Hang up on effort to expand 'robocalls'

The art of winning elections is all about aggregating, not aggravating, voters. Political parties, politicians and political action committees may want to keep that in mind while debating the use of recorded "robocalls" -- those annoying, anonymous computerized calls used by some politicians.

If the American Future Fund has its way, Minnesota's ban on the calls, in place since 1987, may be endangered. The conservative political action committee has petitioned the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to override parts of the Minnesota law, as well as those in several other states, on the grounds that it infringes on federal election laws.

Some candidates of both major political parties already use automated phone calls in the state, but by law those calls require a live operator to introduce the message and ask for permission before the recording is played.

The FEC can't unilaterally rescind the ban on nonoperator-introduced calls, but an advisory opinion against the current rules would probably prompt a politician to use them in the next election cycle. That would most likely trigger an enforcement action, according to Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, which would bring the matter to court.

But it shouldn't take judges for politicians and political parties to use good judgment. Minnesota's Republican and DFL parties seem to agree. "I don't like robocalls," said Tony Sutton, chair of the Republican Party in Minnesota. "One, I don't think they are extremely effective. Two, I just don't think people like getting those calls. It's something we don't do and haven't advocated. I understand where they're coming from. I'm sure it's a free speech argument and all those sorts of things. But we just don't think it's effective, and we don't respond to them."

His DFL counterpart, Brian Melendez, supports the attorney general's office.

"I think the statue is valid, and I don't see a need to change it," Melandez said. However, he added, "Any kind of campaign communication -- be it print advertising, radio or television advertising or robocalls -- can be effective if done well and ineffective if done poorly."

Melendez may be right about the other media forms, but he's wrong about automated calls. Print, radio, TV and nearly all other media forms are implicitly opt-in, giving consumers an active choice. Robocalls are intrusive and often interrupt the lives of families nearly all politicians claim to be fighting for.

Sure, there are technological and regulatory ways around automated calls, but why should voters, especially during these tough times, have to pay for caller ID?

If a court case is triggered, the outcome would be uncertain. But what is clear is that politicians and parties respond to voters. Each should be asked to pledge not to use robocalls, regardless of what the FEC or a court says, and instead respond to the court of public opinion, which seems to overwhelmingly opt for the literal, and figurative, political do not call list.