Font size:    Tell a friend

Lawsuit Threat Over California Robo Calls

(Politics Magazine)By Tim Sampson

California is the latest battleground  in voters' ongoing struggle not to be annoyed.

The state's public utilities commission is coming under fire from opponents of political robo calling who say the commission is not enforcing existing regulations on automated political phone messages. It's the same story in a number of states that currently have laws on the books that restrict political robo calls: The laws are rarely enforced and actual penalties for violators are nearly non-existent. 

Shaun Dakin, who heads the national political do-not-contact registry is working to stir California's enforcers into action.

"[In] California, robo calls are totally illegal, but the law is not being enforced," he says. Dakin claims his organization has received thousands of complaints from California voters this year-some of whom say they have been called 10 to 15 times a day during election season.

The state's law, passed in 2002, says any automated calls made in the state must be introduced by a live operator, but Dakin says campaigns regularly flout the statute and continue to make the same pre-recorded calls with no live operator. The penalty for violating the law is $500 per incident.

To combat the calls in California, Dakin is encouraging members of his registry to file official complaints with the state's public utilities commission. He also says legal action against the commission is possible as early as September. That's in the hope of halting the calls during the upcoming general election season.

Susan Carothers, a spokeswoman for the commission, told Politics that she was unaware of any complaints about robo calls, but did not respond to a request for further comment by press time.

The threat of legal action by Dakin's group is noteworthy given the number of state statutes on the books that restrict robo calls. To date, no state has been challenged in court on its failure to enforce restrictions on the calls. 

During the primary season, for example, the campaigns of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were chastised for sponsoring robo calls in Oregon-a violation of that state's law. But Oregon's attorney general took no action against either campaign.

In Indiana, the state supreme court recently heard a case brought by the state attorney general. He's seeking the leverage to enforce a state statute banning automated calls on candidates and campaigns.

For the most part, consultants who do robo calls work their businesses around the current maze of state restrictions. Many robo call vendors choose to not do business in states like Indiana and Oregon.

Al Chini, who heads the California-based firm Target Marketing, says using a live operator to come into compliance with the state's law would cost ten times as much, which is why all of his business is conducted in other states.

"We don't fight the law, we just obey it," he says. "There are other states besides California and we work on campaigns there."

For some time now, political consultants have been waging a public relations battle over the calls, and preparing to wage a legal battle if necessary. The American Association of Political Consultants has established a legal defense fund to combat efforts to restrict political robo calls.

There is federal legislation making its way through Congress that would force candidates to adhere to the federal do-not-call list when calling voters. That, say consultants, violates the First Amendment.

Other supporters of the calls, like Michael Schrimpf of the Center for Competitive Politics, toe the free market line. Schrimpf says candidates will voluntarily refrain from campaign tactics that would annoy voters.

"Logic dictates that candidates would police themselves," he says.