The Political Chase

Fines Could Exceed $1 Billion for NC Robocalls

Women’s Voices, Women Votes (WVWV), a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization, may be subject to more than $929 million in fines for generating tens of thousands of robocalls to North Carolina voters last week. According to the state’s Attorney General’s office, WVWV may have violated the state’s telephone solicitation laws.

In addition to the $929 million in fines the state may levy on the non-profit, WVWV may also be liable for paying recovery fines to residents of N.C. that may, depending on the actual number of voters called, range anywhere from $91.1 million to $911.2 million.

If the maximum amounts are levied (criminal and civil) on the non-profit, WVWV would face fines and penalties totaling a staggering $1.841 billion. It should also be noted the penalties discussed here are for violating the telephone solicitation laws only. Any alleged voter suppression matters are separate and not covered in this post. I felt that $1.841 billion was enough for at least today.

Chris Kromm of The Institute for Southern Studies (Facing South) published an investigative report last Wednesday that resulted in a firestorm on the Internet, and widespread concerns throughout the country and in the N.C. Attorney General’s office. Kromm’s report strongly implied that robocalls made by WVWV and its affiliates were targeting African Americans with an objective to suppress votes.

According to the 2000 Census, approximately 28 percent of North Carolina’s eight million residents are African American.

On Wednesday, N.C. Acting Senior Deputy Attorney General Gary R. Govert issued a cease and desist letter  to WVWV’s attorneys, Licthman, Trister & Ross, and also advised WVWV, through their counsel, that the "robocalls appear to have been made in violation" of North Carolina law. An investigation by the Attorney General’s office was initiated the same day.

Page Gardner, President of Women’s Voices, Women Votes, issued a statement apologizing for "any confusion" WVWV’s calls "may have caused." Other reports have quoted Gardner and other spokespersons for WVWV as saying the robocalls were a "mistake." However, WVWV has a long history of creating widespread chaos and making almost exactly the same "mistakes" in numerous other states. Arizona, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Virginia are just a few examples. 

In North Carolina and several other states, WVWV routinely launched their massive robocalls and mailing efforts after voter registration deadlines, had already passed, which has fueled substantial speculation as to the non-profit’s motives.

The fines previously quoted are based on a N.C. statute that provides for a fine to be imposed for every call the telephone solicitor (WVWV) makes that violates the statute. Specifically, N.C.G.S § 75-105(a)(1) determines the penalties to be:

Five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the first violation, one thousand dollars ($1,000) for the second violation, and five thousand dollars ($5,000) for the third and any other violation that occurs within two years of the first violation.

According to Alex Koppelman at Salon, WVWV made 182,236 calls in North Carolina. From there, the calculations are simple. Apply two calls at the $500 and $1000 rate, and the remaining 182,234 calls at $5,000 per call.

The recovery fees (to voters called) are based on N.C.G.S § 75-105(b)(2), which states:

An action to recover five hundred dollars ($500) for the first violation, one thousand dollars ($1,000) for the second violation, and five thousand dollars ($5,000) for the third and any other violation that occurs within two years of the first violation.

Since these penalties are based on the number of times a person is called, rather than how many calls were made to all voters, the penalties would likely vary. Moreover, since any recovery must be initiated as a civil action, if WVWV is charged and found guilty, the recovery matter would likely be handled as a class action suit against WVWV.

N.C. law does provide for a reduced penalty of $100.00 per call if the telephone solicitor can in fact prove mistakes were made. The basis of the penalty for mistakes is obviously derived from an expectation of competency on the telephone solicitor’s behalf.

Facing South has all the details of the development of the case.