Classical Values :: Telephone spamocrats move on US?

October 24, 2006

Telephone spamocrats move on US?

According to a number of angry people who've posted complaints here, an organization called the Share Group is completely ignoring the Do Not Call registry. Says one irate commenter:

These criminals use several similar numbers (877-499-2758, 2753, 2759) to illegally harrass people on the no-call list.

I'm on the no-call list, but that apparently means nothing to these people.

Here's another commenter, Sheryl:

This number calls us at least FIVE times a day, starting in the early morning hours, right through until 10 PM. They don't leave a message either, after listening to the answering machine. We are on the NO CALL list too!

Anyone else been getting calls from the "Share Group"?

From the description at their web site, it seems to be engaged in activist telemarketing:

Our core business is comprised of outbound telemarketing services: fundraising, membership mobilization and affinity sales calls. We are however a full-service provider, with offerings that include inbound calling programs, activist recruitment, online giving options, e-mail address collection and e-mail pledge fulfillment.

I don't know who they're calling me about, but I notice one of their clients is MoveOn.org, which I consider to be one of this blog's competing web sites.

Share Group, you'll never get a dime out of me!

But look at how much money the Democratic Party and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pay them!

In 2003 the Share Group was purchased by a large Democratic political consulting firm:

The Dewey Square Group (DSG), a Washington, D.C.-based Democratic political consulting firm with offices in several other cities, acquired The Share Group, a direct response telemarketing firm serving "progressive nonprofits." The new Share Group ownership consists of DSG, Trautman Wasserman & Company, a private equity firm, and Meadowbrook Lane Capital. The Share Group's senior management team remains intact, and company officials said the move would give it more resources to raise awareness and dollars for what is called "socially responsible" causes campaigns and candidates.

The Dewey Square Group recently merged with the British WPP Group. (No idea what that means, and I haven't time for conspiracy theories; I only want to write a post about unwanted phone calls.)

The Share Group seems to be hiring right now, so if you haven't been called by them yet, be prepared.

I was curious to know how they got around the do-not-call list. They filed a request for an exemption from FTC rules and they also claim that their outfit's work is devoted to charity.

Huh?

While according to the FTC, political organizations are not charities, the telemarketing sales rule (TSR) does not apply to political solicitations:

Political solicitations are not covered by the TSR at all, since they are not included in its definition of "telemarketing." Charities are not covered by the requirements of the national registry. However, if a third-party telemarketer is calling on behalf of a charity, a consumer may ask not to receive any more calls from, or on behalf of, that specific charity. If a third-party telemarketer calls again on behalf of that charity, the telemarketer may be subject to a fine of up to $11,000.

There's probably a fine line between political and charitable solicitations, but telemarketing is telemarketing, and unwanted calls are unwanted calls.

I think unwanted calls are like spam. The Constitution does not give anyone a right to stuff my mailbox with trash, flood my email with spam, or disturb my peace and invade my privacy by causing my telephone to ring incessantly against my will.

In principle, the Supreme Court would seem to agree

...no one has a right to press even "good" ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often "captives" outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be captives everywhere.

It's more than just having the right not to answer the phone. I think there's a right not to be bothered in your own home by strangers and robots.

As if this wasn't bad enough, another outfit sent me repeated junk text messages on my cell phone -- for which I have to pay!

At least this blog gives me a place to complain. Calling the number back does not work, as humans do not answer; instead a recorded message recites that they're working "for a better world," are exempt from the Do Not Call registry, and requests that you leave your number. (Right.)

AFTERTHOUGHT: This is not to disparage anyone's First Amendment rights, but when we're talking about unwanted (and invasive) speech, does it really matter whether it is commercial or political in nature? I mean, why should there be any more of a right to ask me to give money to a political cause than buy a company's product? It's easy to say that commercial speech is inherently more offensive, but is it? How could being asked to buy a product be more offensive than being asked to contribute to a political cause with which you disagree?

This distinction is addressed here, but the legal issues are far from settled. One thing is clear though: phone calls are inherently invasive. And FWIW, I consider a call from a political activist seeking to "save the world" to be more invasive than a call asking me if I want cheaper auto insurance.

posted by Eric on 10.24.06 at 03:28 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4150

Comments

It's called a false dichotomy. It's the same one that allows the FTC to regulate commercial advertisements much more closely than political ones. Such things never last though--Mcain-Feingold was the inevitable outcome of the idea that any speech is regulatable for content.

Aaron Davies · October 24, 2006 05:58 PM

Believe that, if you wish, but the fact is that the Federal Trade Commission, which established the telemarketing sales rule, was established under the interstate commerce clause of Article I of the US constitution, which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce among the states. Congress could not give the FTC broader powers than it (Congress) itself has, and so the FTC has powers limited to regulating interstate commerce. It is highly doubtful that political speech would be considered commerce, whether or not it is interstate.

raj · October 25, 2006 02:38 PM

My point is that unwanted calls are not protected free speech. It doesn't matter whether they are commercial or not.

Eric Scheie · October 25, 2006 03:04 PM

My point is that unwanted calls are not protected free speech.

Why not? Because they are unwanted? That makes no sense.

If you don't want to take a call, you have several choices, including (i) getting rid of telephone service, (ii) disconnecting your phones when you don't want to take them (get call waiting--usually telemarketers don't bother leaving messages), (iii) get an answering machine and filter your calls, and (iv) answering a call and immediately hang up when you discover that it is an unwanted call. I do the quite often when a call is from an unwanted source--I don't even let them get past the "hi, I'm with ***" before I unceremoniously hang up.

raj · October 25, 2006 05:51 PM

That they are unwanted and inappropriate is highly relevant, because free speech is subject to time place and manner restrictions. Unwanted telephone calls have no more protection than spam, or unwanted demonstrations in front of someone's home. There is no more "right" to call someone on the phone any more than there is a "right" to knock on his door. On the contrary; there's a right to privacy. This isn't to say that telemarketers of whatever variety can't actually call people; only that they can't hide behind the First Amendment if people stop them.

Eric Scheie · October 26, 2006 10:00 AM

That they are unwanted and inappropriate is highly relevant, because free speech is subject to time place and manner restrictions

Sorry, this is only partially correct. Government may provide for reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, provided the restrictions are content neutral. That is conventional First Amendment jurisprudence. I'm surprised that you are not aware of it.

Let me understand, just how is government supposed to impose content neutral restrictions in the manner that you would like? The only way that I could see is that government could require telephone companies to provide for call-blocking services that would block telephone calls except for numbers that you have specifically told them could call you. Of course, then, you would not be able to receive calls from other numbers, some of which you may want to receive.

Two, you refer to calls with polical messages "spam," and it is spam that you object to. Now, let me understand, just how is the telephone company or anyone else supposed to determine what you believe among all of the myriad messages transmitted over telephone lines constitutes "spam"?

Three, continuing with the "political messages as spam" paradigm, would you extend that to all political messages? Suppose your neighbor, wants to call you from his/her home on behalf of a ballot measure (which call may or may not be on behalf of a candidate). Is that also "spam" that you would want to be free of? If so, just how is this neighbor supposed to know that?

Those are only a few problems with your formulation.

On the contrary; there's a right to privacy.

There is? Where does it say that? Assuming that there is a constitutional right to privacy--an assumption that has been hotly contested, as I'm sure you're aware--that only means that there is a right to privacy as against government intrusion into what are deemed private affairs. I have yet to see a global right to privacy. Perhaps you can provide a source for your contention.

raj · October 29, 2006 09:20 AM

I think privacy in cases like this is an inherent one like self defense -- ultimately to be enforced by the individual. (That the government has enabled rules to protect people's privacy somewhat confuses the issue, even though it shouldn't.)

I'm simply saying that no one has a First Amendment right to flood an individual with junk mail, spam, or unwanted phone calls.

I agree with the Supreme Court's formulation:

http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/spam_law.html

**quote** ...no one has a right to press even "good" ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often "captives" outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be captives everywhere.**quote**

They were dealing with a junk mailer's contention that there was a free speech right which overrode an individual's right to refuse junk mail, and I think the principle applies even more to phone calls, which are more invasive.

It's not so much that I want the government to protect me; only that my right to block the calls, sue for disturbing my privacy, etc. supersedes First Amendment claims to the contary.

What prompted this post was the apparent contention of the callers that they not only had the right to call in the first place, but that they had no duty to refrain from calling people after requests to stop. That's when speech becomes unwanted. No one has any such First Amendment right.

Ideally (and I know it isn't here yet) I'd like to see some electronic way to block all unwanted calls with a warning signal analogous to placing a "NO SOLICITING" or "NO TRESPASSING" sign on the front door. People who knock (absent regular callers or people with legitimate business) are trespassers.

Privacy in this context can be seen as a property right, which is of course also an individual right.

Eric Scheie · October 29, 2006 09:47 AM

December 2006

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR

Search the Site

E-mail

Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link