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!
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?
Could the constitution not be amended, at least in theory? Or the supreme court create a new interpretation?
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.
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.
Politicians shouldn't have zero consequences for selling my personal data.