[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 77 (Tuesday, May 19, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5620-S5621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 1077. A bill to regulate political robocalls, to the Committee on 
Rules and Administration.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Robocall 
Privacy Act of 2009.
  This is a bill that is cosponsored by Senator Snowe and Senator 
Durbin, and that would protect American families from being inundated 
by automated political calls all through the day and night.
  The bill would allow political outreach through these prerecorded 
``robocalls'' to continue, but it would put some commonsense limits on 
them--to make sure that they are used in a way that informs voters, 
rather than harasses or misleads them.
  In recent years, we have seen amazing development in technologies 
that help political candidates reach out to voters.
  This is a good thing. Political speech is essential, and new 
technology that facilitates communication between candidates and voters 
serves to bolster the democratic process. When more information is 
available to voters, it promotes a more meaningful interchange of 
ideas.
  The robocall is one of these recent developments. A robocall is a 
pre-recorded phone message that can be sent out to tens of thousands of 
voters at a low cost through computer automation.
  With television and radio ads becoming so expensive, these robocalls 
can play a positive role in alerting voters to a candidate's position 
and urging their support at the polls.
  But it is also a technology that can be abused. We all have heard 
stories about people being called over and over and over again at all 
hours of the day and night.
  I believe this is wrong. When these calls are used improperly, they 
interrupt American families during their private time at home and 
interfere with their privacy rights. They can also turn people away 
from the political process itself.
  When people become frustrated or annoyed by calls that are commercial 
in nature, they have the option to request to be put on the Federal 
Trade Commission's ``Do Not Call'' list. To date, millions of Americans 
have chosen to be part of that list.
  But political calls are specifically exempted from this ``Do Not 
Call'' registry.
  The First Amendment gives special protection to political speech, 
because the interchange of political ideas is essential to our 
democracy.
  For that reason, the ``Robocall Privacy Act'' would not wholly ban 
political robocalls. It would, however, impose some carefully drawn 
restrictions that I think we can all agree are reasonable.
  Let me tell you exactly what the bill would do.
  It would apply during the 60 days leading up to a general election 
and the 30 days before a primary election.
  It would ban robocalls between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m.--to try 
to prevent these calls from disturbing people when they are sleeping or 
trying to put their children to sleep.
  It would stop any campaign or group from making more than two 
robocalls to the same telephone number in a single day.
  It would prohibit groups making robocalls from locking the ``caller 
identification'' number that is supposed to show up on many phones; and 
it would require robocallers to include an announcement at the 
beginning of each call explaining who is responsible for the call and 
that it is a prerecorded message. This is to prevent people from using 
these calls in a way that is misleading.
  The enforcement provisions of this bill are simple and intent on 
stopping the worst of these calls.
  The bill creates a civil fine for violators of the law, with 
additional fines for callers who willfully violate the law.
  The bill also allows voters to sue to stop those calls immediately, 
but to not receive money damages.
  A judge can order violators of the law to stop these abusive calls.
  Why are these provisions so important? Let me give you a few facts 
and stories from recent elections:
  According to the Pew Foundation, the use of robocalls is on the rise. 
By April of 2008, 39 percent of voters overall had received pre-
recorded political calls, and a full 81 percent of likely caucus-goers 
in Iowa had been contacted with robocalls.
  As the 2008 campaign went forward, voters expressed disagreement both 
with the number of these calls, and with their content, saying that 
some calls were deliberately misleading.
  In 2007, hundreds of voters in New York were woken up at 2 am because 
of a software programming error with a robocall. The calls were 
supposed to occur at 2 p.m.
  In 2006, there were complaints about robocalls across the country. In 
the Nebraska 3rd District Congressional Election, voters complained to 
candidate Scott Kleeb when they received dozens of calls, containing 
poor-quality versions of his voice. Kleeb's supporters claim that his 
voice was recorded, and used in an abusive robocall against him.
  In Illinois, voters received a recorded call about U.S. 
Representative Melissa Bean that did not clearly identify the caller. 
Voters called Representative Bean's office to complain without 
listening to the entire message, which eventually identified an 
opposing party committee as the sponsor--but only after the time that 
most voters had

[[Page S5621]]

hung up. Representative Bean had to spend campaign funds informing 
voters she had not made that call.
  In a Maryland race, voters in a conservative area received a middle-
of-the-night robocall from the nonexistent ``Gay and Lesbian Push,'' 
urging them to support one of the candidates. That candidate lost the 
election, in part because of the false, late-night call.
  Quantity is an added problem. Voters frequently receive multiple 
robocall calls a day from the same group or candidate in the days 
leading up to an election.
  The National Do Not Call Network--a nonprofit focused on this issue--
has indicated that 40 percent of its membership says they received 
between 5 and 9 calls a day during the election season. Some frustrated 
voters reported receiving as many as 37 calls in a day.
  This is just counterproductive. The goal of political speech is to 
inform and engage voters, not to mislead them or turn them off of the 
democratic process.
  I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and its protection for 
political speech, but these robocalls have become a problem. Something 
must be done.
  I believe this bill presents the right solution--it imposes clear 
time, place, and manner restrictions, but it also allows campaigns and 
groups to use robocalls to inform voters of issues and their positions.
  I think it is time for us to find a reasonable solution to these 
calls that are intruding on the privacy of the American home and 
misleading voters.
  I want to thank Senators Snowe and Durbin for co-sponsoring this 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
Robocall Privacy Act of 2009.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1077

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Robocall Privacy Act of 
     2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Abusive political robocalls harass voters and 
     discourage them from participating in the political process.
       (2) Abusive political robocalls infringe on the privacy 
     rights of individuals by disturbing them in their homes.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) Political robocall.--The term ``political robocall'' 
     means any outbound telephone call--
       (A) in which a person is not available to speak with the 
     person answering the call, and the call instead plays a 
     recorded message; and
       (B) which promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes a 
     candidate for Federal office.
       (2) Identity.--The term ``identity'' means, with respect to 
     any individual making a political robocall or causing a 
     political robocall to be made, the name of the sponsor or 
     originator of the call.
       (3) Specified period.--The term ``specified period'' means, 
     with respect to any candidate for Federal office who is 
     promoted, supported, attacked, or opposed in a political 
     robocall--
       (A) the 60-day period ending on the date of any general, 
     special, or run-off election for the office sought by such 
     candidate; and
       (B) the 30-day period ending on the date of any primary or 
     preference election, or any convention or caucus of a 
     political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, 
     for the office sought by such candidate.
       (4) Other definitions.--The terms ``candidate'' and 
     ``Federal office'' have the respective meanings given such 
     terms under section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431).

     SEC. 4. REGULATION OF POLITICAL ROBOCALLS.

       It shall be unlawful for any person during the specified 
     period to make a political robocall or to cause a political 
     robocall to be made--
       (1) to any person during the period beginning at 9 p.m. and 
     ending at 8 a.m. in the place which the call is directed;
       (2) to the same telephone number more than twice on the 
     same day;
       (3) without disclosing, at the beginning of the call--
       (A) that the call is a recorded message; and
       (B) the identity of the person making the call or causing 
     the call to be made; or
       (4) without transmitting the telephone number and the name 
     of the person making the political robocall or causing the 
     political robocall to be made to the caller identification 
     service of the recipient.

     SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Enforcement by Federal Election Commission.--
       (1) In general.--Any person aggrieved by a violation of 
     section 4 may file a complaint with the Federal Election 
     Commission under rules similar to the rules under section 
     309(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     437g(a)).
       (2) Civil penalty.--
       (A) In general.--If the Federal Election Commission or any 
     court determines that there has been a violation of section 
     4, there shall be imposed a civil penalty of not more than 
     $1,000 per violation.
       (B) Willful violations.--In the case the Federal Election 
     Commission or any court determines that there has been a 
     knowing or willful violation of section 4, the amount of any 
     civil penalty under subparagraph (A) for such violation may 
     be increased to not more than 300 percent of the amount under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (b) Private Right of Action.--Any person may bring in an 
     appropriate district court of the United States an action 
     based on a violation of section 4 to enjoin such violation 
     without regard to whether such person has filed a complaint 
     with the Federal Election Commission.
                                 ______