Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview With Tim Searcy, Chris Murray

Aired June 29, 2003 - 09:37   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


KRIS OSBORN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, you may have already heard, there's a very good chance of it. On Friday, the Federal Trade Commission launched a national do not call list. You can get on the list as well. By going to donotcall.gov. Hundreds of thousands of people, actually, have already put their phone numbers on the list.
Officials expect up to 60 million people will eventually add their names to the list. The telemarketing industry is screaming, saying that will mean huge losses of jobs and opportunities, as well. So, we thought it would be a really interesting thing to debate.

Tim Searcy, the executive director of the American Teleservices Association, joins us from Indianapolis. And Chris Murray, legislative counsel for Consumers Union is in Washington.

Thank both of you gentlemen for joining us live for this course on very different sides of the issue. Tim, let's start with you. A proponent of telemarketers. It's fair to say, I suspect, it's a bit lonelier on your side of the debate. What's wrong with the do not call list?

TIM SEARCY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN TELESERVICES ASSOCIATION: Well, I'm not alone. I have 6.5 million people who are employed in this industry who also are very concerned about this.

You have to realize, this is the first time the federal government is really regulating an entire form of commercial advertising all at once. And at the same time in doing that and increasing the number of people who are on existing do not call lists to 60 million, they'll put 2 million people out of work literally overnight, just in the next few months. We think this is terrible, and it's a violation of the commercial speech rights.

Chris Murray, is it a violation of commercial speech rights? Are people losing their jobs? Is this unjust, unfair, and an invasion of privacy, essentially?

CHRIS MURRAY, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, CONSUMERS UNION: I suppose we could say, if you put a do not solicit sign out in front of your house, that in some way that's a violation of some sort of commercial speech right. But the fact of the matter is, I think both Tim and I agree, that you can put that sign in front of your house, and people need to honor it. And I think the notion that I can say no at my front door, but I can't say no at my dinner table is ludicrous.

OSBORN: Now, Tim, I understand you're of the mindset that there are lots of good deals people can receive, things they might want to buy, from telemarketers who might be interrupting them at home.

SEARCY: Well, first to Chris's point. He has to remember the differences between voluntarily and governmentally regulated. When the government decides for you that it's going to go ahead and facilitate that loss of jobs and putting that do not solicit sign in front of your house, that's where we get angry, and that's where we get concerned. But the industry is extremely...

MURRAY: But let's be clear, though, on that point, if I could just say one thing on that point. The government has not decided whether or not consumers will get solicited here. They've simply given consumers the tools to choose. I now have the option as a consumer to say no, I don't want that. Prior to Friday, they didn't have those tools.

SEARCY: But Chris, the consumer already has the right to choose. There are have been voluntary do not call lists in place for ten years. There are state lists, there are commercial means by which you can block calls. Let's face it, at the end of the day, this is a political sound byte by the part of the federal government which has disastrous effects and does not affect the ability of consumers to voluntarily already take themselves off the list.

OSBORN: Well, and Tim, you believe there are different technologies, things like caller I.D., and as you point out, voluntary choice, which make this less pressing in your view, as something that has to happen?

SEARCY: Well, exactly. And overnight, literally, the federal government is going to decide who you can listen to and who you can't. See, I'm not opposed to people signing up voluntarily to not receive calls. The industry is already providing that opportunity. What I am opposed to is the federal government deciding when you signed up not to receive calls, which calls you must still receive.

OSBORN: Tim, I understand that. I'm just a little bit confused. How is the government deciding for you, if you elect and choose independently to call in and be put on this list? How is that the government making a choice?

SEARCY: Well, because they decided that you still can receive calls from prior existing business relationships, from charities, and no great surprise, from themselves. At the end of the day, your phone is still going to ring. This doesn't solve the problems that is perceived to exist.

It's feel-good legislation, which unfortunately still takes 2 million people out of the work force. And these are the hard-to- employ folks. These are folks who are physically disabled, the elderly, part-time students, single mothers. Over 60 percent of our work force is in the minority population who are going to be disproportionately affected by this law.

They're not going to be easily absorbed into an already fragile economy, and we're stuck October 1, with literally millions of people out of work, and at the same time, denying consumers a tremendous vehicle for choice, for lower cost goods, and greater competition.

OSBORN: Chris Murray, the last word to respond?

MURRAY: Sure. Let's not be melodramatic about the effects of this. I think that, again, if you put that do not solicit sign out in front of your door, you can argue that that creates a loss of jobs. There are some people that get limited by that. But that's exactly the point. This gives consumers the tools to choose whether or not they want advertisements at the dinner hour.

SEARCY: Well, Chris, I don't think 2 million people is melodramatic. I would tell you, as well, one of the things that's frustrating to me in this dialogue is that consumers already have so many choices for how they can take themselves off lists...

OSBORN: Thank you very much. Forgive the interruption; obviously a very passionate debate on both sides. Thank you both for your time. Tim Searcy, Chris Murray, we appreciate both of you joining us to talk about this.

MURRAY: Thanks for having us.

OSBORN: Thank you very much.

SEARCY: Thank you, Chris.

OSBORN: Sure.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired June 29, 2003 - 09:37   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KRIS OSBORN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, you may have already heard, there's a very good chance of it. On Friday, the Federal Trade Commission launched a national do not call list. You can get on the list as well. By going to donotcall.gov. Hundreds of thousands of people, actually, have already put their phone numbers on the list.
Officials expect up to 60 million people will eventually add their names to the list. The telemarketing industry is screaming, saying that will mean huge losses of jobs and opportunities, as well. So, we thought it would be a really interesting thing to debate.

Tim Searcy, the executive director of the American Teleservices Association, joins us from Indianapolis. And Chris Murray, legislative counsel for Consumers Union is in Washington.

Thank both of you gentlemen for joining us live for this course on very different sides of the issue. Tim, let's start with you. A proponent of telemarketers. It's fair to say, I suspect, it's a bit lonelier on your side of the debate. What's wrong with the do not call list?

TIM SEARCY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN TELESERVICES ASSOCIATION: Well, I'm not alone. I have 6.5 million people who are employed in this industry who also are very concerned about this.

You have to realize, this is the first time the federal government is really regulating an entire form of commercial advertising all at once. And at the same time in doing that and increasing the number of people who are on existing do not call lists to 60 million, they'll put 2 million people out of work literally overnight, just in the next few months. We think this is terrible, and it's a violation of the commercial speech rights.

Chris Murray, is it a violation of commercial speech rights? Are people losing their jobs? Is this unjust, unfair, and an invasion of privacy, essentially?

CHRIS MURRAY, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, CONSUMERS UNION: I suppose we could say, if you put a do not solicit sign out in front of your house, that in some way that's a violation of some sort of commercial speech right. But the fact of the matter is, I think both Tim and I agree, that you can put that sign in front of your house, and people need to honor it. And I think the notion that I can say no at my front door, but I can't say no at my dinner table is ludicrous.

OSBORN: Now, Tim, I understand you're of the mindset that there are lots of good deals people can receive, things they might want to buy, from telemarketers who might be interrupting them at home.

SEARCY: Well, first to Chris's point. He has to remember the differences between voluntarily and governmentally regulated. When the government decides for you that it's going to go ahead and facilitate that loss of jobs and putting that do not solicit sign in front of your house, that's where we get angry, and that's where we get concerned. But the industry is extremely...

MURRAY: But let's be clear, though, on that point, if I could just say one thing on that point. The government has not decided whether or not consumers will get solicited here. They've simply given consumers the tools to choose. I now have the option as a consumer to say no, I don't want that. Prior to Friday, they didn't have those tools.

SEARCY: But Chris, the consumer already has the right to choose. There are have been voluntary do not call lists in place for ten years. There are state lists, there are commercial means by which you can block calls. Let's face it, at the end of the day, this is a political sound byte by the part of the federal government which has disastrous effects and does not affect the ability of consumers to voluntarily already take themselves off the list.

OSBORN: Well, and Tim, you believe there are different technologies, things like caller I.D., and as you point out, voluntary choice, which make this less pressing in your view, as something that has to happen?

SEARCY: Well, exactly. And overnight, literally, the federal government is going to decide who you can listen to and who you can't. See, I'm not opposed to people signing up voluntarily to not receive calls. The industry is already providing that opportunity. What I am opposed to is the federal government deciding when you signed up not to receive calls, which calls you must still receive.

OSBORN: Tim, I understand that. I'm just a little bit confused. How is the government deciding for you, if you elect and choose independently to call in and be put on this list? How is that the government making a choice?

SEARCY: Well, because they decided that you still can receive calls from prior existing business relationships, from charities, and no great surprise, from themselves. At the end of the day, your phone is still going to ring. This doesn't solve the problems that is perceived to exist.

It's feel-good legislation, which unfortunately still takes 2 million people out of the work force. And these are the hard-to- employ folks. These are folks who are physically disabled, the elderly, part-time students, single mothers. Over 60 percent of our work force is in the minority population who are going to be disproportionately affected by this law.

They're not going to be easily absorbed into an already fragile economy, and we're stuck October 1, with literally millions of people out of work, and at the same time, denying consumers a tremendous vehicle for choice, for lower cost goods, and greater competition.

OSBORN: Chris Murray, the last word to respond?

MURRAY: Sure. Let's not be melodramatic about the effects of this. I think that, again, if you put that do not solicit sign out in front of your door, you can argue that that creates a loss of jobs. There are some people that get limited by that. But that's exactly the point. This gives consumers the tools to choose whether or not they want advertisements at the dinner hour.

SEARCY: Well, Chris, I don't think 2 million people is melodramatic. I would tell you, as well, one of the things that's frustrating to me in this dialogue is that consumers already have so many choices for how they can take themselves off lists...

OSBORN: Thank you very much. Forgive the interruption; obviously a very passionate debate on both sides. Thank you both for your time. Tim Searcy, Chris Murray, we appreciate both of you joining us to talk about this.

MURRAY: Thanks for having us.

OSBORN: Thank you very much.

SEARCY: Thank you, Chris.

OSBORN: Sure.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com