 | |
| |
TechnologyDaily Mobile
Attack Of The 'Robocalls'
by Michael Martinez
Some voters are bugged by them. Others are simply ignoring them. And yet they are interrupting more family dinners than ever.
If you live in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina and you have a landline telephone, chances are you already have received an automated message from one of the leading presidential campaigns. Candidates are leaving the "robocalls" for likely primary- and caucus-goers, and some of their supporters are independently placing pre-recorded calls to attack their opponents.
The robocalling soared to new heights in the early-primary states over the past month. A scandal erupted in Iowa over calls attacking Republican candidate Mitt Romney that appeared to have come from a third-party group supporting GOP rival Mike Huckabee. Romney has asked Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller to investigate the calls, which Huckabee himself has condemned. Miller, a Democrat, has not decided yet to probe the calls.
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is crying foul about robocalls attacking her. Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton's campaign manager, said in an e-mail to supporters that Clinton's New Hampshire staff has heard reports of push polls disseminating "negative talking points" about her.
The avalanche of robocalls -- each call only costs a few cents to place -- does not look like it is about to stop anytime soon, either. Recent studies indicate that more voters are being targeted by automated calls so far this election season than during last year's mid-term contests. And First Amendment issues may dissuade Congress from doing anything to stem the tide.
Flooding The Phone Lines
A study released Friday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 80 percent of likely Republican and Democratic voters in Iowa have received robocalls from presidential campaigns. According to the same study, more than two-thirds of New Hampshire voters reported receiving robocalls.
A similar study conducted last year by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that roughly two-thirds of American voters received robocalls just before the 2006 election. Automated calls were a controversial issue during those contests as well. In Virginia, a criminal investigation was launched into allegations by some voters that they received calls telling them they would be arrested if they reported to their polling places.
Michael Dimock, associate research director at the Pew center, said it is clear from the new numbers that campaigns are committed to using robocalls. But the majority of the Iowa and New Hampshire voters polled by Pew said they did not listen to the calls. In both states, about 45 percent of voters said they hung up once they realized a person was not on the other end of the line.
The study also found that Democratic campaigns in both states are more likely to make personal contact with voters. The majority of Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire told Pew they had received calls from actual people. Less than half of the likely GOP caucus-goers in Iowa, meanwhile, said they have been contacted personally by someone from a campaign.
"There's a big gap in terms of personal outreach," Dimock said. "It really does look like Democratic voters are getting a lot more personal contact [than] Republicans."
According to the Pew report, the voters in the early presidential states are far more likely to pay attention to the personal calls. More than 50 percent of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire said they were more inclined to listen to campaign calls from actual human beings.
Other recent studies have gauged the influence of pre-recorded phone calls on voters. A report released in October by George Washington University's Institute on Politics, Democracy and the Internet found that compared with television advertisements, direct mail and other sources of campaign information, voters in national elections consider robocalls to be one of the least influential factors in making their choices.
Looking For The Disconnect Button
There has been talk at the state and federal levels about efforts to restrict political robocalls, but some of the proposals have raised significant constitutional issues.
Multiple bills have been introduced in the U.S. House to add political calls to the "do not call" system aimed at unwanted telemarketing. A Senate proposal by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of Illinois, meanwhile, would criminalize robocalls used to intimidate or deceive voters.
At a House Administration Elections Subcommittee hearing Thursday, several lawmakers expressed concerns about how limiting automated calls would affect their ability to hold "tele-town-halls." Those types of events, which often are initiated by automated calls that invite constituents to participate, allow politicians to connect with thousands of voters at a time.
Rep. Dan Lungren, a Republican and the former state attorney general in California, regularly conducts tele-town-halls with his constituents. CongressDaily reported that Lungren acknowledged at last week's hearing that robocalls can be used to attack candidates but that the political game is "supposed to the rough."
William Raney, an attorney who testified at the hearing on behalf of the American Association of Political Consultants, said in a telephone interview on Friday that there is a consensus that the campaigns that place robocalls need to do so responsibly. But he said the framers of the Constitution were clearly guided by the principle that more political speech is better than less.
"This medium is unique in that it's one of the fastest and most dynamic ways campaigns can contact voters," he said. "It's also cheap. It can be abused, like anything else. But I think Congress is pretty aware of the issues that come up anytime you start talking about limiting political speech."
A Virginia-based telemarketer recently tried to challenge an Indiana law designed to protect consumers from unwanted calls. The firm, FreeEats, was sued by state Attorney General Steve Carter after it sent robocalls on behalf of a Republican U.S. House candidate in 2006. The company countersued Carter at the federal level, but the case was dismissed.
Carter, who testified at the U.S. House hearing, told lawmakers that his state's statute is necessary to protect citizen privacy.
A Plan For Voters To Pressure Politicians
The Federal Election Commission also has played a role in the debate. In one ruling announced last month, the FEC admonished, but did not fine, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for not disclaiming that it used corporate funds to pay for 2006 robocalls on behalf of a failed senatorial candidate. But the agency announced earlier last month that it had found no reason to believe that the campaign of former Republican Sen. Conrad Burns violated election rules by placing robocalls to Montana residents.
The grassroots group Citizens for Civil Discourse is pitching a solution to candidates that it said it believes would survive constitutional scrutiny. The group is compiling a voluntary list of voters who want political campaigns to stop calling them.
Shaun Dakin, the group's CEO and founder, said he envisions the list as a voluntary do-not-call registry for political calls at the national level. He said campaigns could still call people on the list, but they would do so knowing that those potential voters explicitly asked not to be contacted.
"All of this is perfectly fine as long as campaigns allow people to opt out of it," Dakin said. "I don't even think campaigns are paying attention to whether or not the calls are effective."
NEW FEATURE
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
