Anti-Phone Soliciting Bill Survives

A new bill that would enable Californians to prohibit unwanted telephone solicitations barely cleared an Assembly committee Tuesday in spite of an all-out attack by powerful business lobbyists.

The bill was saved from death when Assemblyman Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles) broke loose from a private meeting with opponents of the proposal to cast the final vote for approval in the Business and Professions Committee.

A key behind-the-scenes shift, however, involved state Senate Leader John L. Burton (D-San Francisco).

In 1999, Burton disclosed that his late mother worked as a telephone solicitor for a Roman Catholic charity many years ago to earn income when the family was in hard times. He said he feared that a bill virtually identical to the one passed Tuesday would result in telephone solicitors being thrown out of work.

But Burton, one of the Legislature’s most powerful figures, said he reversed himself because he lately had become the recipient of “calls and calls and calls by the same group. They don’t take no for an answer.”

“This is a great intrusion on my privacy,” he said, noting that no one “likes to be bothered at home when you are doing your business.”

The action handed a victory to telephone customers long battered by unsolicited calls for everything from vacations in Florida and time-share condos to tickets to the police ball and newspaper subscriptions.

On the other side, approval of the bill, SB771, by Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont), dealt a severe setback to influential business interests, including real estate agents, cable television operators, telephone companies, telemarketers, newspaper publishers and segments of the insurance industry. Most are generous campaign donors.

The bill would not prevent telephone solicitations but would allow Californians to head off unwanted calls by registering their numbers on a state-operated “do-not-call” list.

Violators would be subject to a civil lawsuit for engaging in an unfair business practice. Penalties would range from $500 for the first violation to $1,000 for subsequent offenses.

At least two dozen states operate “do-not-call” programs. In California, calls made on behalf of charities and political campaigns would be exempt from the prohibitions.

The stakes in Tuesday’s vote were evident in the turnout for the committee hearing.

Platoons of some of the capital’s most familiar and influential business lobbyists packed the committee hearing room in a massive show of force. They appealed for exemptions that would allow them to continue making unsolicited calls.

In case after case, they agreed that privacy-intruding calls by solicitors are annoying and typically occur just as people are sitting down for supper. But they insisted that their companies were not to blame and pleaded for an exemption.

“They are the cause of these problems,” Figueroa countered.

The representatives of business organizations deplored the bill’s wide-ranging prohibitions, contending that it would hurt the California business climate by forbidding corporations from being able to offer customers new products and services.

They said the measure should be aimed at “boiler room” operations and not mainline businesses.

Stanley M. Wieg of the California Assn. of Realtors suggested exempting businesses whose operations are licensed by the state, including real estate agents. He said real estate dealers are now exempt from penalties for making solicitations and in actual practice make few “cold calls.”

On the other side of the debate, the bill drew support from lobbyists representing senior and retired Californians, who often are targets of telemarketers; the Bank of America, and Gryphon Networks, which sells software and data management equipment for “do-not-call” lists.

Under the bill, the Department of Consumer Affairs would compile the lists and regularly sell updated versions to telemarketers so they would know who not to call. It was uncertain whether the proposed new program could be operated by telemarketing fees alone or whether taxpayer funds would be needed to help finance it.

Early on, Figueroa recognized that she would have to work hard to win passage of her measure. She called on committee members to override the objections to friends in the lobbying corps.”

“It’s a tough call to go against friends,” Figueroa, a veteran legislator, said. “But many, many, many consumers want this bill enacted.”

A 7-3 vote sent the bill to the Appropriations Committee, where Figueroa said she had “much more work” to do on the bill. Unless a compromise is reached, it will face the same sharply divided camps in front of that panel.

Faced with such strenuous lobbying, the final roll call was a cliffhanger, with the bill one vote short of passage up until the last moment. Cedillo, who had not attended the hearing, was considered the necessary seventh vote, but he was nowhere to be found.

After half an hour of searching, Figueroa tracked down Cedillo in his office, where he was surrounded by business lobbyists who urged him not to vote for the bill.

Figueroa said she persuaded him otherwise, insisting that “our constituents rely on us to cast the hard votes.” A few minutes later, Cedillo appeared in the now almost empty hearing room and voted aye.

Burton’s decision to back the legislation--he even signed on as a coauthor--helps clear the way for the bill as it moves forward. But his earlier arguments outlived his change of heart.

At the hearing Tuesday, Burton’s previous argument was embraced by Assemblywoman Barbara Matthews (D-Tracy).

“One person’s annoying phone call is the way another person is making a living,” she said. Matthews voted no.