FCC Asks $5 Million Fine For Activists' Election Robocalls (axios.com) 80
The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a $5 million fine against right-wing activists Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman for allegedly making illegal robocalls discouraging mail voting ahead of the 2020 election. From a report: The record-setting penalty from the FCC comes as the pair faces criminal charges of voter suppression in Michigan and a federal lawsuit in New York accusing them of making 85,000 robocalls to Black Americans in an attempt to keep them from voting. The FCC says Wohl and Burkman made over 1,000 pre-recorded calls to wireless phones without receiving consent for those calls, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The messages said if the voters cast their ballot by mail, their "personal information will be part of a public database that will be used by police departments to track down old warrants and be used by credit card companies to collect outstanding debts," according to an FCC news release.
Quick start a go fund me page (Score:1, Troll)
Why is it that every time there is a FCC fine (Score:3)
They seem to be missing few significant decimal places?
A 5 million fine seems like someone is still making money on something they did.
Re:Why is it that every time there is a FCC fine (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCC proposed fine is just one aspect of the issue. There is a federal case in New York and criminal charges in Michigan. Both of those could result in more penalties along with possible jail time.
Of course, they were probably frontmen for someone else's money. Reaching back to whomever hired them will be almost impossible, so the show will go on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These slaps on the wrist are not enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Intimidating voters counts as electoral fraud. [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
inhale.
there is more here than meets the eye.
Re: (Score:3)
Any action with the intent of preventing a legal vote from being cast and/or counted properly counts as vote tampering. From intimidating people to sabotaging machines to bombing a polling place. All of these will carry charges relating to electoral fraud.
Re:Why is it that every time there is a FCC fine (Score:4, Interesting)
Vote tampering (via quick search) is around $500 fine and 2 years imprisonment. Soo. The fine should be at least 50 million with robocall fines on top of that, plus 2 years per incident - so everyone involved should be jailed for life..
See, you are conflating two different levels of government, different crimes, and different types of crimes.
The FCC proposed fine is for a federal civil violation, robocalling. They are asking for $5 million.
The vote tampering it a criminal charge that can be pursued on the state level and double jeopardy doesn't apply because the FCC fine is a federal civil violation relating to but not the same as the criminal charge.
If they acted over state lines, they may run afoul of federal criminal statutes. Because the FCC action is civil, there is no double jeopardy and they can be charged under federal criminal statutes.
Re: (Score:3)
The FCC proposed fine is for a federal civil violation, robocalling. They are asking for $5 million.
Am I the only one who is wondering why this administration can find the resource to track down their opponents, but is unable to find the "Thank you for choosing Marriott Hotels", and "We've been trying to contact you regarding your car warranty" callers?
Re: (Score:3)
The FCC proposed fine is for a federal civil violation, robocalling. They are asking for $5 million.
Am I the only one who is wondering why this administration can find the resource to track down their opponents, but is unable to find the "Thank you for choosing Marriott Hotels", and "We've been trying to contact you regarding your car warranty" callers?
The ability has always been there - I think that the constant braying about voter fraud has just gotten people really interested about tracking it down.
Since the Republicans are taking a major shit fit about how their God given right to win was stolen, people are going to do some investigation.
And lo and behold, fraud is indeed being found. As it turns out, the whining is a case of malicious projection, where the Republican are just being exposed - kind of like how they rail aginst gays, but tend to
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
While it is true that the FCC isn't bringing the fraud charges, that doesn't mean that there aren't fraud charges related to the robocall scam
http://prosecutor.cuyahogacoun... [cuyahogacounty.us]
Re:Why is it that every time there is a FCC fine (Score:5, Informative)
How is this fraud? It is illegal robocalling, but only you are claiming it is fraud. The FCC isn't.
https://www.findlaw.com/voting... [findlaw.com]
This is by definition electoral fraud:
"Robocall campaigns spreading misinformation about election dates, polling locations, or other election-related information in order to prevent some voters from voting." Wouldn't you agree?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's only selective if multiple groups are known to be doing it but most are not being procecuted. So who else was making illegal robocalls trying to convince people not to vote?
Re:Why is it that every time there is a FCC fine (Score:4)
First, we know the perpetrators of the first, and not the second.
Election fraud is a big thing and the law holds the people who do the actual activity the same as the people behind it. So the calls were for election fraud and things were traced to specific individuals or companies that paid the robocallers to perpetrate the fraud. That's why we found them. Doesn't matter if they're overseas or anything - the fraud that happened was onshore.
But those car warranty calls are typically scam calls from India from a random Indian call center. These call centers set up overnight with a VoIP service, make their calls, then disappear.
That's why the goal is to identify the callers - STIR/SHAKEN and all that. That way if the caller isn't trusted that lack of trust is passed down to the person being called.
Yes, you can in some states make some money from robocalls.
Re:Why is it that every time there is a FCC fine (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, they were probably frontmen for someone else's money. Reaching back to whomever hired them will be almost impossible, so the show will go on.
Why do you believe they're working for someone else? Imho it seems quite in line with their previous antics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
5 million per call sounds fair to me.
Re: Why is it that every time there is a FCC fine (Score:2)
FCC Asks $5 Million Fine (Score:2)
We have a problem Houston (Score:4, Informative)
Our phone system doesn't effectively block this kind of thing - and it should.
Is anybody else sick of getting calls to renew their car's extended warranty?
Re: (Score:3)
Is anybody else sick of getting calls to renew their car's extended warranty?
oh hell no! I'm having a ball with these people. I have two numbers. One that is "secure" because I only give it out to people that matter and it only rings if some one is on that that list. Then I have my other number that I change every few months that I give out for unimportant things. Funny, that is the one that they always call.
When that one rings I get out one of scripts and personas for just this occasion.
There is Gary, the geriatric gay gigolo. He, and his friends, are just looking for
Re: (Score:2)
When that one rings I get out one of scripts and personas for just this occasion.
There is Gary, the geriatric gay gigolo. He, and his friends, are just looking for some young stud to join the part, for a price.
Joe, he runs a bull seamen collector and is looking to hire someone. Do you need a job?
This is why we need top tier machine generated speech software. So Sandra with the sultry voice can read all those scripts to them automatically, without bothering to ring your actual phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poor little baby. Are we cutting in to your illegal and immoral scams? Poor baby.
Re:We have a problem Houston (Score:4, Funny)
"Is anybody else sick of getting calls to renew their car's extended warranty?"
Spam wastes a tiny bit of every target's life. If spammers had a collective throat and my hands were on it, I'd gleefully solve the problem and, if that were illegal, do the time as a hero.
the gift that keeps giving (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
How about a fine for any unsolicited robocall (Score:3)
Most of us don't even bother answering the telephone any more, because of the insane volume of Robocalls and unsolicited calls in general.
If I don't have the number mapped, I ignore the number. Because there a much higher chance it will not be someone i know.
FCC/FBI/CIA/US Marine Corp needs to hunt down all these robocallers and get rid of them. And stop the stupid Political Speech exception. Also make it much more difficult and expensive to mask your number for the Caller ID. If the Phone Companies know where to send the bill, they know the number who is calling you.
I expect Robocalls to be valid for these few reasons.
1. They are solicited. Say from My Doctors office to tell me I have a visit coming up.
2. There is an emergency. Say a propane truck crashed near your home, so you get called with evacuation instructions, or a tornado is in the area.
Other reasons should really be outlawed.
This isn't free speech, because I have also the right to ignore you, and calling me is in essence the same as barging into my house to get your dumb ramble on. If in most states I am allowed to shoot a real person doing that, why do robocalls get a free pass?
Re: (Score:2)
calling me is in essence the same as barging into my house to get your dumb ramble on. If in most states I am allowed to shoot a real person doing that, why do robocalls get a free pass?
Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
When my phone rings, my immediate reaction is anger. I then have to clamp that down because I do have responsibilities where I do need to answer the phone. Then it is some idiot trying to convince to to vote for them. I told the last one, "Well, I was going to, but this stupidity has changed my mind. Do not call again." I really miss being able to slam the phone down.
Re: (Score:2)
STIR/SHAKEN is supposed to do a lot of this, not sure how effective the rollout (June 30 deadline) has been. I seem to have fewer spam calls, but n=1 isn't a real study.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the telephone companies and ISP do know how to direct the call and route the traffic. So the communication will go from one device to an other, they also know who to bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"FCC/FBI/CIA/US Marine Corp needs to hunt down all these robocallers and get rid of them. And stop the stupid Political Speech exception."
I couldn't agree more.
>"I expect Robocalls to be valid for these few reasons. 1. They are solicited. Say from My Doctors office to tell me I have a visit coming up. 2. There is an emergency."
That I disagree. The only exceptions should be if ONE SPECIFICALLY OPTS-IN to such services, and even then, with an easy out later. Just because I have a phone number on fi
Sounds like discriminatory enforcement (Score:3, Insightful)
This complaint cites 1,000 supposedly illegal robocalls to mobile phones. I personally got at least seven illegal (not previously authorized in writing) spam text messages in late October and early November, including three claiming to be from MoveOn and three claiming to be from a local candidate from a place I don't live. Unless the FCC starts levying tens of millions in fines against those people -- because I am pretty sure they spammed more than just me and 332 other citizens -- this will look like they're going after political opponents rather than against the biggest offenders.
Re:Sounds like discriminatory enforcement (Score:4, Informative)
They're going after people trying to illegally affect the outcome of an election versus sending you a text message. Here are the guidelines:
https://www.fcc.gov/rules-political-campaign-calls-and-texts
Re: (Score:2)
People opt-in to one and not the other.
Re: (Score:3)
[P]olitical text messages can be sent without the intended recipient’s prior consent if the message’s sender does not use autodialing technology to send such texts and instead manually dials them.
So the text you got were probably legal.
Re: (Score:3)
This complaint cites 1,000 supposedly illegal robocalls to mobile phones. I personally got at least seven illegal (not previously authorized in writing) spam text messages in late October and early November, including three claiming to be from MoveOn and three claiming to be from a local candidate from a place I don't live.
That's not right. The FCC https://www.fcc.gov/rules-poli... [fcc.gov] explicitly says that political texts DO NOT NEED your authorization, so long as they're not autodialed. The FCC further clarifies https://www.jdsupra.com/legaln... [jdsupra.com] that it doesn't count as an autodialer if to text each individual number involves human intervention. That's how MoveOn works. It finds volunteers who will manually click buttons to send each individual text, and further to write responses should any recipients reply.
In this case the FCC
"Activists" (Score:5, Insightful)
Look up Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman because they aren't activists, they are criminals that operate in the political sphere.
Re: (Score:2)
1,000 pre-recorded calls to wireless phones without receiving consent for those calls
From 47 CFR 64.1200: [cornell.edu]
(a) No person or entity may:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, initiate any telephone call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or is made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice;
(iii) To any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or
Re: (Score:2)
If it is just a matter of being on the voting registry why is the robocall saying that it is only a problem if you vote by mail?
The messages said if the voters cast their ballot by mail, their “personal information will be part of a public database that will be used by police departments to track down old warrants and be used by credit card companies to collect outstanding debts," according to an FCC news release.
Do police departments and credit card companies really look up the voting registry and only go after the mail-in voters that have outstanding warrants or debts?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reasonably sure you already know that, since it's pretty doubtful you're here out of any genuine sense of bringing light to the discussion or anything, but I thought I'd clarify this point just for the hell of it.
Why is it (Score:1, Troll)
Every time that there is actual proof of some kind of voter suppression/fraud, it's always from right-wingers? A more cynical person might think that the reason they seem so confident that it is happening is because they're committing it themselves and they're just trying to make sure the other side can't do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
you obviously have an issue studying history.
Awful tired of your flamebait shit e3m4n. Obviously, GP's not "hearing" things in the late 1800s or early 1900s. And obviously, the Democrats used to be the party of conservatism and racism and the two parties basically switched sides throughout the mid 20th century (yes, that turd Tucker Carlson would be a giant flaming Democrat if it was 1920) - the Republicans used to be "the libs", when all the asshole radio/tv hosts are going on and on about all the bad things the Democrats "did". His post is obviously
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but you need to pay attention to and follow some historians rather than just right-wing media personalities. Sure there's going to be some racists everywhere, but it's the racist policies that are meaningful when discussing the parties, instead of the handwaving "oh both sides are racist" shit that you're trying to dismiss an argument with.
The voter suppression the Republicans are pushing is actual voter suppression. It's anti-democratic. The fraud that occurred overwhelmingly in the last electio
Re: (Score:2)
And then in the late 1960's there was the Southern Strategy.
In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy [wikipedia.org]
Of course, in the 1980's the "Commission for Presidential Debates" began of the merging of the "Democrats" and "Republicans" into the modern Party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you obviously have an issue studying history
If you aren't careful, all that irony is going to give you some kind of blood disorder. [mayoclinic.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why is it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to reread your post.
Why would I have to "reread" one short sentence that I wrote myself?
Of course he wasnt blaming dems. He was saying its never dems.
Except "dems" were very conservative for a part of the US' political history, so this claim of yours is an obvious lie.
Re: (Score:2)
$5M: a bit low but reasonable (Score:2)
It seems a bit low, but since they knew what they were doing it seems reasonable to fine them $5 million per call.
It was per call, right?
Jurisdiction Question (Score:2)
I am glad the FCC has chosen to pursue this. These people are scumbags of the scumbaggiest order.
But I would have thought this was a FEC issue. Where are they in this? I can't think of a clearer case of voter intimidation.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm surprised anyone is even bothering, given the way the demz brazenly rigged their own primaries. When they were called out, they got away with the Fux News defense. And here we are today.
Re: (Score:2)
Robocalls are the FCC, and are a civil matter. Those calls may also be election fraud, which would probably be the FEC and would be a criminal matter. Criminal means higher levels of proof, and rich-man crimes means you need to prove intent too, so we'll have to see. Fortunately, those two bozos are true idiots, so they may have left lots of proof.
Wow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if they really thought
Wohl and Burkman are complete morons; any decisions they make count as "thought" only under the most expansive of definitions. And their backers are happy to have fall guys and plausible deniability.