Two Bills Would Alter Political Advertising, Phone Calling Regulations

Two bills by State Sen. Elliot Shapleigh (D-El Paso) would dramatically alter two major aspects of Texas political campaigns: phone banking and political advertising.

Shapleigh’s SB 307 would require that telephone calls made for candidates or ballot measures must identify the sponsor of those calls in specific language:

(b)  A person making a telephone call supporting or opposing
a candidate, officeholder, or measure must identify the person sponsoring the call by stating:
(1)  “paid for by _______ (name of persons sponsoring the call)”; or
(2)  “paid for on behalf of _______ (name of persons
authorizing call)”.
(c)  A person making a telephone call supporting or opposing a candidate, officeholder, or measure may not state or imply that:
(1)  the caller represents a person unless that person has approved the representation in writing; or
(2)  the caller represents a nonexistent person.
(d)  A person who makes a telephone call, or a person
described by Subsection (a) who directs or causes the making of a telephone call by a person other than a person described by Subsection (a), that supports or opposes a candidate or officeholder or supports a measure, other than a call that would constitute a direct campaign expenditure, must receive the prior written approval of the candidate or officeholder being supported, any sponsor of the measure being supported, or at least one opponent of the candidate or officeholder being opposed. Before the call may be made, a copy of the written approval must be filed by the approving candidate, officeholder, or sponsor with the authority with whom the candidate, officeholder, or sponsor is required to file a campaign treasurer appointment. For purposes of this subsection, “sponsor” means the officeholder who sponsored legislation or an ordinance requiring the submission of the measure to the voters.

While clearly well-intentioned, this legislation would create a significant bureaucracy for political phone banking, especially at the grassroots level. It also seems as though it would hamper activities like individuals calling using “True Blue Action,” the statewide online phonebanking tool used by many Democrats. Since you can’t imply that you represent a candidate without their permission, presumably individual callers would have to provide a disclaimer that they were calling solely on their own behalf and weren’t approved to do so by the candidate.

This would also create a bit of a hurdle for presidential candidates. Many presidential candidates use online phonebanking tools to reach into states like Texas during primaries, as seen this year. I’m not sure how or if presidential candidates could get around this requirement, or what it would mean for the volunteers who would use the service.

Shapleigh’s second bill, SB 306, would essentially write the Federal standards on radio and political advertising in to Texas law. For example, federal candidates are required to have, in their own voice, that they approve a radio message on a radio ad and must have their photo and a voice-over that they approve a message on TV ads. SB 306 would codify similar provisions into Texas law and make them apply to all candidates for office in Texas.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It