According to Colorado Pols, Rep. gub candidate Marc Holtzman held a town hall style meeting with voters - entirely by phone:
The way it works is with a robo-dialer on crack and a computer screen. From one telephone, Holtzman talks to "guests" as the program dials 600 numbers a second. If the dialer gets an answering machine, it goes to a pre-recorded message in which Holtzman says that he was calling to invite you into a "Town Hall Meeting." If you pick up the phone, you are asked to dial '1' to enter into the "town hall" forum. At that point, you can just sit and isten to the Q&A underway, or if you choose, you can ask a question of Holtzman yourself. If you refuse to take part, an electric shock sends 10,000 volts through your spine.
Okay, so we made that last part up.
A computer screen monitors who is on the line -- as many as 50,000 people at one time could take part -- and from the screen you can see who is on the line, how long they stay, and if they want to ask a question. By pressing '#' the caller is placed in a queue to ask a question or order something from the deli counter. All of this is done in real-time, and the candidate only needs to talk on a regular telephone. The callers have no idea who else in actually on the line, until they hear the questions.
This is intriguing, and it raises a number of questions. Will voters resist these calls the same as other automated calls? How do they screen calls? Seems that one sour apple could spoil the event.
Is it legal to record these sessions? Considering the complexities of wiretap laws, I imagine there could be situations where recording is illegal. If thousands of participants are on the line, someone is bound to...
Posted by Walter at August 26, 2005 07:11 PMDon't know about Colorado, but most states have rules that allow either party to a conversation to record it. You just can't be a non-participating third party wiretapping it.
Fascinating approach to phonebanking. Thanks!
(FYI - saw you on LeftyBlogs.com!)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm at August 26, 2005 08:56 PMOn other local fronts, heard about this yet?
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 26, 2005 11:08 PM"Don't know about Colorado, but most states have rules that allow either party to a conversation to record it."
I'd like a cite for that before I believe it, although I have no trouble believing it. But every state whose law I'm familiar with -- which is only a handful -- says that it's illegal for either party to tape without permission. And I'm not including Colorado because I don't know.
Posted by: Gary Farber at August 26, 2005 11:10 PMGary -- Here ya go:
A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit an individual to record a conversation to which they are a party without informing the other party that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it.Posted by: Kari Chisholm at August 28, 2005 04:00 AMTwelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.