[ Search ] [ PDF text ] [ Legislation ]
[ Home ] [ Back ] [ Bottom ]
| [ Introduced ] | [ Engrossed ] | [ Enrolled ] |
| [ House Amendment 001 ] | [ House Amendment 002 ] | [ Senate Amendment 001 ] |
| [ Senate Amendment 002 ] |
92_HB0176gms
STATE OF ILLINOIS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
SPRINGFIELD, 62706
GEORGE H. RYAN
GOVERNOR
August 10, 2001
To the Honorable Members of the
Illinois House of Representatives
92nd General Assembly
Pursuant to Article IV, Section 9 (b) of the Illinois
Constitution of 1970, I hereby veto House Bill 176, entitled
"AN ACT concerning telephone solicitation."
House Bill 176 is a well meaning bill that is described
as allowing residents of Illinois to declare that they do not
want to receive unsolicited telephone calls from businesses
or other organizations. No one likes to have their family
dinner interrupted by calls from people trying to sell
products or solicit donations, but House Bill 176 would do
very little to rectify the situation.
House Bill 176 would not apply to telephone companies
until July 1, 2005.
House Bill 176 would not apply to non-profit
organizations.
House Bill 176 would not apply to any politician or
political organization or polling organization as the
definition of solicitation only covers the purchase or
rental of goods or services.
House Bill 176 would not apply to any company that
already has an "existing relationship" with a customer.
House Bill 176 would not apply to any person who is
licensed by the State of Illinois to carry out a trade,
occupation, or profession who wants to set up a
face-to-face meeting.
In fact, the number of exemptions included in House Bill
176 make it very difficult to identify just which groups
would be covered by this bill.
Signing House Bill 176 into law would send a misleading
message to the residents of Illinois.
People who believe that they should be free from unwanted
telephone calls would rightfully become angry if they have
placed their name on the restricted list only to be bothered
by additional, unwanted telephone calls. This has been the
result in other states that have passed similar laws, in many
cases with fewer exemptions than exist in House Bill 176.
When asked about their experiences, officials in other states
have been unanimous in their advice that before a law like
this is put on the books it should have as few exemptions as
possible. The alternative is unnecessary hostility once the
public realizes that the bill doesn't deliver what was
promised.
Some may argue that taking even this small step creates a
base that can be built upon in future years. I believe the
result would be exactly the opposite as it would be almost
impossible to remove any of these exemptions once this law is
in place. I believe that the sponsors of this bill have their
heart in the right place. They used their legislative skills
to make the compromises that they felt were necessary to pass
this bill.
However, the end result really is different from where
this bill started and I firmly believe that with more input
from the general public, the result could be a better bill
that comes closer to meeting the sponsors' original goals. I
considered an amendatory veto but was concerned that this
might stretch beyond the permitted legal authority so it will
be better to start fresh during the next legislative session.
If members of the General Assembly want to pass a genuine
"no-call" bill I will be more inclined to sign it into law,
but until that day comes the only fair recourse is to veto
House Bill 176.
For these reasons, I hereby veto and return House Bill
176.
Sincerely,
s/GEORGE H. RYAN
Governor