uninvited overtures to contacts without recourse to the recipient. The proposed law gives the recipient control again and that is where it belongs.

I have been following the debate on robocalls closely as it develops here and elsewhere in the media. I appreciate your interest and the many comments on both sides of the issue. My committee will be holding a special hearing on these bills tomorrow afternoon at the Milwaukie High School Library, and I invite each of you to come share your thoughts and personal experiences. I am also in the process of collecting samples of robocalls to play before the committee tomorrow, so if you have a recording of a robocall that you would like to share, please email the audio file to [email protected] today, or bring a copy of the call on a CD to the hearing tomorrow. I look forward to seeing you there!

Rick Metsger State Senate District 26

Special Committee Public Hearing Senate Committee on Business, Transportation and Workforce Development Milwaukie High School Library 11300 SE 23rd Ave. Milwaukie

Public hearing on the robocall bills will begin at 12:15pm.

Yes, I know that political calling is (currently) not subject to do-not-call lists. That's why I support the proposed bill so strongly.

Thank you for the warning about the county clerk and the phone number.

As for your argument that I am giving unspecified others the opportunity to call me by having a phone, I say nuts to that. I have a landline phone so that I can call 911. Period.

If it weren't for that, I wouldn't have a landline at all, precisely because of this attitude--the attitude held by people who think that possessing the technological ability to grab my utility service and use it for their own purposes makes it ethical to do so.

I pay extra every month precisely to minimize the nuisance calls I get, and I sure as heck wonder where you get off telling me that I should have to put up with these calls. Democracy somehow limped along for more than 200 years before robocalls, I think it will survive letting those of us who want to get off the harassment lists do so.

The bottom line is simple here: Free speech ends when it imposes and tramples on a persons privacy. Robo calls are OK if you answer the phone and hang up immediately, but this is about when your aswering machine gets held hostage because they keep on the line when they should know when to stop. If no one is there to answer, don't leave anything until they do answer. Robo calls are imposing, and, therefore, cease to be free speech and climb toward harassment.

Re: Voter lists (QVF)

I just called my county clerk and the person there said that, in my county, they DO NOT include the phone number in the qualified voter file lists given out, thank goodness. However, he also said that this had been left up to the county clerk, which seems wrong.

Citizens in counties with less-enlightened clerks should not be put in the position of having to compromise their privacy (and undo their paid-for unlisted/unpublished number) to exercise the right to vote.

So perhaps an amendment or a related bill should be considered to REQUIRE that County Clerks NOT disclose phone numbers of registered voters without their consent.

Nobody's harassing anybody. Nobody's trampling anything. You live in a society that includes other people. You don't want to talk to them? Then don't talk to them. Problem solved.

I work at home, and I hate any unnecessary interruption. I am more likely to NOT vote for someone who is intrusive. I have a "No Soliciting" sign an inch from my doorbell, and it works most of the time, except when the local "Christians" think it doesn't apply to them...I think the opt-IN idea has merit. For now, I will take Moses's suggestion and remove my phone number from my voter file...Thanks, Moses!

WHAT other people?? I pick up the phone and there's nobody there--it's a goddamn machine. That's what so maddening--there's no way to stop the calls, and no one to complain to.

All in favor of robodialing, please post your home phone numbers on this blog.
Should be no problem, eh? After all, no matter how many unwanted calls you might receive as a result, no one's trampling your rights or harassing you. And if you don't want the calls, just hang up ...

I never put my phone # on or even saw a voter reg form--I filled out an application for a driver's license, which demands the SSN (!!) and the phone.

When we were done, the clerk asked me if I wanted to register to vote. It never occurred to me (until today, when the warning was posted here) that the county clerk would even get, much less give out my phone number.

AFTER I got my license I got a form that asked me to check party affiliation--I didn't put my phone number on it. But it sounds like they use one database and port all the data over to the clerks, which includes the phone number that they collected during the driver's license/license plates portion of the visit. I'm grateful that my clerk has the sense not to throw in bonus items that are not part of the QVF.

Odd, haven't seen any phone numbers posted here yet.

Jenni, I agree with you completely--you should not be getting unwanted calls, so of course you don't want your number in the hands of anyone who decides to call you for their own purposes.

I simply ask for the same courtesy.

I notice that no one has responded to the point made that the bill does NOT ban robocalls, it only prohbits robocalls to people who have not consented to receive them. I take it that means that robocall advocates have no response to this important distinction, and insist on the right to use robodialers to call people who strongly object to such calls.

One other point that should be made--robocall advocates seem to be thinking only in terms of how this bill would affect them and whichever campaign they are working with. Consider instead how many campaigns and groups are using these infernal things. They are like barking dogs in the neighborhood--one dog who barked once in a while is not worth getting wrapped around the axle about. But 20 dogs barking incessantly for weeks is absolutely maddening.

Some of the things we have to consider when choosing are actions are

-- What if everyone did what I'm proposing?

-- Does what I'm proposing use other people as instruments for my purposes without their consent?

-- Am I proud of what I'm proposing to do, and am I happy if people know I'm doing it?

I think robocalls fail all three questions.

I think it's sad that people on this blog questioned why a couple of Democrats were behind this bill. The Democratic party used to be proud to champion the interests of regular people. Is your desire to use robocalls to people who object to them really worth the statement it makes about you?

JMG---here's an idea (and somehow I know you'll slam it someway, but here goes anyway)---disconnect the land line and use a cell phone only. I've never had a robocall or any solicitation call for that matter and I just conducted a survey (extremely small and may mean nothing) of 10 other cell-only folks I know---none has ever received such calls either. It's actually better for 911--because it's always with me. If I don't want to hear a ring, I turn it off/down and check the voicemail later. If the voicemail HAD a call I didn't want, I could just hit *7 and delete without listening. Also, my bill is less (I do a lot of long-distance calling). There are plans now where you get the phone for free. I've had a cell only for over 10 years---no complaints, no worries. Try it, you might like it.

I'm not slamming the idea, but I just finished reseearching that decision yet again last month, and if you check the most recent Consumer Reports on choosing phones Jan 2007, I think) you will find that they still strongly advise staying with the landline for 911 purposes, which is my primary motivation for a phone.

In the event of widespread power outages (such as the huge NE outage in August 2003, which I was caught in), the landlines still work. The cell towers stopped transmitting, so the cell phone users were screwed just when they needed the phones the most. I didn't know the about that until days later, because my landline never quit.

(And, as an aside, I have yet to find a cell phone that would allow me unlimited local calling and unlimited call length for under $15/mo, which is what I'm paying QWEST. For long-distance we use the phone card from Costco, so we pay about 3 cents a minute. I've never met anyone with a cell phone who pays that little for that much. And, yes, I could go on and on about the essential wrongness of my having to give up a public utility, the landline, so that others can continue to impose robocalls on unwilling people, but I think you get the idea.)

And you do raise a good point by highlighting the class aspect of this whole thing with your suggestion. Wealthier people with cell phones aren't bothered by robocalls. Less well off people who want the cheapest possible phone service (landlines) are the only ones who suffer from them. If robocalls are such a good thing, why do they not target cell phone users (as the article by the robocaller pointed out)? Could it be because robocall advocates themselves enjoy their protected status, while they don't want to grant the same to others?

Jenni, I agree with you completely--you should not be getting unwanted calls, so of course you don't want your number in the hands of anyone who decides to call you for their own purposes.

Actually, that's not what I said. There are trolls on here who like to attack me, and I'd rather not just post my number here for any 'ole troll to have. The phone numbers used for the robocalls aren't just handed out to anyone on the street, which is basically what I'd be doing if I posted it here.

But it would only take about a minute to do a google of me and get my phone number. People do it all the time. So obviously I don't have problems posting my number on the web -- just not on a web site where I've been attacked by trolls, been called nasty names, etc.

And you can get a cell phone for pretty cheap. I don't know how much you spend in long distance each month, but I get mine for $45 ($47 and some change once the taxes are added), and I get unlimited local and long distance calls. The calls can be as long as I want. Unlimited text messages, as well.

I don't understand what all THIS quibbling is all about. There's a service you can get so unsolicited calls don't ring through. You should check into it. As for randomly dialing through a range of numbers.... What if you, like me, have a landline and cell phone with out of state area codes? Gone are the days when you had to stick with a geographic area code. I have both a 360 and 206 landline and a 212 cell phone.

This quibbling is about who should bear the burden of paying to protect people from invasive nuisance technologies, the owners/users of those technologies or the innocent bystanders. If your proposal is that robodialing companies propose to pay for the service that screens out unsolicited calls, then that's fine, but I don't think that's your idea.

Look, we're talking about a form of pollution. In this case, we're talking about the social ecosphere rather than the biological ecosphere, but the principle is identical: the polluter should pay the costs of mitigating the pollution, not the people who want to avoid exposure.

Who should pay for the costs of stream restoration to protect salmon habitat, the cattle ranchers who let their cattle into the stream or the fishermen downstream who depend on the salmon? If you make the cattlemen pay, you're making the ones who enjoy the benefits pay the associated costs, motivating them to minimize those costs; if you make the fishermen pay, you create no incentive for the ranchers to protect the streambeds and you take the costs from the ones who get no benefit from the offending practice.

That's exactly the situation with robocalls: it's a technology that many people find offensive. There's an accomodation that can be reached that allows the robocallers to continue to use the technology, at the cost of developing an opt-out list that lets people avoid the nuisance. Most of the proposals people have suggested here make the people who get no benefit from the robocalls pay the costs of avoidance, rather than making the robocallers pay it. That makes no sense, and it's a bad principle of governance.

Democrats should internalize this idea and apply it widely: make the polluter pay, not the victim of pollution.

"Look, we're talking about a form of pollution"

Oh, so just because the opposition uses this form of communication means it's "pollution"? So why don't you declare an emergency in your stupid legislature for THIS now and make all forms anti-Democratic be illegal? I wouldn't be surprised if these closed minded liberals would actually pull off something like this.

I think most of us are fine with an opt-out list. It's an opt-in list that we have problems with.

Well, jimminy crickets, why didn't you say so! If that's the case then we can support this bill then, clarified as follows:

Anyone with a phone is presumed to have consented to receive robocalls, BUT the phone owner may withdraw the consent to receive robocalls at any time by submitting their name/number to a state registry (housed in the PUC maybe) paid for by an assessment on robocall companies.

No one may use any form of robocalling to Oregonians without

(a) helping pay for the registry (by an assessment proportional to use) and

(b) checking the list before each batch of calls to ensure that no one on the list gets any calls if they have put their name on the do-not-robocall more than seven days before. (Essentially this forces companies to update their blocked numbers every week when making robocalls.)

The do-not-robocall list would be exempt from FOIA--that is, you could only check to see whether your own number is on there, but you couldn't FOIA the list to obtain anyone else's name/number.

And anyone telco up a new phone account for you would be required to explain the robocalling opt-out provision and ask if you wanted to opt out.

Robocallers would have to maintain accurate records of calls placed and messages used for at least 60 days. Anyone who is listed on the do-not-robocall list for more than a week and who receives a robocall can file a complaint with the PUC within 30 days. Any robocalling company who complied with the rules and yet still made a robocall to someone on the do-not-robocall list pays $200 to the person called and $200 to the state registry office.

And any robocall company who fails to comply with the rules (on maintaining records or updating their blocked numbers) and who calls someone on the do-not-robocall list pays $500 to each person called and $200 to the state registry office for each person callled.

Simple--responsible companies who make an effort to avoid problems should be able to comply with no difficulty. Computers are good at this sort of thing.

"Of course the problem arises that people may not want the ones from campaigns that are "dirty," but do want robocalls from say the Bus Project or another group telling them about an upcoming event."

See I knew it - you don't want robocalls if it's the opponent but if it's for YOUR cause, it's okay. How very typical of liberal thinking.

I'd give them more than a week to remove people. Even the national do not call list gives companies longer than that.

You really diminish the value of the list if people who start getting a bunch of calls once the ballots go out can't stop the calls reasonably promptly.

I think it's hard to argue that a week isn't plenty of time--you can get a mortgage decision over the phone and close within 30 days; you can start cell service immediately, and get phone service turned on within two days. Those are much more complex transactions, requiring checks with credit agencies, etc.

There's simply no inherent reason that it should take more than a day for a robocaller to get new blocks--giving them a week is plenty of time, given that all the necessary steps occur electronically. It's not like there's paper that has to move around.

It's more like updating your anti-virus software, which good programs do immediately. Really, robodialers SHOULD download the do-not-robodial list daily, so giving them a week seems plenty generous. (The good ones will do it daily anyway.)

I seem to have caused a problem with italics. Hope this fixes it.

torridjoe: I'm wondering whether you have any law to support your claim?

The fact is that content-neutral restrictions on speech that merely serve to set time/place/manner restrictions are almost always upheld.

Further, the proposal does not prevent noncommercial robocalls; it merely gives people a way to opt out from receiving ALL robocalls if desired. On what basis would you argue that this would run afoul of the First Amendment?

"Wow, that is some old school cellphone number. To the best of my knowledge all of the NYC/ Manhattan mobile phones have been 917 area codes for a long time, at least ten years (the outer boroughs, except maybe the Bronx, lost the 212 area code more than 15 years ago, and the Bronx lost it 10+ years ago). Nice trick."

It's amazing what you can do with voIP service! Check into it sometime.