Printable Version Email to a Friend

Robo calls are emerging as one of the leading forms of political communication. These automated telephone calls target households with prerecorded messages, often urging them to vote for a specific measure or providing them with information on candidates. By eliminating staff or volunteer time, robo calls have proven to be an inexpensive and fast way to reach a wide population. Candidates, campaign managers and non profits alike are increasingly employing this technique in their advocacy efforts. But this trend has not been without controversy. To be effective, this tool should be used wisely.

A recent survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that nearly two-thirds of registered voters nationwide received recorded telephone messages during the 2006 elections. According to their research, robo calls were the second most popular way for campaigns and political activists to reach voters, trailing only direct mail as a key tool of political communication. Pew also reports that some 71 percent of registered voters got direct mail campaign solicitations, while 24 percent received phone calls from real human beings urging their vote for a particular candidate, 18 percent were visited at their homes, and 14 percent received email solicitations.

Robo calls are quickly changing the game in political communication. As the presidential election draws near, this remains a pressing issue to watch.

The Controversy

This advocacy tool is not without controversy. Robo calls have fostered bipartisan disdain and has even sparked restrictive legislation in several states. In some cases, new laws ban them. Idaho, Missouri, Maryland, Florida, Connecticut, Nebraska, Tennessee and North Carolina, are among a growing list of states that are pushing for more oversight over the robo call phenomenon.

Opponents of this advocacy tool often describe robo calls as the epitome of negative politics. For example, many believe that robo calls directly affected Scott Kleeb’s candidacy for Congress in Nebraska. The Casper Star Tribune reports, “Kleeb and his supporters believe that someone recorded a legitimate automated call of Kleeb’s targeting voters and then used it to flood some homes with dozens of calls. The theory is that such a flood of calls would anger the recipient and steer them away from voting for Kleeb or casting a ballot at all.” Kleeb’s supporters, along with many others, claim that robo calls are a nuisance and negatively impact the political system in our country.

On the contrary, there are several individuals and organizations that support the use of robo calls for advocacy, grassroots lobbying and political efforts. Supporters argue these calls can help to increase voter participation and encourage interest in the government. They can be an effective rapid response tool for contacting supporters to take action. Also, they point out that not only is political speech protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, but that robo calls are already regulated by state and federal laws.

The Gaithersburg High School PTSA

The Gaithersburg High School Parent Teachers and Student Association (GPTSA) in Maryland is one example of an organization that employs this technique in their outreach efforts. The local school system has a function called Connect-Ed. This system allows administrators to send out automated messages to students, staff, parents and community members alike. Laurie Augustino, president of the group, recently told NPACTION,

I use the system to announce upcoming meetings for the PTSA. This has been tremendously helpful in getting parents to attend meetings. Before using Robo Calls we would average 10 people at meetings. Now we are averaging at least 30 parents. Sometimes we have over 50! I feel very strongly that the attendance is directly related to the use of Connect- Ed.

The Gaithersburg PTSA stressed that they make a conscious effort to coordinate their usage of Connect-Ed with other administrators, with the intention of not bombarding their parents with too many calls. So far they have received no complaints from Gaithersburg parents. In fact, many parents are very vocal with their appreciation for the reminders.

The Law

Robo calls are regulated by both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as well as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

As the Harmon Curran law firm reports, it is unlawful to initiate an automated telephone call without the prior express consent of the recipient, unless the call is conducted for emergency purposes or is exempt under a rule or order of the FCC. The FCC exempts calls conducted for non-commercial purposes, such as grassroots lobbying or political messages. Despite this exemption, all Robo Calls must meet certain requirements:

• At the beginning of the call, the message must clearly identify the business, individual, or other entity initiating the call.
• During or at the end of the call, the message must provide a telephone number or address of the business, individual, or other entity providing the automated message.
• Finally, the automated system must release the called party's line within five seconds of a hang-up, in order for the called party to receive or make other calls.

Many organizations claim that these rules are not being properly enforced. In fact, they believe that they are altogether ignored, particularly in battleground states during elections.

What does this mean for Non Profit Advocacy? What your organization should know! The robo call controversy shows no sign of abating. With the 2008 Presidential election approaching, we expect increased public debate on this issue. Non profits should be aware that legislation is pending in the House of Representatives that would prohibit groups from making political Robo Calls to individuals on the Do-Not-Call registry. The act is called the Robo Calls off Phones (Robo COP) Act (H.R.248). We also urge you to also consult with your state laws prior to adopting this advocacy tool.