And the "Do Not Call" saga continues. The first court ruling seemed to lack credence, but Congress quickly circumvented it by changed the FTC's authority on the matter. Last night's ruling, however, seems to-in my mind, at the very least-be more formidable and according to this article from the front page of today's Washington Post, might actually create some problems.
I recognize that this is a democracy and legal citizens have the ability to register to vote and elect their representatives, but I don't think that the argument that "50 million people can't be wrong" is necissarily binding. Did those 50 million people take the time to read the structure of the law and all the fine details each Congressional document is bound to include? How many people would have thought that charity groups are still permitted to telemarket? I'd argue that because this appeals to the masses in such a unique way, it appears very clear-cut, hence its huge support base: no more annoying phone calls from strangers trying to sell you stuff when you're credit card is already maxed out and you're still paying for the container of milk you bought two years ago due to fiscal irresponsibility.
Like every issue, there are pros and cons. This will, as the New York Times pointed out earlier this week, result in as many as 2M phone-solicitation jobs lost within months. How would one twentyfifth of those who support it feel about the same law if their jobs were at stake? Granted, a phone call is not as ignorable as junk mail and billboards are, especially when receiving several phone calls within a short time span after a long, hard day at work. But at a time when our economy needs more jobs, this fact alone would persuade me to vote against it...and the fifty million.