I would LOVE to be able to sue political spammers. I donated to many candidates in 2016 and have been getting crazy amounts of text spam from pols ive never heard of for the past 5 years.

Politicians shouldn't have zero consequences for selling my personal data.

You will never be able to do so; campaign calls are exempt from FCC rulemaking not because the FCC is particularly warm to political campaigns (though maybe they are), but because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner.

Municipalities run into a similar problem with those awful circulars that pile up on your front stoop: ordinances to prohibit them have been struct down as unconstitutional. And that's not even political speech, generally!

Stand by while I make the case that politicians filling my phone with texts and voice messages is a violation of the third amendment.

> because the Constitution forbids them from restricting political speech in this manner

What if texts cost you money per-message though? Isn't that why most places get permission before texting you? Do politicians have a constitutional right to drain your money this way?

Freedom of speech isnt freedom to make people listen. If I tell someone to stop calling me and they dont its harassment.

> You will never be able to do so

Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory? Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?

> Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory?

Sure, but amending the Constitution for the purpose of permitting the government to impose greater limits on political speech is...going to be a hard sell for a lot of people, and have a high risk if successful of having pretty severe unintended (for non-autocratic supporters of whatever the particular measure is) consequences.

> Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?

Easier than passing an amendment, similar downsides.

Not in our generation. The current thought process of conservative jurists is that money is speech and the founders wanted corporate entities to have unencumbered speech.

I wasn't paying attention and used one my primary email addresses when donating. Account is basically worthless now. So much spam. Even from candidates in states I've never lived in or currently reside in.

I did too, and so far I've been able to end the messages with "STOP"

They all appear to comply with that older school SMS norm. Who knew?

If you do it for a few, they tend to end overall. Now, instead of getting a few a day (right?!?), I get one out of the blue.

I did not "STOP" Bernie. I like Bernie. I don't like how it went with Bernie and all the people trying for better. Those messages have been considerate, infrequent, etc...

So far, all of the others hit pretty hard and fast, but do "STOP"

This suggests some entities, like Bernie for example, do maintain a list but are not necessarily sharing it. Other entities either share their lists, or will send messages for hire.

Your mileage may vary. Hope sharing these experiences helps.

I saw that as well on the FTC's website [0]. Curious if you can actually prevent them.

[0] https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/national-do-not-call-regis...

Political txt, email and calls are (mostly)protected by the first amendment as free speech. It would be unconstitutional for the government to restrict it with very limited exceptions, mostly related to imminent threats of violence.

Commercial speech can be regulated provided certain requirements are met that are more widely applicable, a four part test is used. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. Also under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel the government can compel commercial speech, require advertisers to include factual disclaimers.

So laws like the CAN-SPAM act prohibit unsolicited commercial advertising via txt or email if certain requirements are not met.

There's a big difference between "freedom of speech" and "requirement to listen". You can speak all you like, but you cannot intrude upon others and force everyone to listen to you.

I'm not constitutionally required to let political campaigners onto my private property (my home), and I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone).

> I shouldn't be required to receive their text messages on my private property (my phone).

A lot of people agree with you but that’s not typically how it works IRL for USPS either. Generally if you keep trying to deny delivery of junk mail your letter carrier will tell you “you can’t just refuse mail”.

Although I think maybe you are supposed to be able to refuse it, just doesn’t work IRL? People are also supposed to be able to send the mail regardless.

I do think it’s a cost issue. Should cost the standard $0.60 stamp per each bulk mailer (bulk mailers are much cheaper.

Text messages and emails should also cost something reasonable which would dissuade abuse. Perhaps “accepting” a text (or at least not rejecting it) would waive/reimburse that fee so “good” texts could be free? Seems easy for this to be abused though by the body public when temporarily enraged against a corporation/small business.

USPS will always deliver mail, but you can refuse to accept it. If your mail carrier doesn't follow procedure, then... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://faq.usps.com/s/article/Refuse-unwanted-mail-and-remo...

I agree with your other points. Stop the subsidies. I'm not sure why spam makes me so irrationally angry, but it does.

But they cant use automated means. That’s what allows them to blast out texts.

Generally, there are two subcategories of TCPA claims: DNC (227(c)) and ATDS/prerecorded voice (227(b)). The latter claims are still available against politicians, last I checked. The latter claims regulate the technology that allows blast calls and messaging with pre-recorded messages.

not legal advice

At least in San Francisco, I took my phone number and email off my voter registration years ago and now almost never get any political texts, calls, or email, despite being quite politically active.