Assembly passes bill to limit telemarketers

Erin Neff

Wednesday, March 19, 2003 | 11:14 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Assembly Democrats won the biggest partisan battle of the legislative session Tuesday by getting approval for a "do not call" registry for telemarketing after Republicans learned they did not have enough votes to block the bill.

Assembly Bill 232, sponsored by Marcus Conklin, D-Las Vegas, passed 37-4 over the opposition of Republicans John Carpenter of Elko, Chad Christensen of Las Vegas, Lynn Hettrick of Gardnerville and John Marvel of Battle Mountain. Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, R-Reno, was absent.

The behind-the-scenes work to whip members from each caucus into voting the way leadership wanted began late Monday and resulted in impromptu breaks for caucus meetings during the floor session.

Assembly Republicans united in an effort to amend the bill to exempt existing business relationships from the proposed registry's telemarketing restrictions. The amendment failed along party lines 23-18, with Angle absent.

The vote on the bill received the two-thirds majority required for passage because the measure contains a new fee to telemarketing companies to purchase the registry.

The two-thirds rule meant that Democrats needed to convert just five Republicans to their position to win passage. One of the Democratic whips was hard at work immediately before the floor session gauging support from Republicans.

With the vote tallies thoroughly aired in caucus, the Republicans opted to express their concerns with the bill by seeking to amend it. Hettrick, the Assembly minority leader, said the amendment to include an exemption for prior business relationships was similar to provisions contained in recently signed federal legislation establishing a national do- not-call registry.

"There is some question as to whether this would include the young person who mows your lawn," Hettrick said of the telemarketing restrictions.

Conklin said he could not support that amendment and preferred the amendment already adopted to the bill. AB232 allows a consumer who wants calls from those with whom he has a prior business relationship to receive those calls. The amendment also allows the consumer to block those calls.

"Do we believe the consumer has a right to determine who calls them or do we believe telemarketers have the right to determine who they call?" Conklin said.

After the amendment failed, Republicans supported the bill to appease consumers and hope a Senate version of the registry contains the provisions they want.

Assemblyman David Brown, R-Henderson, who voted to support the bill, said he thought the measure would end up in a conference committee, with details being hashed out after another measure is heard in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Assembly Majority Leader Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, said she thought Republicans voted for the bill "because they knew that it was a great bill that their constituents overwhelmingly want."

"Some probably voted for it because they knew they did not have the votes to block its passage," Buckley said.

In the Senate a hearing on an alternate measure Tuesday morning led to comments from lawmakers suggesting the Assembly version is dead in that house.

Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno, is sponsoring Senate Bill 255, which would establish a "do call" list. Those who do not want to get calls from telemarketers would not have to do anything to block receipt of calls.

However, SB255 does have an exemption for existing business relationships, meaning that anyone a consumer already does business with can continue to call to offer services and products. It also exempts public utilities, telecommunications companies or financial institutions.

During testimony before the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, Steve Tackes of MCI/Worldcom said he did not think Nevada's registry law was needed, given the federal legislation signed by President Bush last week.

He also said any Nevada registry is unenforceable outside of the state. If a call originated in Indiana, he said, a Nevada consumer would have to be on Indiana's call registry.