Voters in Washington County to take action vs. robocalls

Voters in Washington County say they are steamed about the political robocalls they received before the May 18 primary election, and they plan to take action against those annoying pre-recorded phone messages and the politicians responsible for them.

"We want to stop politicians from using the robocall, because they've abused it," said Nellie Chester, a longtime Democratic committeewoman from Somerset Township.

Ms. Chester said she fielded hundreds of complaints from voters who were assailed with robocalls from both parties in the weeks and months leading up to the primary, and said she and her friends and neighbors have begun circulating a petition that will ask state lawmakers to include political calls in the statewide Do Not Call registry.

Telemarketers are prohibited from calling those who sign up for the eight-year-old registry, though nonprofit organizations and political groups can still make unsolicited calls to any land line. There is also a national registry with the same regulations.

One of the complaints Ms. Chester heard came from 84-year-old Clyde Henry, also of Somerset.

"You can't believe the calls I get; I even got 12 on a Sunday," said Mr. Henry, who plans to help distribute the petition. "The really disgusting thing is that you can't talk to a person. You can't ask questions or say anything."

Ms. Chester, 65, said the complaints get worse with every election, and the number of robocalls has tripled in the past two years, frustrating committee representatives like her, who are hamstrung.

"We're out there working on getting them elected, but people are telling me that if they get a robocall from a candidate, they won't vote for them," she said.

Joseph DiSarro, the head of the political science department at Washington & Jefferson College, called robocalls "pitiful campaign tools" that have been abused to the point that they are counterproductive.

"Whatever purpose it was designed to serve has outlived its usefulness," said Dr. DiSarro, who said the calls previously worked for new candidates and challengers looking to get their name and message out to voters.

But these days, candidates from both parties employ the calls as a "last-ditch, inexpensive method," to provoke voters, sometimes through misinformation, to hit the polls.

Depending on volume, the calls cost approximately one-quarter of 1 cent each, far less than direct mail or media advertising, said Shaun Dakin, CEO and founder of the nonprofit, non-partisan Citizens for Civil Discourse, a group devoted to eliminating robocalls by asking politicians to voluntarily abstain from the practice.

"We're not trying to ban [robocalls]," he said. "We firmly believe in the First Amendment, but we also believe in the rights of voters."

The Washington, D.C.-based group has attracted about 150,000 members since its inception in 2007, but it will need far more members to persuade politicians that eliminating robocalls is in their best interest, Mr. Dakin said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in 2008 introduced the "Robocall Privacy Act," a bill co-sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter, that would have limited the time of day and number of political robocalls allowed, but like other measures, including a similar one introduced by U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, and one passed by the state Senate two years ago, it died at the committee level.

Ms. Chester said she and her cohorts will decide where to forward their petition once several hundred or more signatures are obtained.

The only way politicians will regulate themselves is if grass-roots alliances, such as Ms. Chester's, can get their voices heard, said Mr. Dakin, who began his crusade after an ill-fated stint as a phone bank volunteer for 2004 presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry.

"I got a very negative reaction from voters," said Mr. Dakin, who said some states have passed limited robocall bans, but enforcement is spotty at best.

A California gubernatorial candidate also got an earful after her campaign somehow obtained the unlisted, private phone number used by a cardiac patient to automatically report information from his pacemaker/defibrillator to a hospital.

The patient, a disabled veteran, questioned the legality of the calls, as have local voters, who wonder, at what level does annoyance begin to constitute harassment?

"There are a lot of people who are very upset about it," said Peg Wilson, 80, of Washington, a state Democratic committeewoman who has been active in the party for 45 years.

She said she has never seen voters, especially seniors, as angry as they are now.

"They are signed up for the do-not-call list," she said. "They want a way to stop it."

Dr. DiSarro said he thinks voter ire will probably put an end to robocalls soon.

"I think they won't last much longer," he said. "They will die a pleasant death."

Mr. Dakin isn't so sure.

"Let's just say I'm not holding my breath," he said.