Environment

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Environment Archives page.

“Um, She’s Not Here Right Now”: Protecting Ourselves from Telemarketers

The do-not-call list was supposed to take effect October 1, 2003.

Once the list is activated, telemarketers risk an $11,000 fine for calling people who’ve registered their numbers. Most Americans absolutely love the idea, but the federal courts aren’t so sure. Two federal courts are checking and balancing Congress and the President over this list, so unless a higher court steps in, you may have to keep using your favorite excuse with telemarketers.

What’s up with the do-not-call list?

Since July 2003, 5.6 million people have put their names on the nationwide do-not-call list, a registry established by the Federal Trade Commission (F.T.C) to protect Americans from unwanted telemarketing calls.

Rarely do millions of Americans unify on a single issue, and our elective representatives have taken notice. The President and Congresswomen and men from both houses and all parties support the do-not-call registry and plan to protect it.

The telemarketers strike back

The registry needs their protection because telemarketing companies are fighting the do-not-call program successfully. On September 23, 2003, a Federal District Court judge ruled that the list was established illegally and is therefore invalid.

Judge Lee R. West’s ruling was good news to the Direct Marketing Association and the telemarketing groups that filed the lawsuit. These groups believe that the F.T.C. does not have the statutory authority to establish a federal do-not-call list.

In rapid-fire response, Congress passed legislation two days later, on September 25, 2003. President Bush signed the bill, which reiterates the power of the F.T.C. to establish this list.

F.T.C. or F.C.C.?

Judge West based his ruling on the opinion that Congress enabled the Federal Communications Commission (and not the Federal Trade Commission) to establish such a list.

The ruling shocked do-not-call advocates because President Bush has signed two bills that validate the do-not-call program. Congress passed the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act and the Omnibus Appropriations Act, both of which give the F.T.C. the power to establish and enforce the list…or do they?

Like a “twist” in reality television

Just when we all thought that Congress had saved the do-not-call list, a new and more threatening court ruling appeared. Late Thursday, September 25, after Congress passed the bill protecting do-not-call, another Federal District Court ruled the list unconstitutional.

Judge Edward W. Nottingham claims that the do-not-call list is a government restriction that discriminates against for-profit businesses. The do-not-call list is like a filter; it blocks commercial calls and allows non-profit calls (i.e. political surveys, requests to support the policeman’s association) to go through. Nottingham points out that the list classifies and blocks calls based on content. Therefore, he reasoned, the F.T.C. is censoring commercial speech. In Nottingham’s opinion, the list influences consumer choice and thereby interferes with the free market.

Since Nottingham has based his ruling on the constitution, the issue will most likely be settled in a higher court and not in Congress.

In their defense

Telemarketing companies complain that the list will cause them to lose $50 billion annually. They claim that these losses will force them to cut 2 million jobs by Christmas.

507 Congresspeople voted to protect the do-not-call-list, and only 8 voted against it. One of the eight was Representative Lee Terry, a Republican from a district in Nebraska where the telemarketing industry provides jobs to 39,000 of his constituents. In his statements to the public, Terry reminded Americans that the telemarketing industry puts bread on many people’s tables. He suggested that the industry should not be punished simply because it is annoying.

Why target telemarketing?

As mentioned, it is somewhat rare to see so many Americans and so many Congresspeople in favor of a federal regulation. Perhaps the broad support is due to the fact that many people have felt their private environments and private time polluted by telemarketing.

But why is telemarketing any different than other types of advertising in our homes, like direct mailings, spam, or even television commercials? Why do we feel that telemarketing is so invasive? Perhaps it is because we have to respond to telemarketed advertising. We have to tell a person, “No, I don’t want your product,” unlike a commercial or direct mailing that we can tune out or throw out (or, recycle).

For your consideration

Do you think telemarketers and other advertising groups should have the right to advertise? Is it a good idea to inhibit advertising in a free market? Discuss these issues with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums. You can also let your representatives know how you feel about their quick action to protect the do-not-call list.

Posted on: 9/29/2003

click here to go to next section

return to top