Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview With Tim Searcy, Joan Claybrook

Aired September 28, 2003 - 08:11   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.


HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Let's get a little bit more perspective now on the legal fight over the "Do Not Call" list. Tim Searcy is the executive director of the American Teleservices Association.
Good morning to you. We appreciate you being here today.

TIM SEARCY, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN TELESERVICES ASSOCIATION: Good morning.

COLLINS: And Joan Claybrook is the president of the consumer advocacy group called Public Citizen. They both join us from Washington this morning. Thanks once again for being here. We appreciate it.

Let me just ask, to remind our viewers where are we at with all of this now, because there has been so much media attention toward it, what is the current status of all of the pending court cases now on the "Do Not Call" list? Tim, why don't we start with you?

SEARCY: Well, it gets confusing. I mean, the reality is that the FTC has been stopped. The FCC has been allowed to enforce a list that doesn't exist, which gets confusing for consumers. And at the same time, we're anticipating that when we get to Wednesday, we'll have to come up with some means by which to address the needs and interests of the 50 million people who signed up for the list, which is why industry is working so hard to try to get together with Congress, the FCC and FCC to come up with something that's both constitutional and makes sense.

COLLINS: Ms. Claybrook, do you agree with that assessment of where the situation stands?

JOAN CLAYBROOK, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC CITIZEN: Well, the judge in Denver, Judge Nottingham (ph), has ruled that the FTC program is unconstitutional. We disagree with that. The basis for his decision that is you can't distinguish between commercial callers on the one hand, and charities and religious organizations, politicians on the other.

Our view is that there is a distinction. The court has long made a distinction between commercial speech and speech by these other entities, often referred to as political speech.

The key issue here is that 50 million people have said they don't want to receive these phone calls. In other words, they have spoken. And I don't think that commercial speech rules when there's an unwilling recipient. And that really is a key issue in this case.

The other issue, to me, that's incredibly important here is that, rarely do consumers have the clout to overrule businesses who give large campaign contributions and lobby Congress day in and day out. And here, because the public has been given the opportunity to speak, they have made their views known. And the Congress, for once, has listened to the public speak and said that they support the public's right to not be interfered with at dinner time, to have the right to privacy from this commercial calling.

COLLINS: Mr. Searcy, let me ask you a question that you have probably been asked before. But, were you surprised when you learned about that number, 50 million people signing up for this? What did that say to you?

SEARCY: Well, it says to me that with the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, we have some responsibilities that we need to address. We understand that it's not business as usual. We have an obligation to change the way in which that we are working with U.S. consumers.

But we have to keep in mind, even though the opinion goes towards 50 million people saying they don't want to receive calls, the behavior says that 360 million people are interested -- or 360 million transaction occur every year. You know, we only do this because it works. We do $380 billion annually of commerce selling goods and services.

This is not something that's unwanted. People can't distinguish between the calls they don't want and the calls they do want until after they've heard an offer by phone.

COLLINS: Ms. Claybrook, do you agree with that?

CLAYBROOK: No. I think that the key issue here is that commercial speech is of a different ilk than the other kinds of speech, at least protected in the First Amendment. You can even argue here that this is not a First Amendment issue, because the First Amendment applies to government requirements. And here, there is -- the issue is that the vote has been given to the people, the people have voted, and they have been making the decision. So you could even argue that there's no First Amendment issue here because the government's not requiring this.

SEARCY: But I would say, Joan, that if you're honest in this -- you have very good rhetoric, but unfortunately the law and the facts don't agree with you.

CLAYBROOK: Well, that's incorrect. That's incorrect.

SEARCY: When you're honest about it...

CLAYBROOK: And I'm honest, by the way.

SEARCY: The difference between me and you is that I have a federal judge that agrees that we have a First Amendment right and that you cannot make a distinction between commercial speech, charitable speech and political speech.

CLAYBROOK: And other decisions have ruled differently.

SEARCY: And they will not continue. At the end of the day, this is a constitutional issue.

CLAYBROOK: Well, I don't think that's right. This is going to go to the court of appeals and the Supreme Court. My view is that the Supreme Court is not going to rule in your favor in the end.

SEARCY: Well, if you read "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post," you'll find...

COLLINS: Mr. Searcy, let's hear the end of her comment so that we can make sure that we hear from the both of you for equal time, which is what we always try to do here. Ms. Claybrook, finish your thoughts. And Mr. Searcy, I'll give you the last chance.

SEARCY: Yes, ma'am.

CLAYBROOK: There are other decisions on commercial speech, although the decisions on commercial speech go in a number of different ways. But the basic decisions on commercial speech say there are distinctions to be made between commercial speech and political speech. And that you can make distinctions here, and it depends on the circumstances of the case.

COLLINS: Right.

CLAYBROOK: Our view is that because 50 million people have said they do not want to get these calls, they unwilling recipients, that commercial speech does not prevail. And we believe that the Supreme Court will rule this way.

COLLINS: All right. Quickly, Mr. Searcy, the last word. Just a few seconds here.

SEARCY: Certainly. The bigger issue is that a ringing phone is a ringing phone. And even if Joan was correct, the problem is, is that when you pick up the phone you don't know who you're talking to. The government does not have the right to decide who you can listen to and who you can't.

That doesn't happen under the U.S. Constitution. Judge Nottingham (ph) was correct. The 10th Circuit will agree, as well will the Supreme Court.

COLLINS: And we'll find out probably a little bit more this week. All right. We appreciate the time from both of you. Tim Searcy, executive director of American Teleservices Association, and Joan Claybrook, the president of a consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen, thanks to the both of you this morning.

CLAYBROOK: Thank you.

SEARCY: Good morning. Thank you. 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 September 28, 2003 - 08:11   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Let's get a little bit more perspective now on the legal fight over the "Do Not Call" list. Tim Searcy is the executive director of the American Teleservices Association.
Good morning to you. We appreciate you being here today.

TIM SEARCY, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN TELESERVICES ASSOCIATION: Good morning.

COLLINS: And Joan Claybrook is the president of the consumer advocacy group called Public Citizen. They both join us from Washington this morning. Thanks once again for being here. We appreciate it.

Let me just ask, to remind our viewers where are we at with all of this now, because there has been so much media attention toward it, what is the current status of all of the pending court cases now on the "Do Not Call" list? Tim, why don't we start with you?

SEARCY: Well, it gets confusing. I mean, the reality is that the FTC has been stopped. The FCC has been allowed to enforce a list that doesn't exist, which gets confusing for consumers. And at the same time, we're anticipating that when we get to Wednesday, we'll have to come up with some means by which to address the needs and interests of the 50 million people who signed up for the list, which is why industry is working so hard to try to get together with Congress, the FCC and FCC to come up with something that's both constitutional and makes sense.

COLLINS: Ms. Claybrook, do you agree with that assessment of where the situation stands?

JOAN CLAYBROOK, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC CITIZEN: Well, the judge in Denver, Judge Nottingham (ph), has ruled that the FTC program is unconstitutional. We disagree with that. The basis for his decision that is you can't distinguish between commercial callers on the one hand, and charities and religious organizations, politicians on the other.

Our view is that there is a distinction. The court has long made a distinction between commercial speech and speech by these other entities, often referred to as political speech.

The key issue here is that 50 million people have said they don't want to receive these phone calls. In other words, they have spoken. And I don't think that commercial speech rules when there's an unwilling recipient. And that really is a key issue in this case.

The other issue, to me, that's incredibly important here is that, rarely do consumers have the clout to overrule businesses who give large campaign contributions and lobby Congress day in and day out. And here, because the public has been given the opportunity to speak, they have made their views known. And the Congress, for once, has listened to the public speak and said that they support the public's right to not be interfered with at dinner time, to have the right to privacy from this commercial calling.

COLLINS: Mr. Searcy, let me ask you a question that you have probably been asked before. But, were you surprised when you learned about that number, 50 million people signing up for this? What did that say to you?

SEARCY: Well, it says to me that with the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, we have some responsibilities that we need to address. We understand that it's not business as usual. We have an obligation to change the way in which that we are working with U.S. consumers.

But we have to keep in mind, even though the opinion goes towards 50 million people saying they don't want to receive calls, the behavior says that 360 million people are interested -- or 360 million transaction occur every year. You know, we only do this because it works. We do $380 billion annually of commerce selling goods and services.

This is not something that's unwanted. People can't distinguish between the calls they don't want and the calls they do want until after they've heard an offer by phone.

COLLINS: Ms. Claybrook, do you agree with that?

CLAYBROOK: No. I think that the key issue here is that commercial speech is of a different ilk than the other kinds of speech, at least protected in the First Amendment. You can even argue here that this is not a First Amendment issue, because the First Amendment applies to government requirements. And here, there is -- the issue is that the vote has been given to the people, the people have voted, and they have been making the decision. So you could even argue that there's no First Amendment issue here because the government's not requiring this.

SEARCY: But I would say, Joan, that if you're honest in this -- you have very good rhetoric, but unfortunately the law and the facts don't agree with you.

CLAYBROOK: Well, that's incorrect. That's incorrect.

SEARCY: When you're honest about it...

CLAYBROOK: And I'm honest, by the way.

SEARCY: The difference between me and you is that I have a federal judge that agrees that we have a First Amendment right and that you cannot make a distinction between commercial speech, charitable speech and political speech.

CLAYBROOK: And other decisions have ruled differently.

SEARCY: And they will not continue. At the end of the day, this is a constitutional issue.

CLAYBROOK: Well, I don't think that's right. This is going to go to the court of appeals and the Supreme Court. My view is that the Supreme Court is not going to rule in your favor in the end.

SEARCY: Well, if you read "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post," you'll find...

COLLINS: Mr. Searcy, let's hear the end of her comment so that we can make sure that we hear from the both of you for equal time, which is what we always try to do here. Ms. Claybrook, finish your thoughts. And Mr. Searcy, I'll give you the last chance.

SEARCY: Yes, ma'am.

CLAYBROOK: There are other decisions on commercial speech, although the decisions on commercial speech go in a number of different ways. But the basic decisions on commercial speech say there are distinctions to be made between commercial speech and political speech. And that you can make distinctions here, and it depends on the circumstances of the case.

COLLINS: Right.

CLAYBROOK: Our view is that because 50 million people have said they do not want to get these calls, they unwilling recipients, that commercial speech does not prevail. And we believe that the Supreme Court will rule this way.

COLLINS: All right. Quickly, Mr. Searcy, the last word. Just a few seconds here.

SEARCY: Certainly. The bigger issue is that a ringing phone is a ringing phone. And even if Joan was correct, the problem is, is that when you pick up the phone you don't know who you're talking to. The government does not have the right to decide who you can listen to and who you can't.

That doesn't happen under the U.S. Constitution. Judge Nottingham (ph) was correct. The 10th Circuit will agree, as well will the Supreme Court.

COLLINS: And we'll find out probably a little bit more this week. All right. We appreciate the time from both of you. Tim Searcy, executive director of American Teleservices Association, and Joan Claybrook, the president of a consumer advocacy group, Public Citizen, thanks to the both of you this morning.

CLAYBROOK: Thank you.

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