- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Lisa Brown (D) on May 21, 2009, to require that automated phone calls (“robocalls”), faxes, or emails used by political campaigns and advocating the election or defeat of a candidate disclose the identity of the person paying for the communication and whether it is authorized by a candidate, with violations a misdemeanor subject to a $1,000 fine.
- Referred to the House Ethics and Elections Committee on May 21, 2009.
- Reported in the House on June 3, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on June 16, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that creates the same thing as in the Brown substitute, except that one has some additional "fine tuning". The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on June 16, 2009.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Lisa Brown (D) on June 16, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details of the ban and also bans robocalls between 8 p.m. and 9 a.m. eastern time, and between 7 p.m. and 8 a.m. in the central time zone. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 16, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Chuck Moss (R) on June 16, 2009, to expand the mandated disclosures to all robocalls referring to a candidate, officeholder, or ballot question, and not just ones advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. For example, with the amendment the bill would apply to calls that say, "Call Reps. Moss and Brown, and tell them to do X". The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 16, 2009.
- Referred to the House Ethics and Elections Committee on May 21, 2009.
- Passed 100 to 8 in the House on June 16, 2009, to require that automated phone calls (“robocalls”), faxes, or emails used by political campaigns and advocating the election or defeat of a candidate disclose at the beginning of the communication the identity of the person paying for the communication and whether it is authorized by a candidate, with violations a misdemeanor subject to a 90 days in jail and a $500 fine, and more for subsequent violations. It would also ban robocall between 8 p.m. and 9 a.m. eastern time, and between 7 p.m. and 8 a.m. in the central time zone.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on June 17, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Campaign & Election Oversight Committee on June 17, 2009.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 House Bill 4985 (Require disclosures in certain electronic political communications ) by Admin003 on September 4, 2009
Rep. Elsenheimer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of House Bill No. 4985, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
No Vote Explanation
HB 4985 (Robo calls)
I opposed HB 4985 because a key measure that would have actually uncovered who is behind mysterious smear campaigns and regulated all politically-related automated telephone calls was ignored by the House Democrats using their majority status to refuse to even allow debate on an amendment offered that would do so.
Under the legislation that was approved by the House, candidates running for office would be required to contain identification and disclaimer statements when using pre-recorded messages (‘robo-calls’) or e-mail to reach out to voters. However, the it would only apply to those trying to expressly elect or defeat a candidate, but shadowy interest groups funded by unknown sources would still be allowed to use the medium to launch so-called ‘issue advocacy ads’ which are often little more than smear campaigns.
If this legislation is enacted as currently written, the citizens of Michigan will still be subject to the smear campaign calls they have been subjected to over recent years without knowing who is responsible.
This is the latest example of extreme partisanship where House Democrats are refusing to allow open debate on measures and amendments. The House Democrats went to great lengths, using procedural gimmicks to keep Republican lawmakers from even talking about legislation that comes to the House floor. Democrats are literally stifling the voices of nearly half of Michigan’s residents, along with the public’s desire for bipartisan cooperation.
For these reasons I cannot support this bill at this time.”
Reply
Rep. McMillin, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted ‘No’ because this bill exempts large special-interest PACs - stacking the deck against candidates.”
Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I believe it violates the first amendment.”
Rep. Genetski, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I respectfully oppose HB 4985 because this bill claims to be campaign and election reform, however, even should this bill become law, phone calls from ‘issues campaigns’ would not be covered. We should treat all elections related phone calls equally under the law.”
Rep. Amash, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
This bill, if enacted, would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.”
Reply
Introduced in the House on May 21, 2009
The vote was 100 in favor, 8 opposed and 2 not voting
(House Roll Call 295 at House Journal 0)
Click here to view bill details.
Reply
View Full Conversation
