Tags

, ,

No more robocalls?

HB 715 Prohibits using automatic dialing announcing devices in certain situations

Sponsor: Bringer, Rachel (6) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: LR Number: 1806L.02I

Last Action: 02/12/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB715

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

It’d be ironic if Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (r – fear mongering) were to cast the deciding vote against this bill if it made it to the Senate.

Let’s look at the details:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 715

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE BRINGER.

1806L.02I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 407.1095, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to the telemarketing no-call list.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Section 407.1095, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 407.1095 and 407.1100, to read as follows:

           407.1095. As used in sections 407.1095 to [407.1110] 407.1107, the following words and phrases mean:

           (1) “Automatic dialing announcing device” or “ADAD”, a device or system of devices which is used, whether alone or in conjunction with other equipment, for the purposes of automatically selecting or dialing telephone numbers and disseminating prerecorded or synthesized voice messages to the numbers selected or dialed;

           (2) “Caller”, a person, corporation, firm, partnership, association, or legal or commercial entity who contacts or attempts to contact a subscriber in this state by using a telephone or telephone line;

           (3) “Caller identification service”, a type of telephone service which permits telephone subscribers to see the telephone number of incoming telephone calls;

           (4) “Message”, any call regardless of its content;

           [(2)] (5) “Residential subscriber”, a person who has subscribed to residential telephone service from a local exchange company or the other persons living or residing with such person;

           [(3)] (6) “Telephone solicitation”, any voice communication over a telephone line from a live operator, through the use of ADAD equipment or by other means for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods or services, but does not include communications:

           (a) To any residential subscriber with that subscriber’s prior express invitation or permission;

           (b) By or on behalf of any person or entity with whom a residential subscriber has had a business contact within the past one hundred eighty days or a current business or personal relationship;

           (c) By or on behalf of an entity organized pursuant to Chapter 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, while such entity is engaged in fund-raising to support the charitable purpose for which the entity was established provided that a bona fide member of such exempt organization makes the voice communication;

           (d) By or on behalf of any entity over which a federal agency has regulatory authority to the extent that:

           a. Subject to such authority, the entity is required to maintain a license, permit or certificate to sell or provide the merchandise being offered through telemarketing; and

           b. The entity is required by law or rule to develop and maintain a no-call list;

           (e) By a natural person responding to a referral, or working from his or her primary residence, or a person licensed by the state of Missouri to carry out a trade, occupation or profession who is setting or attempting to set an appointment for actions relating to that licensed trade, occupation or profession within the state or counties contiguous to the state.

           407.1100 1. A caller shall not use an automatic dialing announcing device in making any telephone call to a residential subscriber who has provided notice to the attorney general of such subscriber’s objection to receiving telephone solicitations unless the subscriber has knowingly or voluntarily requested, consented to, permitted, or authorized receipt of the message.

           2. A caller shall not use an automatic dialing announcing device unless the device is designed and operated to disconnect within ten seconds after the subscriber terminates the telephone call.

           3. The provisions of this section shall not apply to:

           (1) Telephone calls from school districts to students, parents, or employees;

           (2) Telephone calls to subscribers with whom the caller has had a business contact within the past one hundred eighty days or a current business or personal relationship; or

           (3) Telephone calls advising employees of work schedules.

We could all sign up for the “no call” list and not get any more robocalls from Peter Kinder’s friends? My goodness, what would we do for content around here during an election year if this came to pass?

It appears that some republicans in the General Assembly don’t like the work that Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan has been doing on ballot statements.

HB 695 Establishes a Joint Committee on Ballot Statements

Sponsor: Davis, Cynthia L. (19) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Scharnhorst, Dwight (93) ……….etal. LR Number: 0912L.03I

Last Action: 02/12/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB695

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Let’s encourage even more partisan ballot initiative wrangling here in Missouri since we’d all like to be just like California, eh?

Here’s a solution in search of a problem:

HB 696 Requires Missouri driver’s examinations to be administered in English

Sponsor: Davis, Cynthia L. (19) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Nolte, Jerry (33) ……….etal. LR Number: 1734L.01I

Last Action: 02/12/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB696

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

I wasn’t aware of the fact that the colors on traffic signals were only understandable in
English.

“…Examinations conducted under the authority of this section shall only be administered in the English language so that the applicant can demonstrate his or her ability to read the English language sufficiently to understand highway traffic signs and safety warnings. The director shall neither supply nor permit the use of language interpreters in connection with the written and driving tests required under this section….”

Uh, that’s why most civilized countries in the world, you know, employ recognizable graphic designs in their signs.

So, is the next logical step to have licensed drivers from other countries pass an English proficiency test before they’re allowed to drive here? I mean, you know, it could be a safety issue as this legislation has noted…