FEC Permits Anonymous SMS Spam

crm114 writes "The Washington Post is running a story about the Federal Election Commission's decision today to waive the requirement that SMS broadcast messages indicate their origin..." And it'll only cost you ten cents to read each one. For what it's worth, you can read the agenda item which describes the issue before the FEC. It's rather interesting because it includes drafts of two possible responses by the FEC, depending on which way the commissioners actually voted at today's meeting. Although the company seeking the opinion suggested alternatives like providing a toll-free phone number in the message (preserving the spirit of the campaign finance disclosure rules), the FEC doesn't appear to have taken them up on it.

Comments

The Slashdot Summary is somewhat misleading

[guttentag]

The Slashdot summary is somewhat misleading. Anonymous SMS messages are already permitted, but election laws prohibit campaigns from posting messages without proper disclosure. That way there is some accountability in the campaign to inform voters. The FEC's decision simply exempts the SMS medium from the ned for this disclosure, grouping them with buttons, bumper stickers and other mediums that are just too small for disclosure statements to be practical.

I can see why the FEC voted as it did. A standard disclosure statement like:

Paid for by Concerned Citizens to Re-Elect Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

takes up 74 characters, nearly half the 160-character limit. That doesn't leave much room for a message. However, it raises a larger question: is SMS a useful medium for campaign messages to begin with?

You can't fit much of a political message into 160 characters. Those that will fit, like "I Like Ike," are generally only effective if presented by a human being. Seeing a person wear an "I Like Ike" button is a much more powerful message than receiving an anonymous "I Like Ike" message on your phone.

And as the article points out, wireless devices are a personal and private medium for most consumers. They should not be turned into roaming, vibrating billboards, especially since the owners of the devices will be forced to read the advertisements.

Two reasons

[Goonie]

1. In most of the world, it's much cheaper to send an SMS message than it is to make a call - here in Oz sending an SMS costs you 20c, whereas calls cost a minimum of 40c for a 30-second call (and most plans are more expensive).
2. You can send and receive SMS messages in a noisy environment such as on public transport or at a bar. This is rather useful to the young, urban and single :)

In Australia (and I gather everywhere else where mobiles are popular except the US) SMS is regarded as an essential feature by just about anyone under 30.