Politicians Seek Spam Loophole

Steve B writes "An article in the Mercury News by Mike McCurry and Larry Purpuro (respectively heading an "advocacy management and communications software company" and a "political e-marketing firm") wraps the case for political spam in all the usual Mom-Flag-&-Apple-Pie cliches. They conclude with a cynical appeal for a special exemption, while condescendingly instructing anti-spammers that their efforts are "better focused on commercial e-mail" and painting spammer Bill Jones as a victim who made a few trifling mistakes."

Comments

Bonded Spam

[philipsblows]

eWeek has a slightly interesting article here about a company putting together a bonded sender program, where people who receive unwanted mail from such a sender would be able to charge against the bond.

Interesting, though it won't work of course. As the article points out, legitimate mass emailers are less likely to have large scale complaints compared with unbonded/unwanted mass mailers, but personally I wouldn't mind being able to charge for each Viagra, HGH, mortgage, and credit repair email I've gotten just today.

eWeek has a couple of articles on spam (see the homepage), and Spam is the cover banner on the hardcopy magezine this week.

Table turning

[one-egg]

Anybody else remember Robert McElwaine?

Just wait until these bozos start getting tons of "political" e-mail from nut cases like McElwaine. I suspect that then they'll start saying "Oh, political spam is only OK if it comes from a legitimate candidate."

There's no hope, though. The junk-fax laws and the anti-telemarketing laws already exempt political appeals. Never mind that a ban would be perfectly constitutional (under the time, manner, and place doctrine). There's no way the politicians are going to write a law that makes it harder for them to "communicate with their constituents".

Fortunately for me, DCC is apolitical. It doesn't give a hoot what the content is, as long is it's unsolicited and bulk.

McIntyre vs Ohio

[Howl]

McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, U.S. (1995) pretty much says it all when it comes to political spam - it's 1st ammendment protected.

Free speech cuts both ways - it protects crypto code publication and it also protects political SPAM. That's the point about the 1st ammendment it's there to protect unpopular speech because the popular variety doesn't need protection!

That said I've been involved in a couple of campaigns and we only used email to keep in touch with our people and to see what the other side was saying to theirs (on the internet nobody knows you're a Democrat :-)

Re: McIntyre vs Ohio

[Steve B]

Nope: McIntyre vs Ohio defends the right to publish anonymously. It does not address any of the time-place-and-manner or property-rights issues which are applicable to spam (e.g. it doesn't say that you can spray paint your message on other people's walls).

Re:high and mighty

[BrookHarty]

I just want spammers to follow my Washington State spam laws.

1. Check to see if im in the State Opt-Out email database (I am).
2. Use [ADV] and [ADV ADULT] in the subject line.

Those 2 things are ALL I need to combat spam. Of course hardly anyone does. We dont have the "Sue for Money" clause like other states. Oh if we did.....

Just because its a donkey not a cow on the commons

[geekotourist]

...doesn't mean it won't hurt the field. Standard our "tragedy of the commons (TOTC)" reference. Spammers already overgraze the email commons, but somehow these guys think that because political spam is a different beast, it will all work out. No! Political spam uses the same resources and clogs the same inboxes as the (currently) more common commercial email. This is one reason why I believe method, not content, should define spam(1).

Specific problems I see in their article:

• False analogy to radio, TV, and newspapers: with them I receive the benefit (content) along with some cost to me (time or page space devoted to ads), but *all costs are accounted for by someone- they are internalized* The paper/station charges what they need to run their business. With spam the spammers creates costs that they don't have to pay.
• in other words Radio/TV/newspaper ads are *solicited.* They have large sales departments seeking advertisers.
• Tying / making equivalent "internet" to "email" in leveling the playing field: anyone can have a web site, and you don't need too much money to have a nice one. This doesn't mean you should spam people to get them to go to your website. If I can't afford a billboard it doesn't mean I get to spray paint my message in grafitti just to "level the field."
• They want the results you only get from opt-in lists without requiring opt-in lists: if you don't use opt-in lists you don't know your email is going to the right groups, or even to the right state (or country). Without opt-in, how will you keep email from the thousands of elections happening each year from clogging inboxes?
• a "recipient can choose to...unsubscribe": Again, they're forgetting that the email field is already muddy from plain ol' cow spam. We the people already know you cannot trust unsubscribe links within email. "We're different, trust us" doesn't work- within a few weeks regular scammer spammers will fake the exact same disclaimers.
• Thinking that antispammers were overreacting: again, TOTC- we've already seen spam ruin usenet and half-ruin our email boxes. We have to start early to keep the first political spams from becoming a giant herd.

(1)My definition: bulk email from a stranger. This definition catches damaging email, although not all annoying email. I think definitions that include content (i.e. "commercial" alone is bad), non-bulk email, or email from a pre-existing business relationship aren't good because laws based on them won't be upheld.

Re:My Letter to the Editor of Mercury News

[guttentag]

You may want to re-address your letter to letters@latimes.com. Or mail it to:

Letter to the Editor
Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Letters to the Editor must also include your full name, city and daytime phone number (your number will not be published). Please keep your Letter under 250 words.

The "article" is actually an opinion piece written for and published in The Los Angeles Times on August 15 (free registration req., etc.). Since The San Jose Mercury News lacks the "prestige" of The LA Times, it had to settle for reprinting the piece five days later.

In case there's any confusion on the backgrounds of the authors, McCurry was President Clinton's press secretary Purpuro was deputy chief of staff of the Republican National Committee (in other words, they're both veterans of the political misinformation game) .

Re:More Evidence that Slashdot is a Rag

[Steve B]

Since I wrote it, I'll be glad to substantiate it using quotes from the article:

1: "all the usual Mom-Flag-&-Apple-Pie cliches"

NOT many months from now, people across the country will experience one ofthe great recurring features of American democracy. At shopping malls, onfactory floors, at church socials and even on our front stoops, we will beapproached by individuals who want to represent us in public office. While chancesare high that we won't know them personally, they will walk up to us, offer ahandshake and a flier and ask for our votes....

In an era of cynicism toward money in politics -- money typically spent on other unsolicited communication mediums -- Jones tried to level the playing field....

When a candidate lacks a large campaign war chest, he or she can use the Internet to provide constituents with information to better prepare them to perform their civic duty of casting educated votes....

Mom-Flag-&-Apple-Pie cliches -- Check.

2. "cynical"

Larry Purpuro, the former Republican National Committee deputy chief of staff, is founder and president of a political e-marketing firm.

cynical -- Check.

3. "condescendingly"

That choice should belong to the voter -- not to anti-spam advocates whose efforts are better focused on commercial e-mail.

condescendingly -- Check.

Re:Steve Biener, Candidate for US Congress

[Steve B]

Doing a search on the name, I found his Web site, with a list of bullet points including (I swear I am not making this up):

No Roadside Signs -- I will not litter our highways with annoying signs. This campaign is not about name recognition; it is about issues, integrity and restoring trust in our government.

On a more serious note, you might be interested in the GigaLaw article on Biener's spam campaign.