Automated Calls in New Jersey Politics: Mend Them, Don’t End Them
You’ve received them. I’ve received them. I’ve even recorded and used them: those automated calls that emanate around election time. As annoying as they may be, they are a quick, efficient, and cost-effective way for a candidate or a resident to bring an issue or a candidacy to the public’s attention. A ban on automated calls amounts to greater incumbent protection as it is usually the incumbent officeholder who has the wherewithal and campaign donations to be able to send out glossy mailings, run radio and television commercials, and afford a sophisticated door-to-door operation. Candidates who take on incumbents have few tools at their disposal to get their message out, especially in areas where the local press is either nonexistent or “bought and paid for.” As a result, the automated call is one of very few equalizing forces in New Jersey politics, allowing all candidates to reach voters without a significant monetary expenditure. That said, restrictions on automated calls are necessary to curb abuse.
Most reputable vendors have systems in place to prevent automated call misuse. However, many systems are low-budget and gerry-rigged and have no procedures to protect the public. While the New Jersey State Legislature is considering various restrictions on automated recordings and some legislators are considering banning such calls altogether, a comprehensive, practical approach would best serve the interests of New Jersey residents.
First, a “do not call” list regarding automatic calls should be established by the State that would enable residents to use a toll-free number or go to a website to be put on this special do not call list. If any resident or candidate makes an automated call to someone on the “do not call” list, serious fines should be imposed and the possibility of disqualification from the election should be considered. Second, automated calls should only be allowed during reasonable hours, perhaps from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Automated recordings made outside this time period should similarly result in fines that will cause abusers of the system to take notice. Third, while this is already supposed to be done, all calls should clearly identify the person or entity paying for the communication and a legitimate address for that person or entity, at both the beginning and end of the message, so that residents know whose interests are being promoted and have a method to report improper calls. Lastly, the aspects of the automated recording including the text of all automated calls should have to be part of the required financial filings of any candidate running for office. Therefore, on a candidate’s Election Law Enforcement Commission forms, there should be disclosure if a candidate uses automated calls (including the address and phone number of the automated call vendor as well as the amount of money spent on the call). These filings should be made available to the public both in person and over the Internet. This will ensure accountability and transparency of the automated calls being made. Failure to disclose or fraudulent disclosure should result in stiff penalties, up to and including disqualification.
Most reputable vendors have systems in place to prevent automated call misuse. However, many systems are low-budget and gerry-rigged and have no procedures to protect the public. While the New Jersey State Legislature is considering various restrictions on automated recordings and some legislators are considering banning such calls altogether, a comprehensive, practical approach would best serve the interests of New Jersey residents.
First, a “do not call” list regarding automatic calls should be established by the State that would enable residents to use a toll-free number or go to a website to be put on this special do not call list. If any resident or candidate makes an automated call to someone on the “do not call” list, serious fines should be imposed and the possibility of disqualification from the election should be considered. Second, automated calls should only be allowed during reasonable hours, perhaps from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Automated recordings made outside this time period should similarly result in fines that will cause abusers of the system to take notice. Third, while this is already supposed to be done, all calls should clearly identify the person or entity paying for the communication and a legitimate address for that person or entity, at both the beginning and end of the message, so that residents know whose interests are being promoted and have a method to report improper calls. Lastly, the aspects of the automated recording including the text of all automated calls should have to be part of the required financial filings of any candidate running for office. Therefore, on a candidate’s Election Law Enforcement Commission forms, there should be disclosure if a candidate uses automated calls (including the address and phone number of the automated call vendor as well as the amount of money spent on the call). These filings should be made available to the public both in person and over the Internet. This will ensure accountability and transparency of the automated calls being made. Failure to disclose or fraudulent disclosure should result in stiff penalties, up to and including disqualification.
A ban on automated calls amounts to a restriction on speech that undermines the ability of residents and non-incumbents to communicate their message to the public in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Restrictions on such calls can be narrowly tailored to meet the objectives of holding abusers of automated recordings accountable and protecting the public from unwanted intrusions. When it comes to automated calls, mend them, don’t end them.
Michael M. Shapiro, founder of ShapTalk.com, is an attorney who resides in New Providence, New Jersey. He currently serves as the Chairman of the New Providence Democratic Party and as Editor of The Alternative Press Contact Mike at mike@shaptalk.com