Tuesday, May 20, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Assembly kills telemarketing bill

Supporters fail to muster needed two-thirds majority; another bill remains alive in Senate

CARSON CITY -- Chances of the 2003 Legislature passing a law to stop telephone solicitors from interrupting residents at home dimmed Monday when the Assembly killed an amended Senate version of a solicitation bill.

Members approved Senate Bill 255 on a 27-15 vote, but the measure needed a two-thirds majority because it included provisions that would require telemarketing companies to pay fees to purchase lists of Nevadans who do not want to receive calls.

Any bill that levies a tax or fee needs two-thirds approval to pass.

Moments before the vote, Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, said a no vote would mean the Legislature could adjourn in two weeks without any telemarketing legislation.

"Help every Nevada family eat their dinners in peace by voting yes," she said.

The vote illustrated the wide difference between the Democratic-dominated Assembly and the the Republican-dominated Senate in regard to telemarketing legislation.

Although SB 255 is dead, another telemarketing bill remains alive in the Senate. Members will have to try to settle their differences in a conference committee in the waning days of the session. Two years ago, anti-telemarketing legislation died when the two houses could not reach an agreement.

SB 255 was the Assembly-amended version of Assemblyman Marcus Conklin's Assembly Bill 232. It would have required the establishment of two "do-not-call" lists that telemarketing companies would purchase and abide by, or face charges of engaging in deceptive trade practices.

Under the bill, residents could sign onto a list barring telemarketers from calling. They could also sign another list stating they would accept calls from businesses with whom they have previous relationships.

In contrast, the Senate-passed version of Sen. Randolph Townsend's SB 255 called for creation of a "do-call" list. Residents who signed the list would accept calls from telemarketers. Otherwise, telemarketers could not call anybody.

AB 232 passed the Assembly 37-4 earlier this year and remains alive in the Senate. But senators amended out Conklin's "do-not-call" provisions and inserted Townsend's "do-call" plan. The Assembly refused last week to approve the amendment. If the Senate refuses to recede from its original provision, a conference committee would likely be formed with Conklin, D-Las Vegas, and Townsend, R-Reno, serving as chairs.

After the vote, Conklin said he doubts Townsend's "do-call" plan would pass constitutional muster.

"We would be running the risk of a law that would be held unconstitutional," he said. "We would be the only state with a do-call list."

In contrast, he said 33 states and Congress have passed do-not-call list laws.

In his opinion, a "do-call" law would be held unconstitutional because it essentially would ban all telemarketing, while a "do-not-call" law would regulate such businesses.

"We have to hammer out the details (in a conference committee)," Conklin said. "Quite frankly, as I look at it, I want a piece of legislation that works so people can eat their dinners in peace and seniors won't be preyed upon by telemarketers."

He noted that all 15 Assembly members who voted against the bill Monday were Republicans, including 11 who earlier this session voted for his AB 232 that contained identical language.