U.S. Spam Law to Take Effect Jan. 1

We lead with news that the U.S. 'anti'-spam law, written largely by the Direct Marketing Association, will enter into effect on January 1. The bill preempts existing state laws which are tougher (states' rights anyone?), so for many citizens, this is purely a pro-spam law. The FTC is thinking about bounty hunters to enforce the new law (which you can and probably should read for yourself).

Comments

More on bounties

[wmspringer]

For those looking, the section on bounties is on page 19 of the pdf file: Improving Enforcement by Providing Rewards etc

It basically says that within 9 months of the enactment of the act, the commission is to set forth a system for rewarding those who supply information about violators; the first person who supplies the required information is to recieve a reward of not less than 20% of the total civil penalty collected.

I only scanned the file and I'm not sure how large the fines are expect to be; it does say that all property traceable to illegal spamming proceeds and all equipment used for such is forfiet.

Re:Preempt state law?

[applemasker]

Preemption occurs when Congress chooses to "occupy the field" under consideration in areas where, ideally, a uniform national standard is needed such as telecommunications (the FCC), commerce (the FTC), and nuclear energy (NRC), to name a few. When Congress chooses to act in this way pursuant to one of its enumerated powers (the power to regulate interstate commerce is a the last-ditch catchall when they can't think of anything else), the States are "preempted" from also regulating this field. This explain why we have one set of FCC regs, and not a patchwork of different standards from state to state or between federal and state levels. Of course, I am oversimplifying tremendously, but that's the general idea. States can still regulate these areas to a certain degree, but only insofar as their regulation doesn't interfere with Congressional acts. For example, if a particular state wanted to add the condition that all cell phone towers over a certain height had to have a blinking red light visible from a certain distance, this would probably be okay, assuming it didn't contradict anything Congress (or the FCC, as Congressional deglegee) has done.

The marijuana issue you raise is a horse of a different color - and is, strictly speaking, an issue caused by being the subject of two sovereign powers, (so-called "dual sovereignty") the state and federal government. Technically speaking, the Feds can prosecute one for many crimes which are usually handled by the States, but simply don't. U.S. Attorneys save their resources for true "federal cases" or for areas in which they have exclusive jurisdiction (i.e., interstate trafficking of some kind (usually drugs, money, or kiddie porn), crimes committed on federal property, or crimes directed at a federal-regulated activity (like insider trading), and so forth.)

An example would be a hypothetical ex-nfl running back who is acquitted (or even convicted) of murder by a state jury who is then indicted and tried under an equivalent offense under the United States Code by the local U.S. Attorney. The first case is "State v. Running Back" the second case would be "United States v. Running Back." It's rather rare for both sovereigns to prosecute for the same crime, but it happens to the truly deserving, I believe most recently to one of the OKC bombing geniuses. More often, the decision between a State and Federal prosecution in a high-profile cases is based upon the availability of certain punishments, like the death penalty which is not available in all states, or may be available if the prosecution takes place under Federal, rather than State law.

CAUCE's response

[dmuth]

CAUCE's response to the law can be read here.

A copy of the final version of the law can be found here.

According to CAUCE, the law was passed without any public hearings. What a shame.