GOP gives telemarketers break

Erin Neff

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 | 10:52 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A move by Assembly Republicans to show caucus solidarity sank a telemarketing registry bill Monday. Democrats called the move a vote for those who interrupt dinner with pesky calls.

Just four Republicans broke with their caucus to vote in favor of Senate Bill 255, which was changed in an Assembly committee to replace its language with the text of the rival Assembly Bill 232.

In its original form SB255, sponsored by Randolph Townsend, R-Reno, would have created a do-call registry for telemarketers with several exceptions.

AB232, sponsored by Marcus Conklin, D-Las Vegas, would have created a do-not-call registry with no major exceptions.

"It's a vote against seniors and Nevada families having a peaceful dinner and not being preyed upon by deceptive trade practices," Conklin said after the 27-15 vote against the amended SB255. AB232 passed the Assembly with little opposition, but was rewritten in the Senate to reflect Townsend's do-call proposal. The Assembly rejected the Senate amendments, and AB232 is back in the Senate's hands.

Testimony in committee stated that do-not-call registries have been approved by the courts, while do-call registries have not.

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, said during debate on the revised SB255: "A 'no' vote today is a 'yes' vote for the telemarketers because it gives them a better chance to come out of this session with no legislation."

Voting as a bloc, the minority Republican caucus cannot sink a traditional bill. But since the telemarketing registry bill raises a fee from telemarketers to obtain the registry, the bill required two-thirds majority to pass. The Republicans can easily do that with their 19 votes in the 42-seat house.

Josh Griffin, R-Henderson and the assistant Assembly Minority Leader, said there was cause for 11 Republicans to vote against a measure they had previously supported.

"We hoped that the flaws would be corrected on the other side," in the Senate.

Republicans were concerned that the do-not-call language would not allow a small business with an existing relationship with a customer -- such as a flower shop -- to phone the customer with an offer.