Congressman’s Office Says Constituent Calls Are ‘Harassment’

VampElvis

Pimbot Threadkiller
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
0
Points
31
Congressman’s Office Says Constituent Calls Are ‘Harassment’

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/03/19/the-heat-is-on-congressmans-office-says-constituent-calls-are-harassment/

Wasn't sure where this would fit so I made a new thread. I found the article interesting.
Yesterday, I decided to call Rep. John Garamendi’s (CA-10) office in Washington, D.C. He’s my representative and I wanted to voice my opposition to the Senate Health Care Bill. I spoke with a female staffer and politely told her that, while I support health care reform, I oppose the Senate Bill because it wasn’t true “reform.” She said the Congressman thinks it’s a good bill and that he campaigned on health care reform. I told her I knew that. I also mentioned that I voted for him. When I tried to give her specific reasons why the Senate Bill would harm our system rather than reform it, she refused to listen. She said she was very busy and hung up on me. Being the persistent person that I am, I kept calling back. Each time I tried to finish my point, she hung up.

I called one more time. This time she said, “If you call one more time, we will notify Capital Police.” I asked why my conduct warranted involving federal law enforcement agents. She said I was “harassing” her. I tried to explain that trying to convince a representative to change his or her vote didn’t constitute “harassment.” Before I could fully explain, she hung up again.


I called back. This time, I asked to speak to her supervisor in order to report her repeated hanging up as well as the threat she made. I was placed on hold. Thinking I was holding for her supervisor, I was shocked when a Federal Agent with the Capital Police picked-up the telephone.


At first, the Agent was curt with me. He claimed I was harassing Mr. Garamendi’s staff by continually calling after being told to stop calling. I asked him when it became a federal crime to lobby a congressman. He said that it wasn’t but it was a crime to “harass” congressional members and staff pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 223. I told him I was an attorney (which I am) and that I would research the statute he had cited.



After researching 47 U.S.C. 223, I called Mr. Garamendi’s office again and asked to be transferred back to the Capital Police Agent. The Agent picked up the phone and I explained to him that the statute he cited was not controlling since it only prohibits people from calling with the specific intent to harass. I further explained that I was simply trying to voice my concerns with the intent of getting Mr. Garamendi to change his mind, not to harass his staff. The Agent eventually agreed with my position and said he would call Mr. Garamendi’s office and instruct his staff that I was within my rights to call my congressman and voice my concerns.


After I hung up, I realized that this story should be told. Besides being an attorney, I’ve also had the privilege of serving this great country in the United States Marine Corps. Having seen the ugly legislative process the Senate Bill had been through, I saw this as not just another tactic to pass the Senate Bill at all costs, but also as an affront to our liberties.


While I’m fortunate enough to be able to legally challenge what happened today, others aren’t. The sad part is the democrats know this. They know that Americans unfamiliar with federal jurisprudence can easily be silenced when threats to involve federal agents are made. They know that most Americans don’t want trouble and they’ll go away rather than face the possibility of having to explain themselves to federal agents. That’s why I found this tactic appalling, as a Marine, as an attorney and as a proud American.


During my final contact with Mr. Garamendi’s staff, it was confirmed to me that he would vote for the Senate Bill no matter what. I was told that I was wasting my time by calling. Mr. Garamendi is a junior member of the House of Representatives. He was just elected via a special election last November. He has made it clear that he is willing to forsake his constituents in order to please the Speaker of the House.
Speaker Pelosi has said that she will stop at nothing to get the Senate Bill passed. She publicly stated that she would “pole vault over a wall” if barriers stood in her way. While that may be an amusing spectacle, it is indicative of what happened to me today. Apparently, threatening Americans with federal crimes to silence them is the latest tool in Speaker Pelosi’s dirty bag of tricks.


In the coming days, I’m sure more stories will develop illustrating the “win at all costs” tactics being employed by democrats. It’s these tactics that have appalled a majority of Americans to the point that the Senate Bill has overwhelmingly been rejected by the American people. When we try to explain that to Speaker Pelosi’s Caucus, we are threatened with criminal sanctions. We are told to shut up or face federal agents. Such treatment may be acceptable in the former Soviet Union, but it’s repulsive in the country I love and served. Is this hope and change?
 
If I call someone and they tell me to stop calling, and yet I continue to call, sounds like harassment to me.
 
Not when the call is placed to an elected official according to the law, as is detailed in the article.
 
Yeah, I read the article and didn't convince me. Dude is just whining that his representative isn't going to vote how he wants him to. Like he's the only person represented.
 
I guarantee that there's more to this than this one side of the story, and knowing how (let's put this nicely) passionate and persistent some people get about their political views, I can totally believe that what this person saw as lobbying, others could perceive as harassment.
 
Exactly. A stalker doesn't think that they're stalking someone. They just wanted to tell that person what they felt, to convince them to be with them. But they haven't gotten their nerve worked up yet.

A pedophile doesn't think that they're harming that child. They believe that it's a pure expression of love that a lot of people in the world has corrupted.
 
I assumed that this was Alan Grayson when I read the title. :funny:
 
Apparently this congressman didn't get the memo sent to all Dems to be polite, and and talking points they were to use.

Most I heard on Fox last night, about the face to face meetings that the Tea Party people did when they met with their congress person was that they were polite, and answered their questions....same with the phone calls for those that actually got through.
 
The past two days I called as many of the Reps in the State of Texas I could, I got through to very few, I emailed all of them, which is what I normally do because I have them grouped, so one email goes to all.

It was pretty much the same thing....Republicans, Not voting for it...the Democrats, a few said they were voting for it, the few that I did get through to, most said they were waiting for the final wording. I will get emails back from all I'm sure by tomorrow, they are very good at getting emails returned.

No one was impolite, I was very strong with my opinion, but they were cool. Gene Green's people are always very polite, I guess because they know their offices are right down the road from me....lol I'll come visit in person.
 
If I call someone and they tell me to stop calling, and yet I continue to call, sounds like harassment to me.

Agreed. It's one thing to call in and voice your concern or opinion, it's entirely different to continue to call and call and call after it's clear that the person you're calling does not intend to listen to what you have to say. The congressmen, in my opinion, is within his rights to say, "Stop calling me because I don't care what you have to say.
 
Despite the fact that his constituents tax dollars are paying for the phone line, the office, the office staff, etc?
 
Last edited:
^ yeah. those lines are busy as it is, others should have opertunity.
 
One thing I noticed that was different, that I've never seen before until just these past couple of days was the fact that when I go to the usual site with the list of Texas Congresspersons, I could usually just hit their email and go...NOW, all but about 2 of the 12 Democrats now have it set up where when you hit their email it takes you to a site where you have to put in your zip code, and the only site you get is the Congressperson in your district, no others. I thought that was pretty interesting....doesn't matter to me, I already have their emails in a group to send out all at once, but if this was your first time, you would probably stop there and not go on further.

Keeps people from talking to them that are not in their district, but IMO, it should be easy for me to speak with ANY representative of Texas. I'm not into calling/emailing reps in other states, but I have no problem with people emailing other reps in their state.
 
Agreed. It's one thing to call in and voice your concern or opinion, it's entirely different to continue to call and call and call after it's clear that the person you're calling does not intend to listen to what you have to say. The congressmen, in my opinion, is within his rights to say, "Stop calling me because I don't care what you have to say.

I assume this is sarcasm.
 
Despite the fact that his constituents tax dollars are paying for the phone line, the office, the office staff, etc?

Your tax dollars pay for police cars... Police guns... Hell the police! But you don't get to drive their cars, shoot their guns, or otherwise prevent them from doing their job.

I assume this is sarcasm.

Not at all. I'm totally in favor of people telling their representatives what to do. I'm also in favor of their representatives doing whatever the hell it is that they think is best even if some people don't like it, hell it's why they were elected.

This congressman's choice to ignore a caller will obviously have a negative effect on his re-election opportunity. So be it.
 
And it is impossible for any politician to please everyone, let alone in a district with almost 600,000 people.
 
True, and I totally understand where frustration can fly in....but much like I have this little voice inside my head that starts screaming "you're a teacher, take the high road" when little asshats decide to show their asses in the halls of our school....well a little patience, and remembering who I am goes a long way.

But, without having been there, and knowing both sides of the situation...its hard to really know what opinion to take on the issue.
 
Exactly. A stalker doesn't think that they're stalking someone. They just wanted to tell that person what they felt, to convince them to be with them. But they haven't gotten their nerve worked up yet.

A pedophile doesn't think that they're harming that child. They believe that it's a pure expression of love that a lot of people in the world has corrupted.

Maybe I'm just tired, but are you seriously comparing calling your congrassman to being a pedophile?
 
Maybe I'm just tired, but are you seriously comparing calling your congrassman to being a pedophile?

No. I'm saying that the individual that makes phone calls that the recipient considers harassment, does not view it to be harassment.
 
Last edited:
One thing I noticed that was different, that I've never seen before until just these past couple of days was the fact that when I go to the usual site with the list of Texas Congresspersons, I could usually just hit their email and go...NOW, all but about 2 of the 12 Democrats now have it set up where when you hit their email it takes you to a site where you have to put in your zip code, and the only site you get is the Congressperson in your district, no others. I thought that was pretty interesting....doesn't matter to me, I already have their emails in a group to send out all at once, but if this was your first time, you would probably stop there and not go on further.

Keeps people from talking to them that are not in their district, but IMO, it should be easy for me to speak with ANY representative of Texas. I'm not into calling/emailing reps in other states, but I have no problem with people emailing other reps in their state.

What is wrong with the site directiong someone to the representative that represents their district. If I live in District-1 of my state and can only vote for the District-1 representative what is the significance of someone from District-3 telling my Representative how to vote. The people in District-3 cannot vote for my rep. What if the concerns of the people in District-1 are Diametrically different from those people living in District-3.

There is nothing wrong with being directed to the rep that serves your district, is it?
 
Last edited:
I don't believe I said it was a problem, I found it interesting the timing of the change.

The Reps for Texas, are making decisions for Texas, therefore I can and will speak with all representatives from my state.

Again, I never said it was a problem, or that it was wrong.
 
I'm content with speaking solely with the one that represents my district. The other districts and how the representatives vote is for the residents of those districts to deal with. If a resident of the 1st congressional district of TN doesn't like how the representative of the 9th congressional district (my district) votes, good.
 
Last edited:
The fact is Addendum, using this health care bill as an example. The votes of ALL representatives in the State of Texas impacts me. Therefore, why would I not want them to have my input, since even though they may be in a different district, their vote WILL impact me.

The Representative of my district Gene Green has said he is voting yes...I voted for him, but won't be voting for him next time, his seat is in jeopardy THAT IS WHERE him being my districts rep comes into play, not in just his vote....all Texas reps votes impact me. BUT, his vote on this issue is not the ONLY vote that impacts me as a Texan, the other 31 votes impact me as well....and then the 2 votes in the Senate will impact me as well....

I don't advocate calling other states Reps....(mainly because I want those state's citizens to have a chance to speak with their reps...and not take up that time that should be theirs) but within your own state, every vote of the reps of that state impact you whether you voted for them or not. I know you don't care about that impact, but it doesn't make it less of an impact, just makes you more apathetic.
 
I don't believe I said it was a problem, I found it interesting the timing of the change.

The Reps for Texas, are making decisions for Texas, therefore I can and will speak with all representatives from my state.

Again, I never said it was a problem, or that it was wrong.

I agree but I am just saying one district may not care about the concerns of another districts. Yes they represent the state but they also represent the people that voted or can vote for them.

In a state with a considerable number of Federal reps I can see their rationale
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"