Can you elaborate? Every source I've seen says that politicians have exempted themselves from the spam laws. e.g. a random google result: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/202...
> That's because the National Do Not Call Registry does not apply to political text messages.
If you know a way around this, please spill the beans!
Politicians shouldn't have zero consequences for selling my personal data.
Municipalities run into a similar problem with those awful circulars that pile up on your front stoop: ordinances to prohibit them have been struct down as unconstitutional. And that's not even political speech, generally!
What if texts cost you money per-message though? Isn't that why most places get permission before texting you? Do politicians have a constitutional right to drain your money this way?
Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory? Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?
Sure, but amending the Constitution for the purpose of permitting the government to impose greater limits on political speech is...going to be a hard sell for a lot of people, and have a high risk if successful of having pretty severe unintended (for non-autocratic supporters of whatever the particular measure is) consequences.
> Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?
Easier than passing an amendment, similar downsides.
They all appear to comply with that older school SMS norm. Who knew?
If you do it for a few, they tend to end overall. Now, instead of getting a few a day (right?!?), I get one out of the blue.
I did not "STOP" Bernie. I like Bernie. I don't like how it went with Bernie and all the people trying for better. Those messages have been considerate, infrequent, etc...
So far, all of the others hit pretty hard and fast, but do "STOP"
This suggests some entities, like Bernie for example, do maintain a list but are not necessarily sharing it. Other entities either share their lists, or will send messages for hire.
Your mileage may vary. Hope sharing these experiences helps.
[0] https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-regis...
Commercial speech can be regulated provided certain requirements are met that are more widely applicable, a four part test is used. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. Also under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel the government can compel commercial speech, require advertisers to include factual disclaimers.
So laws like the CAN-SPAM act prohibit unsolicited commercial advertising via txt or email if certain requirements are not met.
I'm not constitutionally required to let political campaigners onto my private property (my home), and I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone).
A lot of people agree with you but that’s not typically how it works IRL for USPS either. Generally if you keep trying to deny delivery of junk mail your letter carrier will tell you “you can’t just refuse mail”.
Although I think maybe you are supposed to be able to refuse it, just doesn’t work IRL? People are also supposed to be able to send the mail regardless.
I do think it’s a cost issue. Should cost the standard $0.60 stamp per each bulk mailer (bulk mailers are much cheaper.
Text messages and emails should also cost something reasonable which would dissuade abuse. Perhaps “accepting” a text (or at least not rejecting it) would waive/reimburse that fee so “good” texts could be free? Seems easy for this to be abused though by the body public when temporarily enraged against a corporation/small business.
https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Refuse-unwanted-mail-and-remo...
I agree with your other points. Stop the subsidies. I'm not sure why spam makes me so irrationally angry, but it does.
Generally, there are two subcategories of TCPA claims: DNC (227(c)) and ATDS/prerecorded voice (227(b)). The latter claims are still available against politicians, last I checked. The latter claims regulate the technology that allows blast calls and messaging with pre-recorded messages.
not legal advice