pudge's Journal: The Republicans Followed the Law, Investigations Called For

That's the message of this entry. We should be upset because the Republicans did nothing immoral or unethical, but were merely annoying. This somehow justifies an FCC/FEC/DOJ probe, according to incoming House judiciary chair John Conyers.

To reiterate: there is not even a single allegation of actual wrongdoing in that entry, that I can see.

The crux of the actual complaint seems to be that the identification comes at the end of the message. This is not illegal. Several liberal blogs are quoting the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Chapter I, Part 64, Section 1200, which is subtitled "Subpart L -- Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, and Facsimile Advertising."

The complainers are citing (b)(1), which states:

(b) All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages shall:

(1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity that is responsible for initiating the call. If a business is responsible for initiating the call, the name under which the entity is registered to conduct business with the State Corporation Commission (or comparable regulatory authority) must be stated

The problem is that this is in the context of the entire section, which is specific to "Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, and Facsimile Advertising." The section has these definitions, none of which fit:

(10) The term telemarketing means the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person.

(11) The term telephone facsimile machine means equipment which has the capacity to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper.

(12) The term telephone solicitation means the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such term does not include a call or message:

(i) To any person with that person's prior express invitation or permission;

(ii) To any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship; or

(iii) By or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.

Bottom line, this has to be about money changing hands. Commerce. It's not: it's about voting. It doesn't apply. This is a lot of nothing (as you may have guessed from the beginning). The other complaints all stem from this one: since they did not follow the FCC law regarding identification, therefore it is fraudulent. But it did follow the FCC law, and the FEC law, which does not specify where in the message the identification must come.

What's scariest of all is that our new House judiciary chairman, John Conyers, actually is selling this line of B.S. Shouldn't the judiciary chair be able to read the law? And shouldn't have the liberal bloggers who picked this up, bothered to look it up?

they're too busy

[eglamkowski]

Too busy setting up the witch hunt against Bushco. to be bothered doing any reading of any fancy documents!

So please stop pestering them while they still have so much work yet to do! ;-P

Completely, 100% wrong

[jamie]

Wrong, completely wrong. You need to retract this ... or maybe just delete this journal entry to avoid embarrassing yourself.

Paragraph (b)(1), as you quote, lays out the federal regulations for "All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages." All. What part of "all" don't you understand?

It is paragraphs (c) and (d) to which the definitions you give relate:

(c) No person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation, as defined in paragraph (f)(9) of this section, to...

(d) No person or entity sh

Re:

[pudge]

Wrong, completely wrong. You need to retract this ... or maybe just delete this journal entry to avoid embarrassing yourself.

False. Too bad you cannot delete this embarrassing comment.

Paragraph (b)(1), as you quote, lays out the federal regulations for "All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages." All. What part of "all" don't you understand?

What part of "Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, and Facsimile Advertising" do you not understand? Sorry Jamie, the law doesn't work that wa

A diversion

[jamie]

You are the one condemning a so-called "sample ballot" you never even saw, for example.

You're dragging private AIM exchanges into public view I see. Huh. Well for anyone reading who's confused, the sample ballot he says I never saw is pictured here [washingtonpost.com], and here's some context [washingtonpost.com] and some more context [dailyhowler.com] (scroll down to "Steele The One"). When our private conversation on this matter ended, pudge was still refusing to denounce Republicans for distributing "Democratic Sample Ballots" listing Republican, not Democrat

Re:

[pudge]

You're dragging private AIM exchanges into public view I see. Huh.

Eh, you've done it before. I didn't think the content was objectionable.

When our private conversation on this matter ended, pudge was still refusing to denounce Republicans for distributing "Democratic Sample Ballots" listing Republican, not Democratic, candidates for Governor and Senator:

Until I can actually see the "ballot," I will not denounce it. I still have not seen it. Unlike you, who denounced it before you saw even a piece of it.

Re:

[Miguelito]

Well, it's a dirty trick but in all honesty, I would't "denounce" anyone for doing that. Anyone that just follows a printed, supposed "party line" voter card is an idiot. People should read the ballot and about the candidates themselves and fill our their sample ballot booklets to use when voting.. not some pre-printed guide by a party hack.

Re:

[jamie]

That's a subpart title used to browse topics. It is not legally binding. It does not define how the language of the law is to be interpreted.

False. The subtitle is part of the law.

In particular it can't turn "all artificial or prerecorded telephone messages" into "all artificial or prerecorded telephone messages used for telemarketing or telephone solicitation."

In fact, it does precisely that.

Any evidence to that effect that you'd like to cite?

No need to reply today. I'll wait. :)

I guess you

Re:

[pudge]

Any evidence to that effect that you'd like to cite?

Any MORE evidence? No, what I have supplied is sufficient.

I guess you have no comment to my point about how you apparently think the regulation prohibiting a "person or entity" from robo-calling hospitals and 911 lines really only applies to telemarketers and soliciters. Are you just going to ignore that absurdity?

Yes, because it is an absurd comparison, because just because this law doesn't prohibit something doesn't mean it is allowed, which is your arg

Re:

[GMontag]

I did not see anything in any article that accused the RNCC of dialing hospitals or other prohibited places. Perhaps I missed it.

Next item: The RNCC is a tax-exempt organization and is exempted throughout the law in question.

64.1200 Delivery restrictions.
(2) Initiate any telephone call to any residential line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call;

(v) Is made by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit organizati

Re:

[pudge]

I am fairly certain they are neither tax-exempt, nor a non-profit. If they were, they would be forbidden from participation in political activities like this ... but I can't find a citation to prove they are not.

Re:

[robi2106]

That makes me think.... if they are not tax exempt orgs, then are the political parties C-Corps? S-Corps? LLCs? What commercial type is a political party?

And if it is a C/S Corp, who owns the stock?

jason

Re:

[GMontag]

I thought there was supposed to be some exemption that covered organizations like them. Perhaps I thought/heard wrong.

Found this meaningless clue:
Contributions are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.

All it means is that your contributions to them are not tax exempt.

However, the guy I was responding to might have a real point.

Re:

[jamie]

You quoted text from paragraphs (a) and (d), and from a definition that applies to paragraph (c). As pudge and I both pointed out, the law in question is that in paragraph (b). Here, let me quote paragraph (b) in full for you:

(b) All artificial or prerecorded telephone messages shall:

(1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of the business, individual, or other entity that is responsible for initiating the call. If a business is responsible for initiating the call, the name under

Re:

[GMontag]

Try reading the next comment I made on this JE.

Re:

[Jhon]

Wrong, completely wrong. You need to retract this ... or maybe just delete this journal entry to avoid embarrassing yourself.

This statement is arrogant, mean spirted and I belive makes you one of the "foot in mouth" sufferers. I belive you are just wrong. Let me explain:

The bill you and pudge cite is titled:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
Subpart L--Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, and Facsimile Advertising

It therefore only applies to "telemarketing", "telep

Re:

[jamie]

It therefore only applies to "telemarketing", "telephone solicicitation" and "facsimile advertising". Let me repeat that with emphasis: It therefore ONLY applies to "telemarketing", "telephone solicicitation" and "facsimile advertising".

Yes, I see the emphasis. Now how about some evidence? Give me something to back up that statement, besides "I say so." Or do you just think that everything you type twice becomes true?

Re:

[Jhon]

It's how the law works. You can easily validate my statement by showing the regulation to virtually any law student.

Top it off with the FCC's own report and order on this in which they decline to EXPRESSLY exempt non-commercial entities which do not involve solicitation as defined by their rules as unnecessary.

41. Some commenters urge the Commission to expressly exempt specific categories of additional organizations such as market research or polling organizations, whose activities are not invasive of re

Re:

[ncc74656]

It therefore only applies to "telemarketing", "telephone solicicitation" and "facsimile advertising". Let me repeat that with emphasis: It therefore ONLY applies to "telemarketing", "telephone solicicitation" and "facsimile advertising".

Yes, I see the emphasis. Now how about some evidence?

How about the definitions (listed in this previous comment [slashdot.org]) of the terms quoted above? What purchase/rental/investment were the robocalls pitching, and for what property/goods/services? Until you can answer t

Actually, it was unlawful.

[John M W 321]

Before throwing my hat into the ring, I feel it important to say that I am not a lawyer. How about the rest of you?

But, I really hate getting prerecorded calls. I thought my government had taken care of that. And reading the US Code, there is a prima facie case that "The Republicans broke the law", which I have not seen clearly raised here because of the emphasis on FCC regulations not the law.

The originators of those prerecorded calls appear to me to have violated US federal law. People receiving tho

Re:

[pudge]

The US Code forbids these sort of prerecorded calls

Not according to anything you quoted, no. Calls not made for commercial purpose are exempted from the prohibition in (b) by the FCC, as explicitly allowed by the US Code you quoted.

Under no interpretation of the FCC exceptions I see cited on slashdot, would the prerecorded calls without initial identification be seen as an exception

You are grossly misinterpreting the law (as many others here have, including those who agree with me). You're talking about t

Re:

[John M W 321]

Calls not made for commercial purpose are exempted from the prohibition in (b) by the FCC,

Which (b) are you writing about? There are a lot. Could you give the full citation? Thank you.

Re:

[pudge]

The one you quoted at the top of your post. And the (d) below it. 47 USC 227 (b) and 47 USC 227 (d).

Re:

[John M W 321]

Calls not made for commercial purpose are exempted from the prohibition in (b) by the FCC,

Ah, you do not mean that the FCC gave the exemption in (b), but that the FCC are allowed to give an exemption by (b). So, now I ask, where did the FCC give the exemption to the Republican Party that the FCC may give, for a violation of USC TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part I > 227 (b) (1) (B)? Surely not in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Chapter I, Part 64, Section 1200 , "Subpart

Re:

[pudge]

Ah, you do not mean that the FCC gave the exemption in (b), but that the FCC are allowed to give an exemption by (b).

Not really. I am saying they can give an exception FOR what is in (b), but not for what is in (d). And since (d) is the issue, exemptions are moot. They did give an exemption to the NRCC for (b) and by (b), by saying it does not apply to noncommercial calls. This exemption does not, and cannot, apply to what is in (d). I never said anything about an exemption for what is in (d).

Because i

Re:

[John M W 321]

So it is your position that subpart L applies to the Republican party for these calls?

Re:

[pudge]

First, it's not "the Republican party." It's the NRCC, the National Republican Campaign Committee, which is not the Republican Party.

Second, no. I've explicitly said otherwise many times. I am not sure the difficulty you are having.

Re:

[John M W 321]

I think your position is that subpart L applies. That the NRCC can make prerecorded calls (CFR Title 47 part 64.1200(a)2(ii)). I agree, when the NRCC meets the conditions the FCC set up for the exemption. But now that you say subpart L applies since it allows the NRCC to make prerecorded calls, the FCC also requires the identification at the beginning, CFR Title 47 part 64.1200(b)(1). This condition is allowed under

(B) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) of this su

Re:

[pudge]

I think your position is that subpart L applies.

Yes, but that is irrespective of any exemptions related to 47 USC 227 (b), is what I am saying.

The FCC set a condition for the exemption

No. Again, that's a separate thing. That is not a condition for any exemption, that is (in your reading) a requirement for any call that meets the exemptions. Different thing, though similar. But the point is that I deny that requirement applies to non-commercial calls at all, since this section is specifically about comme

Re:

[Jhon]

But the point is that I deny that requirement applies to non-commercial calls at all, since this section is specifically about commercial calls.

Also, in an FCC Report and Order re 64.227 and 64.1200 I cite further up, they decline to expressly exempt non-commercial calls as unnecessary as they didn't meet the the criteria as a solicitation.

Re:

[John M W 321]

I am interested to read the entire FCC Report and Order re 64.227 and 64.1200. Can you provide a link to it?

Re:

[Jhon]

I'll give you the same answer I gave jamie... it's on fcc.gov. Find it. This is work both of you should have done before making such claims. These threads could have been avoided.

You started this thread with a claim... "Actually, it was unlawful". It's up to you to back up your claim. You've failed to do so.

Re:

[John M W 321]

You provide no context for your quote, so your quote is worthless and I will not address it unless you document it. I am willing to examine the context, and I do not ask you to quote all the context, but you refuse to document it at all. You have no credibility unless you back up your assertions. I have done so, you have not. I have shown the unlawful nature of the prerecorded messages missing the required initial identification. You spout off about things you will not document that support a position

Re:

[Jhon]

I have done so

No you haven't. You cite an FCC regulation (namely 64.1200) without doing the proper research behind it -- which is targeted specifically at solicitations. You deny this by citing a subsection of 64.1200 and ignoring all the rest of the body of Title 47 which this falls under. It's clear you've no understanding of how these regulations are read and work yet you continue to make assertions.

you have not.

But I have. I have even done half the work in researching this for you already -- wo

Re:

[John M W 321]

I will happily look at 3 - "Exemptions to Prohibited Uses of Artificial or Prerecorded Messages." Paragraph 41. If that contains your quote, great. I do not recall seeing that, or anyone bringing it to our attention in this topic, but it sounds germane.

Re:

[Jhon]

You are missing the point. This "topic" never would have existed had you done your homework and looked this stuff up before attempting to comment on it. Or if had you realized you are completely unqualified in reading FCC regulations.

Not that *I* am qualified either -- but I have some limited experiece with this stuff (I do some work for a non-profit) and I *DO* take the time to look stuff up.