Tough CRIMINAL PENALTIES for Misleading Robocalling!!!!!

No accusations against any campaign in particular here because it's not clear precisely who was responsible for the robo-calling-- but there have been many reports about slanderous robo-calling directed against the Obama campaign.

I am an Edwards supporter but first and foremost an <b>American voter who cares about the integrity of our democracy</b>, and tactics such as robo-calling are a mockery, an embarrassment, a direct affront to the integrity and survival of our democratic system. Some people like to say that "All's fair in politics," but it's precisely this idiotic attitude that leads to disputed elections, rage and ultimately, violence as we've seen in many nations, when people have a sense of disenfranchisement. Elections in democratic nations such as the USA are supposed to be conducted with decorum and most of all, a respect by all sides of the basic sanctity of the electoral process itself. The whole point of having elections, rather than candidates (literally) knocking each other off, is to foster a system whereby discussion of issues and evaluation of leadership are used to decide who runs the nation. If this process is insulted with such repugnant tactics, then we have no democracy in effect.

Considering the temptations to attack the foundations of democracy, therefore, Congress must act quickly to pass federal laws providing for harsh, tough punishments of those who participate in undermining our democracy, with acts such as

1. Robo-calling
2. Suppressing voters (including GOTV efforts) at voting sites
3. Electoral fraud and vote total alteration

Add to this:

1. Paper ballots only, as are used in other democracies
2. Redundant hand-counting of ballots by independent officials as well as representatives from the campaign teams, and optical scan-checking to ensure proper tallying.

Again, the punishments need to be tough, including: Jail time, heavy fines and widespread reporting of the crimes. This is in practice, the only effective deterrent to preserve our democracy, and we must be aggressive in passing laws to defend it. When the temptation is so high to undermine our democracy, the punishments must be tough to discourage this!

On Edit: Clarified here that the objection is to Robo-calling using false identification, especially the type that purports to be from a backer of one candidate's campaign saying offensive things for example. A classic BSing tactic that undermines the integrity of the campaign.

you're smoking some bad hemp.

Everyone uses it, from Barack Obama to Mike Huckabee.

"Hi, this is (name of candidate) calling. I am calling to ask you for your vote on (date of primary). If you need a ride to the polls, we'll be happy to help. Please call (telephone number) and ask for (generic coordinator name or title) and we'll help you exercise your franchise. Thanks again, and remember, Vote (name) on (date)."

The benefits FAR outweigh the occasional dirty tricks. You can get a massive increase in percentage with robocalling.

The issue here is the kind of robo-calling where the caller purports e.g. to be a backer of a certain campaign and then says things "in that campaign's name" that are designed to embarrass the candidate. Tactics like this play to our worst instincts and undermine our democracy.

They're ten times removed from the person who is initiating them, and often as not, they're done by Party A but crafted to make the caller think that they just HAVE to be coming from Party B.

I don't think you'll have any success. What constitutes a 'bad' call? One that gives a laundry list of a candidate's shortcomings? How do you "prove" that the caller was "knowingly lying?"

Embarrassment is part of politics, unfortunately. The best defense is a strong offense.

Answer every charge, and never let crap like that fester.

Such robo-calling leaves traces behind and, while efforts can be made to hide the origins of the call, someone with technical expertise and a little detective work can track down the sources.

When you combine this with criminal penalties (and the incentives for someone to "bust a robo-caller") you foster an environment that strongly discourages such tactics. It's chiefly a deterrent.

If a candidate is wrongly maligned, and fights back and gets good press so as to be seen so doing, then the very attack can produce a groundswell of sympathy for the wronged candidate and increase voter turnout.

That's what happened with Clinton. NH was a groundswell of blowback, and I think some of that blowback--which was covered very positively by the press--carried over to NV.

Again, and not to be a PITA, I'll repeat what the robocaller will argue--that they didn't "knowingly" impart false information. You've got to have an element of INTENT to convict, otherwise, you could convict if someone gets any small detail wrong.

Also, and this is the inconvenient truth: Lying in America isn't a crime--unless you do it under oath.