Here in Nebraska, Poor Little Rich Boy; aka Pete Ricketts, son of the founder of Ameritrade; is running for the US Senate.
It’s bad enough that we can’t turn on a TV or a radio without being saturation-bombed with right-wing buzzwords spewing forth from this guy’s empty bullet-shaped head, but his campaign’s taken to the phone as well.
I work nights. Everyone I want to hear from in this world knows when I sleep and knows not to call during those hours unless it’s a case of dire emergency.In that there are people in my family with serious health issues, I get at least 1/2 wakened by each phone call that comes in during my normal sleep hours.
I am on the official “Do Not Call” list. I signed up as soon as it became available.
I realize that there is a loophole for politicians to bother people in utter disregard of this list.
But Bullet-Head says he’s a “Man of Integrity”. Men of Integrity, in my book, respect others’ “Do Not Disturb” signs regardless of loopholes placed in laws by those of little integrity.
No one who violates the spirit of “Do Not Call” will get my vote.
The calls from politicians are not the result of a loophole, and this politician is not violating the spirit of the law. The law was specifically written to forbid calls intended to sell goods or services and no other calls. Calls from politicians, charities and opinion surveys are explicitly permitted. The only thing in it that could be called a loophole is the provision that allows companies from whom you have already purchased something to call to try to sell you something else.
Have you heard or read of a politician who does not make unsolicited phone calls from voter lists?
Actually, that’s the one that I do NOT consider a “loophole”. If you have a pre-existing relationship with a company, through which you (presumably) gave them your number, it seems beyond reason to deny them the ability to call you. If you want to “opt out” call the company and end the relationship.
The law was written (by lawmakers) to specifically exclude lawmakers from the rule. Gee, that couldn’t possibly be a self serving aspect of the law, it’s firmly grounded in giving the people what they want. Apparently, I want lots of campaign calls, and a complete inability to opt out of them.
The point of the law was to give people at home some peace. Give people the option to say that they don’t want strangers pulling their number at random and bothering them. I don’t mind so much the surveys, in my experience they happily drop off if you tell them no. Charities I can sort of understand, nobody likes handcuffing charities. Politicians, OTOH, I don’t want a damn thing to do with your pathetic recorded garbage. Go Away!
I once told off Mayor Guiliani of NYC at the Staten Island Ferry for similar behavior. He was running for re-election at the time. I’m a registered Democrat and I still got over a dozen phone calls from his campaign. I’ll never forget the startled look on his face when I didn’t fall worshipfully at his feet.
I have no problem with get out the vote stuff but calling my house all the time was still obnoxious.
Naturally, they should be able to call you if they need to notify you of a problem.
What they don’t need to do is have some poor schmuck in a third-world phone bank calling you (and eight thousand of their other special customers) out of the blue to give you a high pressure sales pitch to enroll in their identity theft protection program or their disability insurance program or their new only slightly different calling plan or whatever the hell they’re shilling this week.
Blatant telemarketing calls are just as annoying from a new company, or from the company you do business with. If it were possible not to do business with companies who follow these practices, I wouldn’t!
Thank you. I hear 15 or 20 complaints a night from people who don’t know and don’t care that research surveys are not telemarketing calls. If people would actually listen when I tell them that it’s a survey on behalf of (insert utility company or hospital here) and that it’s not a sales call, my life would be so much simpler.
Cheesesteak - I understand that what we all wanted was an end to unsolicited phone calls. What congress set out to create was a near-elimination of commercial telemarketing calls. What I objected to was the statement that this politician had violated the spirit of the law when what he is doing is explicitly allowed in the law. I’d like to add that this is an example of the government having done a great job. Unwanted phone calls to my house have dwindled to almost zero.
I’m not sure it violates the spirit of the law, though. Political calls weren’t exempted just out of self-interest. There were real First Amendment concerns about prohibiting people from calling you. Would you prefer his volunteers come knocking on your door and ringing your doorbell?
The other recent problem with Ricketts, from what I’ve seen here in Omaha, is that the company he hired to make “polling” calls had employees finish the “survey” with the question along the lines of, “would you be more or less likely to vote for Pete Ricketts knowing that he has Nebraska values and hometown pride” or some shit like that.
Opponents calling it a push/poll campainging etc. . .
Then you should call your state AG’s office, or the FTC, because anyone attempting to sell you anything while conducting a research survey is in violation of a number of laws, including at least one federal statute.
Of course, if you really don’t care about the quality of the service you get from your electric company, go right ahead and keep hanging up on me. It doesn’t really matter to me either way, but I know that if a company I was writing a check to every month was interested in what I thought about their employees, I’d jump at the opportunity to tell them.
Bullshit. The First Amendment is not a license to speak your message into my phone without my permission any more than it is a license to spray-paint your message on the side of my house without my permission.
The First Amendment isn’t a license for that either if they’ve been put on notice (e.g. by a NO SOLICITORS sign) that I withhold my permission for such contact.
Which is why the OP said “spirit” and not “letter.” The spirit of the law is to let people avoid unsolicited phone calls. And while the law is pretty good, it has two huge glaring flaws: it still lets politicians call you, and it still lets survey takers call you. Ricketts is exploiting that flaw, and ignoring the spirit of the law by following the letter of the law. He’s hardly unique in that respect, of course. All politicians exploit the same flaw. It’s why they wrote it into the law in the first place. He still sucks for doing it, though.
There are enough :rolleyes: in the world to answer this idiocy.
That’s fair. I think that aspect of the law violated the spirit of the anti-telemarketing movement, but he is following the law as written.
I guess it depends on what you consider the “spirit” of a particular law. Is it what the lawmakers intended when they wrote it, or is it the desires of the popular movement that caused the law to come into being?
How is it “idiocy,” exactly, to suggest that in the age of Caller ID and answering machines it’s necessary to answer every phone call? Does your phone company require you to answer the phone every time it rings as a condition of their service? If it’s a business phone, then things are different (and if you inform a research surveyor that they’ve reached a business and it’s not specifically a survey of businesses, they’ll hang up) but for a residence, there is ZERO obligation to answer the phone.
Same thing with the front door: if someone I don’t know comes knocking on my front door and looks like they’re soliciting or proselytizing, I don’t open the door. What prevents everyone else from doing that?
Sorry, i realise that you have tried to make this an issue of customer service and consequently something that we poor, benighted consumers should be grateful for.
But the fact is that a call from a for-profit company is nearly always, in one sense or another, a sales call. Unless they are calling specifically to deal with a particular problem or issue related to my specific account, any attempt to conduct customer satisfaction research or other market research is, in my mind, no different from a call designed to sell me something. And is equally annoying.
I even extend this to calls from generic market research companies, because those companies are nearly always acting for or on behalf of some other for-profit enterprise, and the whole purpose of their call is to find out how to sell things to me. And, in taking up my valulable time for their own pecuniary interests, they are no better than telemarketers who want to sell vacations or aluminum siding.
As Miller pointed out, these people might be well within the letter of the law, but for many of us they are still in violation of its spirit, which is the idea that i should be able to stop people from calling me if i don’t want to receive their calls.
