Out of the blue today, I got an automated call at my Ann Arbor home regarding ballot proposals A and B. The call came with “unknown caller” CallerID, and there was no introduction. The female-voiced call just started in saying that the city council might be trying to put “a chemical factory in our neighborhoods” without telling us about it. There was some explanation about ballot proposals would move official notices from local newspapers on to the City’s web site.
The recording insisted that residents should “vote no on proposals A and B,” with a tag line “sacrificing our right to know is just too high a cost.” There was no explanation of who created or paid for the calls.
[Chronicle coverage with partial explanation of the issue, if not the calls: "A Charter Change on Publishing?"]
A call to the Michigan Press Association confirms that The Sterling Corporation has been engaged by MPA to help campaign against charter amendment proposals in Wayne, Trenton, and Ann Arbor — all of which would relax charter requirements to publish certain material in newspapers. In Ann Arbor’s case the material is ordinances passed by the city council.
Here’s a link to a .wav of the phone call advocating against the charter amendments on publishing: [phone audio]
Got another one today! This time it’s a male voice, and the money line is “tampering with the city charter is a bad idea, which… makes it easier to post fraudulent information online.”
This time they seem to be implying that we as residents would become victims of some kind of “online fraud” if the resolution goes against their intended outcome. Possibly trying to play to fears of identity theft and similar “online” perils?
Again, there was nothing on the robocall identifying who was making the calls or who was paying for them. I don’t begrudge anyone their right to lobby the voters for a campaign position. But if you have a direct financial stake in the outcome, isn’t it dishonest make scary recorded calls without even revealing who you are?
Before I started getting these calls, I did not have a particular position on these ordinances. Absent other factors, I tend to vote against whoever seems to be resorting to lies or trickery to make their point.
I got the same message (I assume) and it said we could have a millage imposed on us without ever knowing. “There’s a good chance that soon you won’t even know if they’re trying to raise our millage rate. They’re trying to change our city charter so that important notices like proposed millage rate increases that cause our property taxes to go up no longer have to be published in the newspaper where you are likely to see them.”
This is of course, patently false. Except for clever workarounds like the ones the county BOC found, all millage increases must be passed by ballot.
I had the same negative response to the calls, but I oppose the charter changes for my own reasons. I don’t know what theirs are but their tactics are really annoying.
Apparently the motive of those sponsoring the calls is their direct profits. The Michigan Press Association – apparently a trade/industry group representing newspapers – is running these calls. Their opposition is, presumably, based on the potential loss of revenues from city notice postings. They may also be concerned about setting a precedent that leans away from paper-based official notices.
There are many laws against robocalls. Unfortunately, the lawmakers except themselves from most of these laws. It’s horrible. I ended up getting one to stop by taking legal action. I wrote about it on link to Posner’s blog.
Is annarbor.com a member of the MPA? I know the A2 News was.
I’ve now gotten three calls on my cell phone urging me to vote against the charter change. This last one from Omaha Nebraska, 402-530-9000.
If big bucks are funding the no vote, and using out of town hired hands to defeat it, I’m more inclined to vote in favor. I strongly object to political calls that don’t identify who is paying for them. None of these have provided that critical information.
New one! Today’s call made an implied warning that the City was going to put a prison in my neighborhood unless I voted No on proposals A and B. “Sacrificing our right to know is just too high a cost.” Getting scarier every time!
This time they used CallerID (“Prairie Systems”, 402-530-9000; apparently a known robocall shop), but calls back to that number get disconnected before they’re answered. The script was *very* similary to the previous two…
The two voice mails I received today settled it for me: I will vote “yes” on both proposals!
Re: [10] Dave, when you say the two voice mails you received settled it, was it purely the annoyance factor of the calls, was it the over-the-top rhetoric, or something else?
Two more! One last week, and another today. Today’s was markedly more reasonable in tone, without the extreme scare tactics that marked the previous calls. This script today insisted that they don’t *oppose* posting City notices online – that’s a good thing! – but it’s something that should be done in *addition* to posting the notices in the newspaper. Tampering with the City charter is a [scary voice on] BAD [scary voice off] idea, they say.
Like the previous robocalls, this one failed to mention that it is being paid for by companies that charge the city money to run these notices in newspapers, and who stand to profit directly from a particular outcome of the vote.
I have voted “yes” on both proposals. If a particular industry profits from a City charter requirement, fine. If that industry has a trade group, fine. If they want to encourage me to vote a particular way on an issue, fine. But the minute they fail to disclose WHY they’re campaigning so heavily – that they have a monetary interest in the outcome – they’ve lied to me, and I’m very likely to vote against them.
Steve Radant,
I appreciate the continued updates on the phone calls — I haven’t a actually received any, something I attribute to starting with a “clean” cell phone number a few years ago and signing up for the no-call registry at the same time.
Wonder if the tone of the calls has changed in response to feedback they’ve heard?
When you say that you “have voted,” it’s probably worth noting that what you mean is that you’ve voted by absentee ballot. (Right?) That will surely seem pedantic, and I only bring it up because there might be a random reader or two who read that and think, “Oh, dang, I missed the election … oh, well, never mind.”
Dave, a good point. You’re right; when I say that I’ve already voted, I mean that I’ve mailed my absentee ballot. The City election is Tuesday, November 3.
I have been getting these almost every day now for about a week. I have files saved as they are coming into my VOIP system. Does anyone know if we can sue them? A few years ago I knew a lawyer who was able to collect $500 a call for a different, but sort of similar robo call. It is really annoying to be spammed by these.
Thank you “Ann Arbor Chronicle” for helping me to know some of the background on this!
Ron,
As much as it pains me, if the calls are political, they are exempt from fines and personal recovery you could receive from non-political calls. That being said, when I sent a demand to one political organization, my calls stopped. I did not recover monies, but I did stop the problem.
The letter I sent to the organization is linked in comment #6.
Bottom line: they are specifically exempt. That being said, you can always sue anyway and who knows.
It is my understanding that political calls require a disclaimer notice, identifying who is paying for them. Just like all other campaign literature, ads, mass e-mails, and similar communications. That’s how the Federal Elections Commission rules read to me. So I believe these calls are in violation of those requirements, and legal action might be effective. And my disclaimer is I’m no lawyer, but I’ve read those laws and guidelines a number of times and both legally and ethically it would seem you have to identify who is behind them.
I’m up to 8 anonymous calls now, on my cell. The type of message, the frequency, the non-local origin of the calls, and the anonymity has a very negative impact, and at this point I believe I will vote contrary to their suggestion. That means a yes vote on the charter amendment.
Of course, it could be the other side calling you anonymous in the hopes of getting that very same action.
Fred Posner,
Does your technical expertise in the area of programming telephone systems allow you give us an idea of what it might cost to put together a robocall campaign like this?
It can be put together very cheaply. If you are hosting this yourself, you can do a system that will call 50 people simultaneously or so for less than 500.00. Plus the cost per minute of the phonecall. (let’s say 2 cents).
If you already have set this up for a previous campaign it’s just the minutes.
There’s an article about it in Ann Arbor News now: Link