I'm A Neither
I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but somebody who knows that the parties are corrupt and that politicians are mostly self-interested sleazebags. Law-stretching, law-bending and law-breaking sleazebags.
Most recently, the campaign of brainy-like-a-ficus-tree Janice Hahn, who's running for Jane Harman's vacated Congressional seat, made FOUR illegal robo-calls to my house (and maybe more when I wasn't home).
For a political robo-call to be legal, it has to be preceded by a live person on the line. Hers (which originated in California, per Caller ID) were not -- which makes them illegal. So, her first act in trying to win herself this lawmaking office was to break the law. Lovely. But, no surprise.
This is just a small thing, but I think it's emblematic of the sleaziness that gets people to high-placed positions in government, and the sleaze so many are busy spreading while they're in office. I consider the honest and country-serving politician the exception. Can you name any? One, even?
Matt Welch, editor-in-chief of reason, and a guy and a thinker I have great respect for, quotes from the book he and Nick Gillespie wrote to set people straight on the crap America is being served by both parties (no, that isn't the smell of bread baking):
This book intends, in part, to document the fact that the two major parties are not what they say and that you are right to be angry with their false claims about core beliefs. It is a shock to tender ears, we realize, but by any meaningful yardstick, Democrats do not care about free speech, and Republicans do not care about free enterprise. They are much more concerned with convincing you that the other guy is a Nazi than they are about relaxing government's control over activities it has no business meddling in.
The book: The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America. For some reason, I thought the title was "You're a libertarian and you just don't know it," but I think that's basically what the book's about.
Think of it as a political alarm clock.
Oh, and my comment about Hahn's brains comes from personal experience, from speaking with her. I demanded her home number from her campaign -- still haven't gotten it.
Since she thinks it's okay to bother me at home with her business, I wanted to call her and lecture her on how she has no right to steal my time and hijack a phone line I pay for to make her marketing costs cheaper.
In hopes of derailing my demands for her number, her campaign manager had her call me at home (for the purposes of making an apology to me -- an utterly insincere apology, since she clearly wasn't sorry she robocalled; she was just sorry she robocalled a pain in the ass/refuse to be abused by lawbreaking aspiring lawmakers person like me).
I found her about as easy to push around conversationally as my 10-year-old neighbor -- not that there's any need to do it to him, because he's a sweet kid who shows integrity already.
Hahn, meanwhile, wouldn't agree to stop the harassing calls -- to pay her own advertising freight instead of sticking voters with the cost by robocalling them.
And her rationale for not stopping? Basically that everybody does it.
That wouldn't fly with my mother in second grade, and it ain't gonna fly with me. Oh, and P.S. Jane Harman, who resigned from the seat she was elected to, should be paying for the makeup election to find whichever lowlife will replace her.
I was hanging out at my son's dojo (karate teaching place) and started to chat with Harry Markopoulos (the guy who tried to put away Madoff for years). That guy dislikes politicians. Within two minutes of conversation he was wishing a pox on all of them.
Once again, like the blog, but I suggest using Intense Debate or Disqus as a comment system so that commenters know when others reply to what they write.
Andrew Hall at May 27, 2011 5:06 AM
I agree that political robocalls are annoying. However, a law that bans or severe regulates them probably wouldn't pass constitutional scrutiny.
There's a reason why political solicitations (and robocalls) are exempt from the National Do Not Call Registry: The court gives wide latitude to political speech, especially "grassroots" political speech like phone calls, door-to-door and yard sign placement.
Time after time, laws and regulations put in place to control commercial speech have been deemed to not apply to political speech. For example, most municipal sign ordinances are unconstitutional. They may be on the books. They may be enforced. But there's settled case law on the issue and a simple challenge is enough to put a stop to enforcement. (e.g. You can put a candidate's sign in your front yard on any day of the year. It doesn't matter if your town regulates that they need to be picked up 5 days after the election.)
Look at it this way:
Robocalls are annoying. So are many political television commercials. It's also annoying when a candidate knocks on your door and wants to talk. And neighborhoods can get really ugly with all of those political signs in the yards.
But, frankly, it's a heck of a lot better than the alternative. Until someone comes up with a less intrusive way for politicians to communicate with voters (which someone will then, of course, try to ban as well), we're left to the avenues we have. Political advertising is a necessary part of the system, unless, of course, you want to leave it up to the media to provide all of your information about candidates.
AB at May 27, 2011 5:38 AM
However, a law that bans or severe regulates them probably wouldn't pass constitutional scrutiny.
Wrong. You don't have a right to use a device I pay for and take my time when it is convenient for you to force me to hear your message any more than you have a right to force your way into my living room and start telling me your political thoughts.
Political robocalls are not banned for one reason only -- it doesn't serve politicians' interests. Or so they think.
And no candidate can knock on my door and want to talk because I have a high gate that locks. With your standard, they can climb over my fence.
Also, a candidate cannot knock on thousands of doors effortlessly. Robocalls put the cost on you, not on them.
Amy Alkon at May 27, 2011 6:05 AM
I simply don't answer my phone if I don't know the number, and frequently not even then. My phone is for my convenience, not other people's.
On the subject of politicians, I think I may like Cain. I'd really love to go watch him speak somewhere.
momof4 at May 27, 2011 6:31 AM
What in the name of heavens is wrong with these people? I'm in the "Do Not Call" registry because I don't want your call. Duh.
If you do call, that makes you at best rude and stupid. Do you want to do business with or support rude and stupid people?
For their own sakes, politicians ought to pay attention to the registry. Here's a clue. If you disrespect and annoy me, nothing you say is going to make me like you, support you, or think poorly of your opponent.
MarkD at May 27, 2011 6:36 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/27/im_a_neither.html#comment-2181190">comment from momof4Tell us what you like about Cain, momof4. I've been writing so intensely lately (like, till 11;30 some nights...miraculously...trying to get this tough chapter done), I haven't paid much to the potential candidates out there.
Amy Alkon at May 27, 2011 6:43 AM
However, a law that bans or severe regulates them probably wouldn't pass constitutional scrutiny.
Really? strangely, the First Amendment doesn't actually guarantee you the right to a printing press, or the right to be heard.
Here's the big hint: you don't have the right to use something that I pay for to advertise your wares. Some may call it cost shifting, I call it theft.
Is it ok if they put their yard signs in your yard without your permission? perhaps paint your house with their advertising? or your car?
I R A Darth Aggie at May 27, 2011 6:54 AM
I'll lay even odds that the robocalls you're getting do not come from California. Boiler rooms have discovered in the last few years that by making their calls using Skype or a similar service, they can put in anything they want for the caller ID. It's standard practice in that industry now. I've read some reports of private citizens getting their phone number joe-jobbed by boiler rooms, resulting in a lot of trouble and expense. A lot of the boiler rooms operate offshore and are out of reach of U.S. law.
Cousin Dave at May 27, 2011 8:14 AM
"There's a reason why political solicitations (and robocalls) are exempt from the National Do Not Call Registry: The court gives wide latitude to political speech, especially "grassroots" political speech like phone calls, door-to-door and yard sign placement."
These two sentences seem like they go together logically, but they are a non sequitur.
There is a trivially obvious reason why legislators exempted themselves from the do not call registry and it has very little to do with free speech.
jerry at May 27, 2011 8:40 AM
Amy:
Actually, your fence analogy is apt. The way the supreme court sees door-to-door solicitation, if you have a fence with no gate/front walk/access to the front door, there is no presumed right to trespass. However, according to case law, if you have a gate/front walk/etc., the court has ruled that it is an implied welcome for someone to walk up to your front door and knock. (They don't have the right to stay there if you tell them to get off your front porch, though.)
Phones work roughly the same way. When you plug into the phone system, anyone has the legal right to call you, short of harassment. That is why they had to create the DNC registry in the first place. It was designed to curtail an already-implied right, not the other way around.
However, going back to the example of political yard signs versus commercial yard signs, the Supreme Court (due to the language in Buckley v. Valeo) grants wide deference to political speech versus commercial speech - especially in non-broadcast communications. The DNC registry does not include political calls because there is no way it would meet the constitutional test that has been laid out in case after case since Buckley.
Perhaps the best example is a posted "No Soliciting" sign. It applies only to commercial solicitation. BUT, it gives me a great jumping off point to agree with you on one thing. A candidate would be crazy to go and knock on the door of someone with a NS sign. It's like intentionally insulting someone. Similarly, in your case, you're doing exactly the right thing by fighting speech with speech. If you don't like someone's tactics, call them out on it.
If I were involved in a campaign in California, the first thing I would do would be to remove your phone number from my list. So, well done in that regard. And if a candidate is so tone deaf as to not fear you enough to do a quick search-and-delete, make them pay.
AB at May 27, 2011 10:24 AM
Reading through everyone's comments here...
There's a ton of case law on this, and time after time, the court has come down in favor of political speech (however annoying it may be.)
So a town passes a law that states that you can't put up a political sign in your yard until 45 days before the election and that you have to take it down within 5 days following election day. There are laws like this on the books all over the country. The problem is that they have been ruled unconstitutional. A town may limit the size of a sign, declare that it can't be lighted, limit the number of the same signs on your yard, and define the amount of setback from the road, but if you wanted to go put a McCain/Palin sign in your front yard tomorrow, the court has ruled that it is your absolute right under the 1st Amendment, regardless of what your town council has to say on the matter.
So when passing things like DNC registries, door-to-door prohibitions and robocall bans, there is ample precedent that the court demands that political speech must be treated differently. It's not the politicians who pass the laws on these things, it's the Supremes who have laid down the precedent, all going back to Buckley v. Valeo.
AB at May 27, 2011 10:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/27/im_a_neither.html#comment-2182668">comment from ABThanks so much, AB.
By the way, my police officer friend Sergeant Heather suggests putting both no trespassing and beware of dog signs up to strengthen the presumption that police cannot enter your home.
Amy Alkon at May 27, 2011 10:40 AM
But then they'll just shoot Lucy when they smell your neighbor's marijuana and assume it's coming from your house, and you happen to be in the potty and finish up and flush when they knock on the door...
ahw at May 27, 2011 11:14 AM
Best "beware of dog" sign I've ever see:
"Our dog weighs more than you do, and we don't call 911"
I'll post my thoughts of Cain after bedtime.
momof4 at May 27, 2011 12:04 PM
I live out in the countryside. My property boundary under M&B rules is actually the center of a T intersection and goes under the center line of the road in two directions. Effectively the street is the right-of-way. The stop sign is on my property beyond the right of way. (I don't argue it.)
Some candidate (or team) came by and put a political sign on my property. I called her up, personally, and said get it off. She wasn't actually in my township. She argued with me that it was right-of-way. I said no. She said let me call the engineers office. I got home and the sign was gone. Apparently she passed it on to the rest of the party. No Repubican signs since.
I had to repeat the whole thing the next season with the Demorats.
As for my land line -- I don't answer it anymore. The only reason I have it is in case I have to call 911. Pick it up -- dial -- and drop the phone.
Jim P. at May 27, 2011 6:53 PM
Love means never having to say you're sorry. So I'll just say that it's unfortunate that I ran over your dog.
implementing at June 12, 2011 12:19 AM
Leave a comment