As reported in Congressional Quarterly Politics December 6th, Congresswoman Melissa Bean wants automated political calls prohibited for those on the “do not call” list.
Here’s what the article says about her testimony:
Rep. Melissa Bean , D-Ill., testified that the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spent roughly $60,000 to place more than 1 million robo-calls in her district in October and November 2006.
Bean, who won a second term with just 50.9 percent of the vote, said the calls were designed to leave the impression that they were sponsored by her supporters and not the NRCC.
The message began with a recorded voice stating that the call contained information about Melissa Bean. Some voters hung up and called Bean’s office to complain without listening to the entire message, which eventually identified the NRCC as the sponsor.
“They would describe how the calls woke up their babies, interrupted their dinner, kept leaving them messages on their cell phones that were received late at night or forced them to run to grab the phone, and all they would hear is ‘Hello, I am calling with information about Melissa Bean ,’ for the second, third, fourth time a day,” Bean told the subcommittee.
Apparently the congresswoman does not appreciate the difference between commercial speech and political speech—the most protected under the First Amendment.
“Apparently the congresswoman does not appreciate the difference between commercial speech and political speech—the most protected under the First Amendment.”
This is just an asinine statement.
1.) Where do you see a distinction in the constitution between “commercial” speech and “political” speech? If you want to claim that we should interpret the constitution literally (ie “strict constructionalism”), then you can’t claim distinctions that aren’t explicitly made.
2.) Freedom of speech ensures that you are free to say what you like, when you like. It does not ensure that I have to listen to it. Calling my home invades my privacy and imposes your will upon me. I have a right to restrict/prohibit that kind of activity in my home. You have a right to urinate on your own floor if you so choose, but you can’t do it in my home…
3.) The calls in this case are deceptive. That might not be illegal, per se, but it tells an informed voter that their sponsors are unwilling/unable to identify their own candidate’s merits.
Lest there be any confusion, here’s the text of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Please identify the passage(s) that emphasize greater protection for “political speech” rather than “commercial speech” (or any form of speech for that matter)….
I was at the hearing and know that congress will do nothing on this issue.
I’ve formed a non-partisan, non-profit to fight back.
http://www.StopPoliticalCalls.org
Using voluntary and market driven mechanisms we can fight back.
Shaun Dakin