BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Lou Correa, Chair
BILL NO: SB 19 HEARING DATE:
5/3/11
AUTHOR: BLAKESLEE ANALYSIS BY:
Darren Chesin
AMENDED: 4/26/11
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Automated Campaign Telephone Calls
DESCRIPTION
Existing law prohibits a person from making automated
telephone calls ("robo-calls") unless, among other things,
the automated caller obtains the prior consent of the
persons to whom the calls are directed or the automated
portion of the call occurs after an unrecorded, natural
voice announcement has been made to the recipient by the
person calling, as specified.
Existing law , pursuant to the Political Reform Act (PRA)
prohibit a candidate, committee, or slate mailer
organization from expending campaign funds, directly or
indirectly, to pay for telephone calls that are similar in
nature and aggregate to 500 or more in number, made by
individuals or electronic means and that advocate support
of, or opposition to, a candidate, ballot measure, or both,
unless during the course of each call the name of the
organization that authorized or paid for the call is
disclosed to the recipient of the call, except as
specified.
This bill would prohibit any person from making an
"automated campaign telephone call" to any registered voter
who has elected to have his or her name and telephone
number placed on the California Political Robocall Do Not
Call List, which the bill would require the Secretary of
State (SOS) to establish, manage, and maintain. "Automated
campaign telephone call" means an automated telephone call
made to a live person or voicemail or other answering
machine device using an automatic dialing-announcing device
that advocates support of, or opposition to, a candidate.
This bill would prohibit these calls whether or not the
caller obtains prior consent or the caller makes the
aforementioned unrecorded, natural voice announcement.
This bill would require the SOS to place on voter
registration cards and online voter registration Internet
Web sites a space providing an option for a registered
voter to elect to place his or her name and telephone
number on the do not call list.
This bill would require the SOS to make a copy of the list
available to specified persons who are seeking to make
automated campaign telephone calls upon payment of a fee by
those persons. The fee may not exceed the SOS cost of
managing and maintaining the list.
This bill would not become operative until 90 days after
the date the SOS certifies that the state has a statewide
voter registration database that complies with the federal
Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
BACKGROUND
"Robo-calls" . According to the Public Utilities Code, a
"robo-call" or automated dialing-announcing device (ADAD)
includes equipment which has the capacity to store
telephone numbers to be called and to dial and disseminate
a prerecorded message to the telephone number called. The
law holds political campaigns to the same rules as other
organizations or businesses using "robo-calls." The
guidelines include:
A "live" person must come on the line before the
recording to identify the nature of the call and the
name, address and phone number of the business
organization being represented.
The recipient of the call must consent to allowing the
recording to be played.
The call may not be conducted between the hours of 9
p.m. and 9 a.m.
They are permitted if there is an "established
SB 19 (BLAKESLEE) Page
2
relationship" or other exemption present (e.g. public
safety, schools regarding attendance, utility or cable
companies regarding appointments, etc.).
Vendors must register with the local phone company
before making calls (when calls are made to those with
whom you do not have an "established relationship" or
other exemption.)
These provisions are enforced by the California Public
Utilities Commission but interstate calls are not covered
by the ADAD restriction.
Federal "Do Not Call" List . In 2003, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) established the national "Do Not Call"
registry where individuals could register to have their
name taken off public phone records for "telemarketing"
purposes. Political robo-calls however, are exempt from
much of the federal regulations on telemarketing. The FTC
notes that "calls from or on behalf of political
organizations, charities, and telephone surveyors" are
outside the "Do Not Call" Registry and courts have upheld
this distinction.
National Political Do Not Contact Registry (NPDNC) .
Citizens for Civil Discourse is a non-partisan, non-profit
organization which operates the National Political Do Not
Contact Registry. This list is voluntary and not currently
backed by federal law. Currently over 200,000 individuals
nationwide have opted to have their cell or home number
removed from public call lists for the purpose of receiving
calls of a political nature. According to Shaun Dakin, the
organization's founder, the largest percentage and number
of people on the registry (17%) are from California.
The National Political Do Not Contact Registry database is
distributed to politicians, political action committees,
advocacy organizations and other exempt groups. These
groups are asked, but not required, to not call those
voters that have registered. Compliance with the voters'
requests is voluntary on the campaigns' part but
Stoppoliticalcalls.org hopes to encourage compliance
through public awareness campaigns and partnering with
state governments.
SB 19 (BLAKESLEE) Page
3
COMMENTS
1. According to the author , the abrupt increase in the
number of intrusive "robo-calls" during recent elections
has led to much public criticism of automatic dialing
announcing devices (ADADs). During the height of
campaign season, many voters are harassed by constant
calls from political campaigns seeking to influence
their vote. Robo-calls have been used for legitimate
campaigning and public opinion polling, but have also
been used for vote suppression, false endorsements, and
negative campaigning that borders on fraud.
SB 19 is a consumer protection bill that empowers voters
to limit the intrusion of unwanted pre-recorded
automated political calls. This bill is carefully
crafted to balance the First Amendment right to free
speech against the public's interest in limiting
unwanted contacts.
American democracy is based on an informed electorate and
the reliance on an open and transparent electoral
process. Automated robo-calls have the potential to
undermine this process as blind claims can be made about
a candidate or issue without a conversation or question
as to the validity or source of the accusation.
The California Political Robo-call Do Not Call List uses
the VoteCal system, whose construction and
implementation is being overseen by the SOS, to manage a
registry of voters who have elected to have their names
added to the do not call list. The Fair Political
Practices Commission (FPPC) will have the authority to
penalize parties for making calls to individuals whose
name and phone number are on the list. If a political
campaign makes a call to an individual whose name is on
the list, the campaign may be charged a fee to be
determined by the FPPC or have their phone service
disconnected.
The California Political Robo-call Do Not Call List offers
a simple and effective option for voters who wish to be
removed from these lists and protects concerned parties
SB 19 (BLAKESLEE) Page
4
from receiving unnecessary political calls.
2. Live Calls Good, Robo-calls Bad ? This bill would
permit voters to place their names and phone numbers on
a "do not call" list for political "robo-calls" but
these same voters could still receive political
telephone calls from live persons. This may lead to
confusion and frustration since voters may not
understand that they have opted to be shielded from one
but not the other.
3. Ballot Measure Robo-calls Good, Candidate Robo-calls
Bad ? The provisions of this bill would apply only to
robo-calls that support or oppose a candidate but not
ballot measures. Once again, this may lead to confusion
and frustration since voters may not understand that
they have opted to be shielded from one but not the
other. Furthermore, is this differentiation equitable?
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: National Political Do Not Contact List
Oppose: AARP
SB 19 (BLAKESLEE) Page
5