The scandal

Posted at 11:32 PM on November 6, 2006 by Bob Collins (12 Comments)

Like the warning that freezing water in plastic bottles releases deadly dioxins -- or that former Nigerian diplomat who, for some reason, needs the help of little working-stiff me to help him recoup his millions -- the allegations of dirty tricks by Republican robo-callers are sweeping across the Internet.

Talking Points Memo, which seems to be carrying a lot of this, pats itself on the back because WSYR in Syracuse carried a story on it. (Listen). The thing is: as near as I can tell, the problem with the phone call in question is that it was negative and came during dinner. 2:29 into the story, the reporter finally says the call isn't illegal.

That's sheds a slightly different light on the Wetterling campaign's press release today.

Massive numbers of pre-recorded 'robo' calls are going into the homes of voters from Bachmann and her friends.

Reports are coming in that households are receiving phone calls in rapid succession with the false impression they are from our campaign.

We are even receiving reports of calls from special interest groups on the East and West Coasts; people who can't even properly pronounce "Wetterling" but who can, nonetheless, spew forth their venom of lies and false accusations about Patty.

The Bachmann goal is to create anger and confusion.

It's unclear what "reports are coming in" means. It could be the same e-mails that are whipping across the Internet or it could be an actual local person getting a phone call. I have a message into the Wetterling campaign to get the names of local folks who say they've gotten phone calls that are illegal or say they are coming from Bachmann, so far without anything.

Meanwhile, a poster who recieved an e-mail alert, ostensibly from the Rowley campaign, posted it in a thread downstream:

OLDER VOTERS ARE BEING MISLED BY PHONE CALLS TELLING THEM THEY CAN ONLY VOTE FOR COLEEN AT LIMITED POLLING SITES DURING LIMITED HOURS!

DON'T LET JOHN KLINE GET AWAY WITH MISLEADING OUR OLDER VOTERS! CALL ANY ELDERS YOU KNOW IN THE DISTRICT AND TELL THEM: "DON'T BELIEVE THOSE PHONE CALLS!"

THESE CALLS ARE BEING MADE FROM CELL PHONE NUMBERS ON THE EAST COAST. THEY ARE NOT SAYING WHO THEY REPRESENT WHEN THEY CALL.
PROTECT THE VOTING RIGHTS OF EVERY VOTER IN MINNESOTA'S SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT!

I've also sent a message to Ms. Rowley looking for the folks who have been "misled." Nothing back yet. (See comments).

So where is this all coming from and what exactly is the allegation?

Talking Points memo has a nice recap of the controversy, and insists it's been getting 'reports' of people being quizzed on who they support and then being told to go to a fake voting location. That is a dirty trick (the other is just basically annoying). They even say some of the "reports" came in from Minnesota. TPM Muckracker cites one case in New Mexico

Beyond the obvious dirty trick of a call sending voters to fake locations, the complaints have been only marginally understandable. Take this ABC News story:

Voter David Stone of Philadelphia said he gets the same amount of calls each day and shares Hartley's experience of hearing a Democrat's name repeated continually in a recording paid for by a Republican group.

"Mostly what I'm getting is calls from Republican organizations about Lois Murphy, the Democratic candidate [for the House]. And you think the call is from Murphy and then they go on to spin the facts," Stone told ABC News.

Huh? So the call comes in, it says Murphy is bad because of this...Murphy is bad because of that....and you think the call is coming from Murphy? Whaaaat? Go listen to the WSYR recording again. How does anyone conclude that the call -- which was nothing but negatives against a particular candidate -- came from that candidate?

The New York Times tries to figure it out in a Tuesday morning piece.

They all start with a simple, if somewhat ambiguous, statement: “Hello, I’m calling with information about Lois Murphy,” a Pennsylvania Democrat who is the challenger in one of the hottest House races. That opening sounds “kind of positive in tone,” Ms. Hollis said. But the message quickly turns negative, blasting Ms. Murphy’s political views. After she hangs up, the phone rings again later with the same message. And again. And again.

Ah, clarity. OK, so we can see above that, basically, you'd have to be a fool to think the call came from the Murphy campaign. And even if you hung up the first time after the call said, "I'm calling with information about Candidate Murphy," muttering about Murphy interrupting your dinner....the calls keep coming. And keep coming, apparently, until you listen to the whole thing. By which point, how stupid would you have to be to still think it came from Murphy?

And that's something the Murphy camp would like to stop? Why? If people who are against Murphy are making your life miserable, doesn't the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend theory come into play here somewhere? That's what I think, and apparently so do those pikers at the Washington Post this morning.

As I scan the blogosphere, however, I continue to see this phrase:

...an autodial robocall is being made that starts out sounding like a positive (Your candidate here) message

So apparently, rousted from a good sleep or dinner, people hang up before it gets to the negative part, and think they were disturbed by the "good guys." Like getting Desperate Housewives interrupted by a negative TV ad is some picnic.

That's it? That's the scandal? Does anybody have caller ID?

"Where's the wicked mainstream media," the blogosphere demands to know.

Well, they were writing stories -- six days ago -- on the massive robocall effort being undertaken by Republicans.

So politicians are upset at the way the phones are being used? Why'd they make politicians exempt from the do-not-call rules?

There's still time for a smart candidate to campaign on that platform.

Anyway, all of this stuff may be true. But if someone getting the call could actually contact me, it'd be a refreshing change from everything I've read so far, which mostly do not seem to contain actual people who are missing dinner or losing sleep.

Until then, blogosphere, you're disturbing mine.

Comments (12)

If people who are against Murphy are making your life miserable, doesn't the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend theory come into play here somewhere?

The hope of the GOP is that the voter will never listen to the whole message to find out who is behind it, but instead become irate with the Democratic candidate for calling them again and again and again.

There are also reports that this calling is happening extremely late at night/early in the morning which wakes people up and pisses them off... of course, the NRCC claims innocence: "We don't call after 8 PM." But what about their contracted robodialing companies?

FYI, your version of the radio program you link to is incorrect... the reporter actually says the ad "may or may not be illegal."

Posted by Pat Smith | November 7, 2006 12:19 AM

Contact you? Aren't reports supposed to, um, report, as in gather the news, like find sources. Or you could sit on your cynical...

Posted by David | November 7, 2006 12:40 AM

One does not preclude the other, David. I suppose another option is to just start on pag eone of the phone book and start calling people to see if they've been called.

I have heard back from Colleen Rowley.

"Mr. Collins: Unfortunately, these reports arose yesterday while I personally have been so busy as to not be able to personally investigate. I am trusting that my campaign manager Terry Rogers and Assistant Russell Simmons have this raw information for you. With the pre-election tension, I know there is a possibility of false reports arising and I would have preferred to remain more personally on top of this one. But unfortunately I have just been too busy. I will contact Terry Rogers this morning and ask him to provide you with what he knows. Obviously if this type of fraud is occurring, it is absolutely, unbelievably wrongful. I hope you will carefully investigate for yourselves. Coleen Rowley"

---

How about you, David. Have you got any personal knowledge of this? Or....not? Do you have the name of anyone who has been the recipient of a phone call directing them to a fake polling place?

Yes or no?

Posted by Bob Collins | November 7, 2006 7:10 AM

//The hope of the GOP is that the voter will never listen to the whole message to find out who is behind it, but instead become irate with the Democratic candidate for calling them again and again and again.

that's the part that doesn't make sense. If the hope of the GOP is the voter will never listen to the whole message, why call back and keep callinhg back until you listen to the message. Why not, say, just keep calling back?

Your term "reports" is one I keep hearing. We have 'reports'... What reports? From whom exactly?

I've had no trouble finding people who say there are 'reports' of this...what I haven't been a ble to find is the actualy people who got the phone call.

What "reports" are you referring to?

Posted by Bob Collins | November 7, 2006 7:13 AM

"Beyond the obvious dirty trick of a call sending voters to fake locations, the complaints have been only marginally understandable."

It's not a just a "dirty trick," it's voter suppression, it undermines our democracy, and for a journalist, you seem pretty flippant about that. Putting on airs is unbecoming to your profession.

Posted by tom | November 7, 2006 8:26 AM

Bob, Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report has a pretty good post up about the GOP's deceptive robo-calling blitz:

Republican robo-calls register a ripple
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8980.html#more-8980

FYI, it does include links to coverage by NPR, the Washington Post and the New York Times on the subject, so I'd say it's reasonable to say it's a bona fide story that definitely deserves a more prominent place in the news cycle than it's now getting, and the clock is of course rapidly running out.

Posted by David Wilford | November 7, 2006 8:52 AM

The point is that if you don't ever listen to the entire call, you never find out that the call comes from the NRCC. You're assuming that someone who hung up the first time they got a call would later listen to the whole call.

The simple solution is to require the callers to identify themselves at the start of the call. The FCC requires that for telemarketers. The NRCC says that the FCC rule does not apply to political calls. 16 CFR 310.4 requires telemarketers to truthfully, promptly and conspicuously disclose the identity of the seller or charity and the purpose of the call. There is no such requirement in that section for political campaigns.

Posted by Jim Scott | November 7, 2006 9:39 AM

On page 2 of the pikers' article in the Wash Post, as linked above, is this interesting paragraph:

Democrats also cited Federal Communications Commission guidelines saying the originators of automated calls must identify themselves at the beginning of each call. Republican Party lawyers, however, said the requirement does not apply to political nonprofit organizations. They rebuffed a "cease and desist" letter sent yesterday by the DCCC.

Is that something like the 'no controlling legal authority' defense?

Posted by bsimon | November 7, 2006 9:46 AM

//The point is that if you don't ever listen to the entire call, you never find out that the call comes from the NRCC

If...if ....if. Given the amount of breathless news releases being sent out and the amount of blogosphere hoopla, I can't think of a bigger puff mushroom in politics than this scandal. It doesn't appear to be standing up to simple fact checking, that this is a huge "scandal." At best -- so far -- it's a tiny mutant nugget and that's the primary reason why it hasn't leapt to MSM in any significant way. Repeating someone else's allegation -- which is what the blogosphere and a lot of candidates are doing -- may create the illusion of a widespread problem but it mostly -- again, so far -- seems to be an exercise in making noise.

You're right, though, putting the "this message paid for by" at the front would be an improvement and something that should be enforced.

All that, however, is a big cry from the allegations that have spread of people being told to go to fake voting location.

So far, I've said "prove it" to at least 7 different people since I got up this morning. Nobody has.
Give me a name! Is that too much to ask?

Apparently, it is.

Why do you think that is?

Posted by Bob Collins | November 7, 2006 10:06 AM

Robo calling hasn't been a problem in Minnesota, and is being used primarily in states with large minority populations. So far the best reporting has been from Keith Olberman on MSNBC, although the WaPost article wasn't bad.

Talking Points Memo has had dozens of posts up now reporting instances of this, but since it's not happening in Minnesota YOU'RE not going to get any calls.

That doesn't mean it's not happening, just that it's not happening here.

Since the ENTIRE nature of last-second dirty tricks like robo calling is to evade detection until the election is over, I'd think you'd want to be a little more cautious with the skepticism. I've heard the tapes from Illinois (go to Crooks and Liars and look for the Olbermann link), although it should be cautioned that that clip was edited. The actual call gives the Democrat's name, then pauses for a while hoping you hang up before you hear the rest of the negative message and disclaimer at the end.

Robo calling is a gross violation of our right to privacy and should be illegalized immediately. The analyst Olbermann had on said the NRCC may be facing massive fines over this stunt.

Posted by Mark Gisleson | November 7, 2006 2:18 PM

I appreciate that, Mark, but the original releases that got me interested in the issue did, in fact, come from Minnesota.

I've found two examples so far. Not a particularly significant number.

Posted by Bob Collins | November 7, 2006 2:28 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen, at 2:18 PM, on November 7, 2006, the words "Keith Olberman" and "best reporting" appeared in the same sentence for the first time in human history.

And we were here to witness it. It's something I'll tell my grandchildren about. Sniff. I need a moment.

Posted by Jeff | November 7, 2006 3:36 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories