Fun_People Archive
2 Jun
Spam Bills in Congress

Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v118.2)
From: Peter Langston <psl>
Date: Mon,  2 Jun 97 12:33:03 -0700
To: Fun_People
Subject: Spam Bills in Congress

Forwarded-by: Keith Bostic <>
Forwarded-by: "John C. Mozena" <>
From: the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail: (CAUCE)

CAUCE News **EXTRA** for Monday, June 2


With two "spam" bills competing in Congress, and at least one more possibly
on the way, Members of Congress are starting to decide which bill to support
and which to oppose.  It is *CRITICAL* that Senators and Representative know
that unsolicited commercial e-mail *is* a big deal to their constituents.

We urgently need every CAUCE member to write their Senators and
Representative, asking them to SUPPORT H.R. 1748, the bill from Rep.
Christopher Smith, R-NJ, and NOT SUPPORT S. 771, the competing bill from
Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-AK. This is *very* important.

According to CAUCE head lobbyist Ray Everett-Church, Members of Congress
are not yet convinced that unsolicited commercial e-mail is something they
should be spending their time on. In his lobbing, he is finding that some
offices don't even know there's a problem with junk email!  You have to tell
them about it!


These need to be *actual* paper letters. For whatever reason, paper means
a lot more on Capitol Hill than electrons. ('s efforts

If you're not sure of who your representatives are, check the Congressional

     House: <>
     Senate: <>

The postal addresses for your members are:

The Honorable <Senator name>     The Honorable <Rep. name>
Washington, DC 20510             Washington, DC  20515

The letter doesn't have to be long... two paragraphs is as effective as 10
pages. And you don't need to write different letters, the same one can be
sent to each Member. (Just remember to change the mailing address!)


* "Junk" email lets the advertisers make a profit while recipients pay the
bill. This "Cost Shifting" was the problem with junk faxes, and is just as
bad with junk email. If businesses are going to make profits, they should
be required to pay the costs of doing business.

* Thanks to the CDA, Members of Congress are wary of anything that smells
like a "ban" or "censorship". Remind them that this is *not* an issue of
censorship, rather it's about stopping deceptive and damaging business

* Tell them that you support a system that requires an "opt-in," where
individuals don't receive advertising they don't want, and don't have to
fight to get themselves dislodged from mailing lists.

* Tell them that you oppose "filtering" or "Opt-Out" approaches because
those approaches do not require the advertisers to bear their own costs.
Filtering requirements cost ISPs and consumers more money, not less!

If you save spam, enclose one or two copies of some of the more offensive
or obviously fraudulent spams you've received. Let them get a taste of this
stuff. (However, we don't want to get them angry with us so don't flood them
with 50,000 copies! One or two will be fine.)

We're making major progress!  News reports have been very favorable and
endorsements are rolling in from consumers and businesses all over the
world!  We have a good bill in Rep. Smith's legislation, one in which CAUCE
representatives have had a lot of input. We need to get Congress interested
in H.R.1748 and we need to do it *now*.

Write those letters and mail them today!



This message was written and broadcast by the Coalition Against
Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail. It is copyrighted (c) 1997 by the Coalition
Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail.

We encourage redistribution of items from this message, as long as they are
not spammed anywhere, are on-topic, and include our copyright notice.  When
in doubt, post the URL of our site instead, or put it in your signature.
Press, broadcast, and Internet media may treat this material as they would
a press release. For other commercial reproduction rights, contact John
Mozena (  If you have other questions or comments about this
message, contact John Mozena (

				# # #

prev [=] prev © 1997 Peter Langston []