WASHINGTON - The fight over the national "do-not-call" list has turned into a roller-coaster ride of victory and defeat, with Congress and the courts swiftly trading blows and millions of consumers wondering whether promised relief from telemarketers is forthcoming.
Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to celebrate an overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court ruling when they learned another judge had blocked the list from taking effect next week.
"It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."
Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to enforce the do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling Tuesday by U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the FTC lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
"Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday. President Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing calls are intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.
But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued the national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs.
Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech, blocking commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The FTC has chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.
The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls, is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal issues will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must win in court for the list to move forward.
Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue signing up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling 1-888-382-1222.
West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency offered no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.
While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans, the second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing the do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be solved as easily.
The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they responded with remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in little more than 24 hours.
The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an election year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million numbers.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to sign up. "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang up on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.
Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded with calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and people were encouraged to call.
Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as well.
The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers, including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies and the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers. The association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the Federal Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to block calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and telephone companies.
The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to an automated phone or online system.
Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf of politicians.
It seems that the Telemarketers have more rights than we do when it comes to our own privacy! Posted by FireChicken (Member # 2067) on :
I understand the necessity of supporting the first amendment right to free speech.
However, just because some idiot on the bus next to me has the right to preach about worshiping cans of used motor oil to prevent rogue ceiling fans from enslaving us all and forcing us to mine saltine crackers, DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM REQUIRED TO LISTEN!!!!!!
Sure, you have the freedom to speak as you please, but I also have the freedom to refuse to listen to you. Thats the beauty of democracy. Now, since its a violation of free speech for me to join a no-call list to say that I wont be bothered, does it also mean that its unconstitutional for me to have a telephone? If I cancel my phone service, and throw out the phone, I cant hear ANY telemarketing crap. If I get rid of my phone, am I violating the constitutional rights of telemarketers? Has it really gotten to the point that in order to truly be left alone in peace and quiet, I have to cut off the phone, throw out the tv, and become a hermit?
Im just surprised that the telemarketing industry was able to buy 2 judges in 2 days. We always expect the NRA, the ACLU, and other large and powerful lobbies to have the ability to exhibit powerful influence over government representatives. But for these guys to have such obvious sway in influence, only leads us to one conclusion:
everyone who didnt sign up for the no-call list must obviously be buying crap from these idiot telemarketers. How else could these people have so much money to spend on lawsuits and buying off public officials?
More remarkable is the fact that congress managed to pass the updated bill in 1 day. 1 DAY! CONGRESS DID SOMETHING NOTABLE IN 1 DAY!!!! If that doesnt speak about the will of the american public, then what does?
<sigh> Yet another problem that can be solved by mandatory ownership of assault rifles with high capacity magazines.
Posted by ss_rs_z (Member # 1888) on :
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)