Posted on 02/23/2005 3:53:29 PM PST by cicero's_son
'The law is now under assault' Steve Carter brings his no-call fight to Evansville
By BILL MEDLEY Courier & Press staff writer 464-7519 or medleyb@courierpress.com
February 23, 2005
Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter on Tuesday said several more Indiana banks should withdraw their support for a proposed change to the state's no-call law.
During a brief stop in Evansville, Carter asked bank customers to call banks that belong to the Consumer Bankers Association to oppose a petition he says will weaken consumer privacy.
"The law is now under assault," Carter said at a press conference at Tri-State Aero. "What they're trying to do is change the rules in the middle of the game."
The CBA petition asks the Federal Communications Commission to preempt the Indiana do-not-call law with the federal no-call law. The federal law allows companies to contact people they have had a business relationship with in the last 18 months, while Indiana's law prohibits businesses from making calls to anyone who has signed up for the state do-not-call list.
CBA argues the change would allow banks to contact customers and would eliminate conflicting laws.
"It was really a sneak attack by the banks going to Washington," Carter said. He has embarked on a $30,000-a-day campaign on the issue. It includes television advertisements.
Two Evansville banks that belong to CBA, Integra and Old National, have dropped support for CBA's petition. Another CBA member, Fifth Third, has not taken action.
Other banks targeted by the attorney general are National City, Wells Fargo, KeyBank, Bank One, Huntington Bank and PNC Bank.
Carter said he sent a letter to Fifth Third asking it to drop its support of the CBA's petition. He said a Fifth Third representative from Indianapolis thanked him for the letter and "would take my views into account."
Fifth Third officials have said the bank is not actively seeking to change the Indiana law. The bank has also said the goal of the CBA petition is to simplify no-call requirements by using the federal law.
Carter said he didn't buy that argument.
"Since we went to cross-state banking ... they've had to comply with Indiana laws in many ways," Carter said of banks based in other states. "It is disingenuous for these multi-billion dollar entities to say it's too complicated."
Carter said he didn't agree that banks' business would suffer from not being able to call customers who sign up for the state do-not-call list. "There are many other marketing channels," Carter said. In a statement, the CBA said Carter painted an inaccurate picture of what could occur if the FCC approves its petition.
"Under federal law, consumers have the right to request not to receive future calls from individual companies - including those with which they have an established business relationship," CBA President Joe Belew said. "It is simply not true, therefore, that federal law will permit telemarketers to make repeated calls to consumers against (their) wishes," Belew added.
© 2005 The E.W. Scripps Co.
Please read our Privacy Policy and User Agreement.
To me, it's pretty clear-cut. If the banks don't like the law, then they should do as Justice Scalia recommends: go out and persuade their fellow citizens to change the law using the legislative and democratic process.
Instead, the banks are bypassing Indiana voters and going directly to a federal agency, the FCC. Bad move.
Nowadays, we only call people who have requested to be contacted (we buy leads like the ones on "Lenders Compete", etc..)that way we cannot be in violation of DNC because you asked me to call you & I have the proof. People are VERY TOUCHY about this any more....
http://www.millenniummortgagemississippi.lenderhost.com
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
Congress shall have the power to (through the FCC):
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes:
Isn't Indiana one of the several states?
This is aa good example of the proper and original intent of the commerce clause. To keep and prohibit the state legislators from impeding the free flow of business.
As a corollary to this anaylis, I have asked the following question a thousand times.
When and how did a private business, that is mandated to pay a federal minimum wage, for example and stated Congressional power to "regulate" this business emanates from the "commerce clause," then become one of several states? Or foreign nation or Indian tribe?
Who were the incompentent, constitutionally illiterate, anti-american federal judges who ruled that a private business is a state?
All I know is that the Indiana no-call list has been a godsend. Prior to the list, I would get up to 15 calls a day. Now - I do not get any. If I put my name on the list, that means I don't want them calling me. Most of the people I know who have their names on the list would not talk to telemarketers anyways. The list just allows for peace and quiet! Also, if you are a pre-existing customer or have requested that the bank call you - they are allowed to do so! I'm on the list - the banks can leave me alone!
I pay for the phone service to my house, for the maintenance on the lines, for the equipment that is attached to it. When the telemarketers decide they want to pay everyone's phone bill in the country for their own convenience, that might be a different story. In the meantime, I pay for the service and equipment for my own convenience, not someone else's. They do not have a right to invade our homes uninvited no more than some stranger at our front door can burst his way in either.
Are you saying that the state shouldn't be able to regulate interstate commerce with a do not call list?
If so I like your interpretation here of the ban on regulating interstate commerce and believe that interstate commerce is being regulated unjustly in many many ways right now.
(I do not wish to get into the whole do not call argument right now with those that don't like being called by telemarketers)
States set up systems where they can collect fees as they try to regulate interstate commerce and break this principle.
This is an area for improvements.
To me - interstate commerce occurs between 2 willing partners. It seems that the goal is to promote an equal and just playing field for businesses to successfully complete. The people on the "do not call" list are saying that they do not wish to do commerce if the commerce is unsolicited. Do not the citizens have the right to decide if they will or will not do business? The "do not call" lists are a way to make sure that businesses abide by the citizens' decisions. Why are we forced to listen to sales pitches and be interrupted when we do not want to be?
How does "2 wlling partners" become one of "the several states?"
The Constitution, being a government intervention limiting document, with enumerated powers only, clearly states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce "among the several states," not "2 willing partners."
Besides the obvious lack of jurisdiction that Congress has to regulate private property, there is also the constitutional question of when Congress does regulate private property, this regulation inherently violates Amendment V:
nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
To force a business to expend money in order to comply with a "no call list" edict takes property for public use and thus the property owners need to be compensated.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 98—963
JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al., PETITIONERS v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[January 24, 2000]
Justice Stevens, concurring.
"I make one simple point. Money is property;"
Bingo.
As much as the banks want this to be about free commerce and free speech, it is fundamentally about privacy. You should not have to field 50 phone calls a day from telemarketers if you expressly say that you don't want them. Period.
THere are many regulations created by the federal and state government that force businesses to spend money in order to comply with those regulations. How is this any different??? That's right - it's not!
Besides - my home is my home. No business is allowed to come into my home and force me to listen to their sales pitch!!! Nor am I allowed to enter any business and force them to listen to me.
My home, my phone, my money (telephone). If i don't want them to call me - I should have every right to tell them so. And if they don't listen - then I should have every right to fine them!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.