More accountability for robo callers

Gazette Editorial Board

---

Political “robo calls” - the automated phone messages many people love to hate - are commonly used in congressional and presidential campaigns. They're an inexpensive way to get out a political message.

In the days leading up to the Nov. 8 election, the tactic also was used locally to target some Cedar Rapids City Council and the state Senate District 18 special election races.

Some of the calls carried distorted or incorrect claims. One group that identified itself only as Citizens for Honesty and Sound Marriage circulated a message urging voters to ask Senate District 18 candidate Liz Mathis “which gay sex act she endorses” - a question related to the same-sex marriage issue in Iowa.

As inappropriate as some of these calls may be, we don't support an outright ban on them. They are a form of free speech, and we're reluctant to diminish that constitutional right. Nonetheless, Iowa lawmakers should find ways to make sponsors of robo calls more accountable.

Since Sept. 1, 2009, the federal government has prohibited commercial robocalls - those aimed at selling you a good or service - unless the consumer has given written permission to receive such calls.

Congress also has attempted to regulate political robocalls. In the meantime, states have gone their own way. Most are lenient, but a few states, including Wyoming and Arkansas, have made them essentially illegal even though they may violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Iowa essentially has no restrictions on this political tool. We think our state should do better.

Nebraska's model is one we like. Our neighbor requires automated political calls to state the identity and phone number of the caller. No calls between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. And a copy of the message must be filed with state election officials within 24 hours after the call is activated.

Such rules require reasonable transparency and allow both state officials and voters to find out who's responsible. They also give residents some relief from calls during hours most people are likely to be home and want privacy and sleep.

We also think there's merit in allowing people the option of putting political robo calls on a no-call list, similar to the national registry for telemarketers' non-automated calls. Yes, everyone has the option of just hanging up on an automated call. But shouldn't private citizens should have some ability to determine what calls they allow into their homes?

A democracy always must value robust debate and exchange of ideas. Finding the perfect balance between privacy and freedom of speech always will be elusive. But that doesn't mean political robo callers shouldn't be held responsible for their messages.

n Comments: thegazette.com/

category/opinion/editorial or

editorial@sourcemedia.net