Colorado attorney general is Robocop

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers in January 2007. (John Prieto / The Denver Post)

Coloradans have registered more than three million phone numbers on the no-call list since the 2001 phone privacy law was enacted. There was an exemption, however, for political and charitable groups. And since then, the automated dialing of pre-recorded phone messages - particularly political messages - has clogged the voicemails of thousands of consumers.

Advocates of robocalls say it is protected free speech.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, whose office oversees the no-call list, backed SB-146 in the state legislature that would have banned so-called robocalls. It was defeated this month in a state Senate committee on a 4-1 bi-partisan vote.

The Robocall Privacy Act of 2008 has been proposed in Congress to regulate the practice.

We caught up with Suthers recently to find out what comes next in Colorado.

PoliticsWest: Where does the robocall issue stand?

Suthers: I think what needs to happen is that the legislature needs to hear from people in Colorado the level of their frustration that we who are regulators – who run the Colorado no-call line – have heard.

I presented evidence to them that essentially what’s happened is that when we set up the no-call list in 2001, people really appreciated the new sense of privacy that they had. But what has happened in the intervening years is that robocalls, primarily political robocalls, have totally undermined the benefits that they feel like they’re receiving.

We received 9,000 complaints in the last two years to the no-call list saying, “Why am I getting these calls?” They're thinking: we shouldn’t be getting these calls. We have to explain to them, they’re not subject to the no-call list.

Well, 12 states in the country have gone after robocalls. I think, constitutionally, it has to be done on a content-neutral basis. You can’t just go after political robocalls, you have to go after all robocalls.

I presented the numbers and all the complaints my office had. One of the first witnesses that came up [in the committee hearing was Mark Grueskin, representing the AFL-CIO]. And he might as well have been the chairman of the Democratic Party saying, “Don’t you dare.” So that took care of...votes right there. And then the Republicans, frankly, have some interests in terms of, they have friends that are political operatives that make money.

I just think right now they haven’t felt the pressure. My guess is we’ll have the same problem in November that we had before Super Tuesday. Most of the complaints we received, people were saying they had 10 to 15 calls a day in the week leading up to Super Tuesday. If that happens again and we can re-direct some of this animosity to the legislature, it may change their tune. I noticed that the Georgia senate just overwhelmingly approved of it and my guess is within a year you’ll have a large number of states banning robocalls.

PW: Is there any chance of something happening this session?

JS: I don’t think so. I think it’s deader than a doornail.

PW: Anything on the ballot?

JS: There’ll be plenty of things on the ballot. I just don’t think there’s an interest group who wants to spend the money to put this on the ballot.

PW: Last time, it was Rutt Bridges and the Bighorn Center that pushed the no-call list.

JS: That’s exactly right. And did a lot of research. And maybe if a think tank like that came around to it, the political parties would be less inclined to oppose it. Right now, there’s just too many political interests who still believe it’s a viable thing for them.

PW: Have you gotten some heat from people in your own [Republican] party?

JS: I think they were surprised that I pushed the bill. I honestly believe that eventually they’re going to have to put their political interests aside because I think the public interest is going to demand that something be done about it. Because, as I say, what people are complaining to us are saying is: all the benefits they got from the no-call list are totally destroyed by robocalls.

PW: Your view: no exemptions for charity or political [groups]?

JS: No. The only exemptions would be public safety, reverse 911, school districts and colleges to inform you of scheduling things; any pre-existing relationships. So, for example, you sign up for a politician's campaign, you have a personal relationship that they can call you and tell you about meetings or something like that. Or a business relationship, a dentist can call you and give you a schedule of your appointments. But no charitable, no political, on a broad-based call-anyone sort of thing.

Bookmark/Search this post with: