FeedsIs Gordon Smith Skirting Anti-Robocall Laws?
Is Gordon Smith skirting anti-robocall laws?
Yesterday, a friend of mine shot me an e-mail: she had just been contacted via phone by Gordon Smith's team. The call prominently featured a robocall-esque automated voice, but was not solely a robocall. As a reminder, robocalling, or the practice of automatic-dialing numbers and using an automated voice to present information, was outlawed in Oregon Senate Bill 863. As of this year, most non-public-service or established-relationship robocalls are very much illegal in Oregon.
I'll let the text of my friend's e-mail stand for itself:
First, a real person came on the line and asked me to listen to an "important message about taxes and the economy"' and then stay on the line to talk to him again.The message was basically that with the economy in the shape it is, we should make the tax cuts permanent and not listen to the liberals who think they should take your money and spend it the way they see fit. Doesn't it make more sense to trust the citizens of this country to spend their own dollars and prop up our economy?
The campaign worker got back on the line and asked me if I agreed with the Senator that we should let middle class taxpayers keep their tax cuts. My reply was that the question was a false one since most of the money went to taxpayers like me, who were in the top income brackets and who didn't need the money but wanted it spend on infrastructure, medical care for uninsured, etc.
The guy seemed confused by my answer, asking but what about the middle income tax payers? I said that if he understood what had happened with the tax cuts, he would understand that the majority of tax cut money went to the rich, not the middle income taxpayer, and that if these tax cuts were made permanent, that is who would benefit the most.
He said, "Uh, okay, if you disagree, I will say that you don't support tax cuts for the middle class."
We'll deal with the call's absurd content in a minute, but first let's take a look at what we have here, and the law.
Gordon Smith and his team are skirting anti-robocall laws. By calling with a live individual and quickly transferring the call to an automated voice to present information, I argue that Smith is clearly going against the spirit of our state's law, which aims to protect residents at-large against the ongoing nuisance of robocalling and automated non-essential information.
The law, Oregon SB 863, was put in place to limit the interaction of an electorate with automatic voices, sans human interaction. It's true that Smith's call, as described, does not violate the law; instead, it demonstrates a loophole. How easy would it be for a live person to call an individual, ask them to listen to a message, and then follow up with an automated voice saying whatever the caller wants for any length of time? Indeed, such an interaction is against the law's spirit, as the text of the law shows:
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. { + As used in sections 1 to 3 of this 2007 Act: (1) 'Automatic dialing and announcing device' means an automated device that selects and dials telephone numbers and that, working alone or in conjunction with another device, disseminates a prerecorded or synthesized voice message to the telephone number called.
The above emphasis is mine. While the law specifically deals with the origin of the calls, the content is dealt with in spirit but not in actuality. Indeed, it's not technically illegal for Smith to live-call someone and then transfer the call to a synthetic voice to pass of information, but it absolutely skirts this law. For Smith to exploit the loophole as he does is perhaps the most telling sign of all: he won't break the law, but he'll do anything in his means to bend it to his advantage and convenience.
As for the content of the call? Sheesh. Do we need any more proof that Gordon Smith is a tried-and-true conservative, in the mold of John McCain and George W. Bush? Advocating for keeping the Bush/McCain upper-class tax cuts is straight out of Ronald Reagan's playbook, and shows little independence from our current disaster of an administration. And Gordon Smith tries to sell us that he's a moderate? Come on! At least be more creative when you lie to us! And don't you just love the end reaction of the Smith staffer? Because my friend disagreed and offered a strong counter-argument to tax cuts for the wealthy, the staffer clumsily shot back that she must be against middle class tax cuts and, ostensibly, the middle class. Bush/McCain talking points, party of one!
But, you know what, maybe in the final run what Smith did was against the law. Check out this bottom-line provision in SB 863:
(1) A person engages in an unlawful practice when in the course of the person's business, vocation or occupation the person does any of the following: ...(u) Engages in any other unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce.
Again, the emphasis is mine. Engages in deceptive conduct in trade or commerce? Isn't that what Smith and his cronies are doing when they live/robocall to Oregonians, spouting lies about upper-class tax cuts? Sounds like a violation to me!
This episode is all the more proof that we need to send Smith packing in November. Every minute he's in Washington is another minute where Oregonians get almost net-zero representation, as he cancels out the vote of our good Senator Ron Wyden 90% of the time. Time to send him packing.
Edit: I was pointed to the legislation's correct text, thanks for Kari in the comments!
Stumble It!We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options,
try reading the
wikipedia article or the
official style guide.
Comments
Comments from site editors have a darker background than comments from everybody else.I wonder how the caller would respond to the question,
"Are you for gay marriage and middle-income tax cuts?"
"No? ... You're against middle-income tax cuts?"
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Actually I think he is doing in exactly in the spirit of the law. The law is to keep the automated calls from tying up your phone line and not getting recorded calls on your answering machine. I don't think the intent of the law was at all was to prevent recorded information from reaching a caller willing to listen to it.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
I'm unsure about that. Sure, the law is what it is, but I still see a loophole. Of course, the devil's in the details (and Gordo's lies), but I think the details still bear out my spirit argument. But I can see what you're saying...
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
The law is intended to protect members of the Do Not Call registry from receiving robocalls. If you're not on that register, then you can receive such calls as a member of a party.
A willingness to accept a call is irrelevant here legally.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
The do not call list is irrelevant. Political calls are exempt from the do not call list. By "willing to listen to it" I meant after the live person asks if they will.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
It looks as though Smith is taking advantage of a loophole in the law. By having a live person in addition to the robo-message, he may be within the legal boundaries. I'm no legal expert, and I sure hope someone looks into this. Regardless of the legalities of this issue, by taking part in these deceptive calls shows a lack of respect towards Oregonians. I can't wait to oust Smith with Merkley in November!
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
I cannot express in words how opposed to Gordon Smith I am. I writhe with hate for this terrible man and his bullshit, but best as I can tell, the call as described is not a violation of the letter or the spirit of the bill.
The bill "prohibits caller from using automatic dialing and announcing device to call subscriber." That's it. As long as a real person dials a number they have on a list and says "Hi, I'm Ralphy McConservative from the Gordon Smith War Mongering Party, please listen to this message from ol'Gordo," then he's golden.
As far as deceptive conduct, I think you're stretching. I'd be more suspicious if a Gordon Smith volunteer called me and wasn't an obtuse, push-polling fuckwit.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Writhe with hate? Nice.
I mean, he is following the law... but I don't think it's a stretch, considering his other rhetoric.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Ben, your link to SB 863 goes to the A-Engrossed edition. There were later amendments, so that's not the final legislation.
Here's the link to the actual legislation that passed.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Oh, sweet, thanks Kari. I'll reflect the changes in my post.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
While you are at it, you should update the post to reflect that you have zero information that Smith is violating the letter or spirit of the law other than your wild guess as to what the Oregon legislature's intention was.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Zzzzzing!
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Ouch, indeed. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
That's one of the lamest cop outs I've heard in a while. I've pointed you to information which directly refutes your wild speculation and you just say "let's agree to disagree."
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
I've pointed you to information
Actually, no, you haven't. You've made a bunch of assertions - but provided not a single source nor a link.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Aha, just saw the link below. Which, of course, is not a link about the actual law itself - but is rather commentary about the original proposal.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
Yes, but it was commentary by the bill sponsor who should know best what his intention was.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.
You can refer to http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/03/ban_robocalls.html
for a quote from the sponser as to why he introduced the bill.
We use Markdown to style our comments. **This is bolded.** *This is italic.* [This is a link](url)
For more options, try reading the wikipedia article or the official style guide.