Pete Ricketts, A Man of Integrity Honors The Spirit Of The Law

[matt_mcl]

[QUOTE=Canadjun]
Yes, elections are important. Yes, contact is part of that process, but it should be at the voter’s choice. Given the deluge of information in the form of pamphlets, TV ads, billboards, lawn signs, constituency meetings, etc. etc. etc., preventing politicians from phoning voters on DNC lists would not critically diminish their ability to get their issues to the public.
[/quote]

I would see it as kind of insulting to the voters to assume that, because they are not interested in receiving commercial messages by telephone, they are also not interested in hearing from their candidates.

And yes, for many candidates it would diminish their ability to communicate with voters, since many candidates don’t have the resources to wallpaper their riding with signs (which convey very little information, at any rate) or purchase advertisements. (At any rate, let me say I’ve heard far more complaints about an abundance of signs than I have about an abundance of phone calls; and even then, many people complain when they don’t see signs up.)

@saoirse

Wel the most important message they communicate is, “election day is this week!” or “election day is today!” You may not need that call, but there are plenty of people who do, and who remember during the conversation that they could probably use a ride. Also, I am pretty active politically, and haven’t heard much that I didn’t already know form one of these calls. Other people have other hobbies, though, and do get exposed to a message they wouldn’t otherwise hear.

I’d like to underline this. Although a (scant) few people reacted with irritation to having been called, a far, far higher number, whether they intended to vote for us or not or were undecided, were happy for a candidate to have contacted them. Many of them took the opportunity to ask us when and how to vote. I’ll never forget spending ten minutes (albeit having knocked on their door in person, rather than phoned) with a family of new Canadian citizens from Vietnam, explaining to them where to vote and why it was important. They were so very grateful to find out how to participate as citizens, it didn’t even matter to me for whom they were planning to vote.

In general, I think it’s kind of demeaning to the democratic process to equate standing for public office to selling a product. I know it’s a common trope, and I know many politicians are all too glad to live up to the comparison, but I find it betrays a certain lack of a higher standard for government which all too readily becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[matt_mcl]

[QUOTE=mhendo]
I tend to agree with matt that these calls might be part of our political process, and part of how we govern ourselves. I would also argue, however, that an even more important part of the political process is an active, informed citizenry, one that doesn’t need formulaic telephone calls from candidates in order to decide whom to vote for, or whther to vote at all.
[/QUOTE]

It would be nice if every voter, upon an election’s being called, immediately contacted the candidates and quizzed them on their stands on a variety of issues. (Many voters do; I spent a large amount of time fielding such e-mails and phone calls.)

But many don’t. Not because they’re lazy or stupid, but because they simply feel disaffected, as though the way their country is governed is somehow outside their sphere of concern. Many voters whom I took the initiative to contact by knocking on their door or telephoning them told me that it was important that they personally had been made to feel an important enough part of the democratic process that the candidate had chosen to contact them, and had gone to seek their vote, rather than sitting back and waiting for the entreaties of the citizenry to roll in.

[matt_mcl]

[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
Not because they’re lazy or stupid, but because they simply feel disaffected, as though the way their country is governed is somehow outside their sphere of concern.
[/QUOTE]

I just wanted to say that in general, it is the politicians themselves who have made them feel this way, by sitting and taking their vote for granted rather than going and seeking it - failing to take the initiative to involve the citizen in the democratic process. Seeing the political process as politicians in one little world and citizens in another and seeking to reduce contact as much as possible between the two is exactly the wrong way to govern.

[saoirse]

[QUOTE=mhendo]
My question then is: Why aren’t sales calls legitimate public speech? To my knowledge, the First Amendment draws no distinction between the type of political speech you are defending and sales calls.
[/QUOTE]

That’s incorrect. It does. The Supreme Court has said so, and they determine what the First Amendment applies to.

If Congress had wanted to, they could have included political fundraising and other similar calls in their legislation, without raising the specter of first amendment violations, but they chose not to. That is my understanding; if you can cite case law or statute to demonstrate that i’m incorrect, i’ll happily concede the point.

I am not ANAL, but I believe Buckley v. Valeo establishes that political contributions are a form of protected speech.

[mhendo]

[QUOTE=saoirse]
That’s incorrect. It does. The Supreme Court has said so, and they determine what the First Amendment applies to.
[/quote]
You are correct that the Supreme Court determines the way in which the First Amendment is interpreted for current law and the way in which it is applied; this is not, however, the same as saying that the distinction that they draw between political and ocmmercial speech appears in the Amendment itself.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
I am not ANAL
[/quote]
Not sure how that’s relevant to this issue.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
…but I believe Buckley v. Valeo establishes that political contributions are a form of protected speech.
[/QUOTE]
I’m aware of Buckley v. Valeo, but citing that case does not answer the question i asked.

[saoirse]

[QUOTE=mhendo]
You are correct that the Supreme Court determines the way in which the First Amendment is interpreted for current law and the way in which it is applied; this is not, however, the same as saying that the distinction that they draw between political and ocmmercial speech appears in the Amendment itself. I’m aware of Buckley v. Valeo, but citing that case does not answer the question i asked.
[/QUOTE]

Well, no. Of course the First Amendment doesn’t say anything about flag burning or Nazi protests in largely Jewish suburbs, either. The Supreme Court made the determination of how the First Amendment applies to these things. One of the things they determined is that poltical speech includes donations to candidates, or to political groups, or issue-oriented groups. Soliciting citizens to exercise free speech is also protected. If you want to know if the Congressmen who wrote and voted on the law had these distinctions in mind, I have no idea. You could try calling them and asking.

[Miller]

[QUOTE=saoirse]
Wel the most important message they communicate is, “election day is this week!” or “election day is today!” You may not need that call, but there are plenty of people who do, and who remember during the conversation that they could probably use a ride. Also, I am pretty active politically, and haven’t heard much that I didn’t already know form one of these calls. Other people have other hobbies, though, and do get exposed to a message they wouldn’t otherwise hear.
[/quote]

Again, not something I’ve ever needed anyone to tell me. I think mhendo had the best solution: seperate DNC lists for different categories of phone calls. I’d sign up for the lot. Other people can opt to receive political calls and charity calls, but not sales calls, and so forth.

Why is it a free speech issue? No one can use your phone to bother if you don’t connect it to a public network. If you want to connect to the public network, which gives you access to millions of people and businesses who have never heard of you, then you take the bad with the good.

Connecting your phone to a public network also opens you up to obscene phone calls, carrier hijacking, and telemarketing. Do we not have a right to pass laws protecting us from those? Take the good with the bad? Bullshit.

I am not ANAL, but I believe Buckley v. Valeo establishes that political contributions are a form of protected speech.

We’re not talking about political contributions.

[Steve_MB]

[QUOTE=mhendo]
My question then is: Why aren’t sales calls legitimate public speech? To my knowledge, the First Amendment draws no distinction between the type of political speech you are defending and sales calls.
[/QUOTE]

IIRC, when the Do-Not-Call list was first adopted, some mucketymucks in the telemarketing industry made noises about suing on the grounds that regulating commercial advertising but not political advertising was an un-Constitutional content-based discrimination.

I rather wish they had gone ahead; if they’d succeeded, Congress would have been forced to either do away with the loophole or be roasted alive by their constituents (the DNC list was one of the few cases where raw public outrage squashed the lobbyists like insects).

[Steve_MB]

[QUOTE=Miller]
I disagree that this is a first ammendment issue. If I own a printing press, I am not obligated to let you use it to diseminate your political views. Similarly, you have no Constitutional right to use my phone to air your views. I have absolutly no problem with adding political advertising (and polling in particular) to the DNC laws.
[/QUOTE]

Precisely. It’s not a free-speech issue; it’s a property-rights issue.

[saoirse]

[QUOTE=Miller]
Connecting your phone to a public network also opens you up to obscene phone calls, carrier hijacking, and telemarketing. Do we not have a right to pass laws protecting us from those? Take the good with the bad? Bullshit.
[/QUOTE]

Right. Those are not protected forms of speech. It’s already been established that convincing citizens to embrace a political philosophy, or act in a specific (lawful) way is protected speech. Selling aluminum siding is clearly not, and can be done with the sufferance of the government. A lot of other things fall in between, of course.

We’re not talking about political contributions.

mhendo was. That was a response to him.

[Steve_MB]

[QUOTE=saoirse]
Wel the most important message they communicate is, “election day is this week!” or “election day is today!”
[/QUOTE]

Frankly, I think we’d be better off if people who are that ignorant don’t show up.

No one can use your phone to bother if you don’t connect it to a public network. If you want to connect to the public network, which gives you access to millions of people and businesses who have never heard of you, then you take the bad with the good.

Connection to the public telephone network doesn’t authorize people to make unwanted calls to my phone any more than connection to the public road network authorizes people to park unwanted cars in my driveway. If anything, the former claim is stronger (calling someone on the DNC list is, in all cases, violating an explicitly stated no-trespassing notice).

[mhendo]

[QUOTE=saoirse]
mhendo was. That was a response to him.
[/QUOTE]
No, i was not.

The only time i made a reference to political contributions was after you brought it up. The issues i raised were quite different.

[Miller]

[QUOTE=saoirse]
Right. Those are not protected forms of speech. It’s already been established that convincing citizens to embrace a political philosophy, or act in a specific (lawful) way is protected speech. Selling aluminum siding is clearly not, and can be done with the sufferance of the government. A lot of other things fall in between, of course.
[/QUOTE]

But preventing political calls does not infringe on that right. They are still free to diseminate their political philosophy, but they are not free to monopolize my private property to do so.

[saoirse]

[QUOTE=Miller]
But preventing political calls does not infringe on that right. They are still free to diseminate their political philosophy, but they are not free to monopolize my private property to do so.
[/QUOTE]

But they are only monoploizing your property as long as you allow them to. You opened your phone up to the wide world. The world will call sometimes.

[saoirse]

[QUOTE=mhendo]
No, i was not.

The only time i made a reference to political contributions was after you brought it up. The issues i raised were quite different.
[/QUOTE]

Fine whatever. Miller: My post there was in direct response to this:

[QUOTE=mhendo]
If Congress had wanted to, they could have included political fundraising and other similar calls in their legislation, without raising the specter of first amendment violations, but they chose not to. That is my understanding; if you can cite case law or statute to demonstrate that i’m incorrect, i’ll happily concede the point.
[/QUOTE]

[saoirse]

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Frankly, I think we’d be better off if people who are that ignorant don’t show up.
[/QUOTE]

Again, other people have other hobbies. Last I checked, everyone got to vote, even people you disapprove of.

Connection to the public telephone network doesn’t authorize people to make unwanted calls to my phone any more than connection to the public road network authorizes people to park unwanted cars in my driveway. If anything, the former claim is stronger (calling someone on the DNC list is, in all cases, violating an explicitly stated no-trespassing notice).

But your driveway is not your phone. Your mailbox is also private property. If you don’t want sales pitches in it, you can stop them from coming. But you still get campaign fliers.

[zenith]

Unwanted snail-mail and e-mail ads can be thrown away or deleted ,unread, at one’s leisure.

Unwanted, and often loud-volumed, canned arrays of buzzwords must be tolerated by those of us who feel we must answer every call.

Caller ID is only a partial solution in that many people one might actually want or need to hear from have mobile phones in place of wired phones. 3 of my adult children fall in that category and sometimes caller ID works, and sometimes all we get is “Unknown”. It depends on when and from where they call.

On a lighter note,in one of the Ricketts campaign ads, Mr. Ricketts’ Mommy, who lives in a Manhattan penthouse,not Nebraska, appears in front of her father’s old farmstead with Young Master Petie in tow. The purpose of this is to show Young Master Petie’s vast knowledge of “farm issues”.

I cracked up my wife and daughter when that one came on by saying that whenever I see that ad I always picture Mater Ricketts in Christian Dior and pearls inviting us all in for “hotscakes” with Eb, Mr. Haney, and Dahhhling Petie.

[Weirddave]

You know, I hate telemarketing calls as much as the next guy, but I am always amazed when ever one of these threads comes up how much people allow something as trivial as this to get under their skins. I am on the DNC list, but sometimes they get through. When a telemarketer calls me, as soon as I realize what the call is for, I say “Listen, I’m not interested, but thank you so much for calling! I hope the next person you reach is looking for your services. Please take me off your list, and have a fantastic day!” And then I HANG UP. It takes me about 15 seconds out of my day. How fucking hard is that? It seems to me that this whole issue is raised by people who are just looking for somethig to be outraged about. Grow the fuck up, people. If the worst thing that happens to you is a telemarketer calling, you’re still doing pretty damn well on the gross scale of thing.

[ElvisL1ves]

Looks like you missed the part about the OP sleeping days.

If *you * got calls at that frequency during the middle of the night, how long would it take *you * to get pissed off?

[zenith]

Another point Weirddave missed was that this is not the norm in my area. Most area politicians and political action committees on both sides of “hot button” issues like gay marriage and abortion DO NOT engage in this behavior and that the few who have engaged in it have mostly used live operators speaking in conversational tones–not canned messages turned up to #11 volume out of a possible 10 that blast you out of bed when they come over the machine.

Ricketts says he’s not like the “professional” politicians.

He’s got that right. He’s worse!