“Hi this is Sara, I’m calling with important information about your credit card. Nothing is wrong, but you are eligible for a great opportunity. Stay on the line or press one for more information.”

If you have a working telephone, you have probably received a call just like this or one of a similar nature. Assuming you didn’t hang up immediately, you pressed one to try and speak with a human to get your number taken off their list. And you most likely were met with a “click” signaling that they had hung up on you, rather than taken you off their list.

Free cruises, important information about your credit card, debt collection, calls from the IRS, warnings about a computer virus, and a whole litany of other enticing robocalls are increasing–despite their illegality. In April alone there were 2.5 billion robocalls placed in the U.S.

The FCC defines robocalls as unsolicited, pre-recorded messages that are placed without written or verbal consent. Exceptions are information about flight changes and school closings.

So, if they’re illegal, why are they still happening? The first reason is the ease with which they can be placed. According to the FCC, new technology allows these scammers to use inexpensive autodial technology to call hundreds of numbers a minute, whether they are on the Do Not Call list or not.

Do you want to know how to stop unwanted calls? Read these #FCCtips to #StopRobocalls: https://t.co/kkwwqxlOVK #ProtectingConsumers

— The FCC (@FCC) May 10, 2017

Even though robocalls are difficult to stop, a new string of lawsuits are aiming to curb this problem.

In January, the FTC filed two suits, FTC v. Justin Ramsey, et al. and FTC v. Aaron Michael Jones, et al., against two of the biggest perpetrators of robocalling. Many of the defendants have agreed to a settlement that includes a permanent ban on robocalling in the future, an agreement to never help others to place robocalls, a promise to stop calling numbers listed on the Do Not Call list, and paying a settlement to the FTC of over $500,000. 

In 2012 Grant Birchmeier and Stephen Parkes filed a class-action lawsuit against Caribbean Cruise Line, claiming that the company illegally contacted them and others on multiple occasions. The settlement resulted in Caribbean Cruise Line agreeing to pay up to $500 a call to those who received calls between August 2011 to August 2012.

Unfortunately, these fines and lawsuits are hardly threatening. One scam that pretended to be the IRS, was able to swindle $26.5 million from about 5,000 people, according to the (real) IRS. Telephone companies are working on new technology to block robocalls. But while those are still experiencing some hiccups, there are some preventative measures you can take.

First, don’t answer unfamiliar calls. If someone really wants to get in contact with you, they can leave a message. Most robocallers are testing your number to see if there is a real person at the other end. Not answering prevents them from getting that knowledge. Once they do know there is someone there, that number gets passed around to more and more robocall centers.

If you get any calls like this, submit the suspicious numbers to the FTC at this link: https://complaints.donotcall.gov/complaint/complaintcheck.aspx. Furthermore, you should put yourself on the Do Not Call list. Being on this list won’t prevent all calls from scammers, but it will cut down on some. Here is the link: https://www.donotcall.gov/

You can register for the National Do-Not-Call list at https://t.co/ZeZdjVjejK, by phone 1-888-382-1222 or TTY 1-866-290-4236. #FCC101

— The FCC (@FCC) May 10, 2017

 Finally, never give your bank account information or credit card information over the phone to a stranger. No matter what scare tactics they use (telling you you’re being sued for fraud, telling you your computer has a virus, etc.) do not give them your personal information. It’s always best to hang up and verify that what they are saying is true.

For the near future, it looks like we will be plagued by robocalls. But if you follow these steps, you’re on the way to stopping them.

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Problem with Robocalling–And How to Stop It appeared first on Law Street.

On the most recent episode of John Oliver’s comedy and talk show “Last Week Tonight,” the British funnyman highlighted the insane amounts of money that televangelists bring in. However one of his particular sticking points was the fact that televangelists are tax exempt.

In true John Oliver fashion, he made the point with plenty of sarcasm and hilarity, and actually started his own church “Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption” to prove his point. But Oliver’s expose isn’t just making people laugh–it’s spurring many toward action. In light of Oliver’s segment, many are calling for the IRS to crack down on televangelists.

Oliver particularly focused on television preachers who espouse an ideology called “seed faith.” Essentially “seed faith” means people are encouraged to donate money to the churches, and if they do so, good things will happen to them. This money grab tends to be massively successful for these preachers, especially because all of that “seed faith” money is tax exempt.

As Oliver points out in the segment, pretty much anything can register itself as a “church.” The president of the Trinity Foundation, an organization that investigates religious fraud, stated that: “A few years ago, the IRS named Scientology a church. Since that happened, anybody can call themselves a church.”

There are certain parameters that churches must adhere to in order to qualify for tax exemption, such as having ordained ministers, holding regular services, and having a doctrine. Some of these things are easy enough to obtain, and the toughest part–having a “sincerely-held doctrine”–isn’t subject to scrutiny by the IRS. That’s why organizations like the Church of Scientology, or various endeavors formed by televangelists, are allowed to be defined as churches.

The IRS can technically audit these churches, or more aptly “churches,” but usually doesn’t elect to. According to CBS News, the IRS only conducted three church audits last year, and none between 2009-2013, as it discontinued the practice for that period of time. As Oliver reads on the show from IRS documents:

IRS makes no attempt to evaluate the content of whatever doctrine a particular organization claims is religious, provided the particular beliefs…are truly and sincerely held…and the practices…are not illegal.

The IRS hasn’t responded to Oliver’s claims, even though the video has now gone viral and garnered about four million views.

There’s certainly a huge value to making sure that churches are tax exempt, as it ensures that freedom of religion will be protected, and the policy recognizes that churches undertake many charitable endeavors. But Oliver makes very valid points about the ways in which televangelists operate. As the video continues to be passed around at lightning speed, maybe the IRS will make some changes to its policies.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver Takes on Televangelists and the IRS appeared first on Law Street.

I am a Libertarian.

Well, I think I’m a Libertarian, and I believe that this is in the same sense that I used to think I was a feminist. (I am definitely a feminist.) But everyone’s idea of what being a Libertarian actually means is still evolving.

The other day, I made this confession of politics to my roommate who is very much a Democrat. (My other roommate is a self-proclaimed Communist–it’s a very interesting household.) He responded, “Oh, so you’re one of those people who doesn’t give a shit what anybody does as long as it doesn’t affect you?” We laughed because he was joking, but it did make me think.

I’ve heard people use the word Libertarian as a replacement for Tea Party (um, no) and in association with Ron Paul (um, yes!). That’s pretty much it for references in daily life, other than the stray notion during the 2012 election that there was this mysterious third party on the fringes of society that could maybe be something someday but probably not because two-party system AM I RIGHT?

So let’s have a chat about what this term really means.

And I’ll go ahead and place my disclaimer here: I’m still learning about Libertarianism (as I think the vast majority of society is). Just as there are nuances for Republicans and Democrats (yes there are), what I think about this party won’t align perfectly with every party member.

Wanting this to be more than what the party means to me, I started where everyone seems to start in 2014–a quick Google search. The first result was the party website. Okay, I thought, this is an excellent sign. If they didn’t have a website, I might have to rethink some things.

The first thing I saw on the website was the party slogan (who knew?), which is “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom.” Even though these are my beliefs in a grossly oversimplified form, I still started to panic. Is this crazy? Is this a viable point of view? Then, I panicked a little more when I saw the link to a quick political quiz, which asked, “Are you a Libertarian?” I… I don’t know anymore. Am I? Is my whole system of belief a sham? (I imagined the website asking me in an intimidating, booming voice. I don’t know why.)

Well, I took the quiz and easily landed in the little Libertarian sector. My results didn’t show perfect 100 percent Libertarianism, but that wasn’t what I was expecting. (Side note: The quiz is literally ten questions, I highly recommend it just because it’s interesting.)

Having reaffirmed my party choice, I started to explore its values. First, let’s revisit the slogan. While to me “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom” sounds heavy-handed, “We Should Reduce the Size of Government so Citizens can Have the Utmost Freedom and Control Over Their Own Lives Except When They Need to be Protected from Unjust Harm” just doesn’t have the same snappy ring to it. I would consider “Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative” a strong contender, but it’s probably a bad idea to create a party identity that relies on other parties’ definitions.

Then they have this excellent little table that shows the differences between Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans; however, it’s a little smart-ass-y and doesn’t go into further details, so I’ll explain a few of these that I think exemplify key Libertarian traits.

On education: “Return control to parents, teachers, and local communities.” Essentially, Libertarians believe education shouldn’t be standardized (or, in my belief, as standardized) so a teacher can find what works for his or her classroom. In addition, not all teaching responsibility should be laid on the school system, as learning starts at home. I realize that one can’t count on all parents to value their child’s education (which is a sentence that makes my heart sad), but right now we’re talking about party ideals, not the complexities of execution.

On the war on drugs: “End it! Release non-violent prisoners. Allow medical cannabis.” Why are we spending taxpayer dollars incarcerating someone who wanted to smoke a little weed? Plus, there’s a grievous sentencing disparity in drug-related crimes. Ignoring the racial aspect of drug arrests (because that’s a whole other blog post), punishment for drug offenses is often just plain excessive. As of January of this year, at least 25 people were serving or had served life in prison for selling pot–and not all were at the top of distribution, either. Life. In. Prison. For a nonviolent crime. While rapists and murderers get released. Let me tell you, I would much rather have someone try to sell me drugs than rape or murder me. And that goes for my hypothetical children, too (since the default argument is always “think of the children”). In addition, if medical marijuana can ease a patient’s discomfort (especially in terminal or very series cases), why would we say no? All pharmaceutical drugs used to treat patients come with risks, too. Quite frankly, I’m a little surprised the chart doesn’t just say legalize marijuana use, but maybe that’s still just a little too radical to put on an entire party’s platform.

On military spending: “Reduce spending dramatically. Defense, not offense.” It’s worth noting that these idealistic cuts in military spending come with cuts pretty much across the board. Libertarians aren’t antimilitary, they just aren’t imperialists. Let’s stay out of other countries unless invited or needed to ensure our own welfare. I agree this gets tricky when atrocities are happening abroad, and I’m all for lending a helping hand in theory, but it’s also not quite kosher to storm another country in the name of help at the cost of hundreds or thousands of lives that get caught in the crossfire.

On taxes: “End the income tax. Abolish the IRS. Never raise taxes.” I realize a good portion of readers just rolled their eyes, and I get it, I really do. I’m not sure if we could ever even get to a point where the IRS could be abolished. But I do firmly believe that our tax system is broken, quite possibly beyond repair. And I think if we can’t end the income tax, it should at least be drastically reduced. I would be a lot more comfortable giving my money to the government if they could manage it responsibly, but they just haven’t proven that yet.

This was a central idea Ron Paul expressed when he came to my alma mater, the University of Missouri — Columbia. I wish I could quote him directly, but it was in 2012. Although this was a nearly spiritual experience for me because it was the first time I heard a politician speak and my views aligned accordingly, I can’t quote the Bible, either. However, Ron Paul did a great interview with Charlie Rose in which he defines Libertarianism as nonintervention.

Note: During the video they make the association with the Tea Party again. I still deny this. Maybe there’s something I don’t get about the Tea Party, but these are still two distinctive groups as I understand them. Maybe the Tea Party is the more socially conservative cousin of Libertarianism?

Now, just because I love Ron Paul doesn’t mean I agree with 100 percent of what he says, but I thought this video contained a lot of really good explanatory moments, as well as a few that would need to be elaborated on or revised completely.

I would say one of the biggest concerns about Libertarianism is that it is idealistic. In an ideal world, people wouldn’t need to be policed. But we don’t live there, and I get that. That’s where compromise comes in. I am all for having some standards in education, and I think even if it’s a personal choice to do meth, there are a lot of social, environmental, and safety risks to its production and use. To me, the point of Libertarianism is pushing the government out of where they aren’t needed and reforming the areas where the government is needed to heal a broken system. Stop creating laws to repeal laws–just abolish the unnecessary or archaic ones. Simplify taxes to where an average human can understand them. Don’t tell a group of people they can’t get married so you don’t have to justify your values to your children.

Maybe this third party is just a way for me to rebel against an infuriating system, but maybe the system as it stands is something worth rebelling against.

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I’m a Libertarian, and You Just Might Be Too appeared first on Law Street.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between Christians and atheists this summer. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued the IRS for allowing a church to preach about political issues during services. As religious organizations like churches can have tax-exempt status, they are forbidden from making recommendations about political candidates. While the atheists’ suit was settled, the debate remains far from over. The intersection of American religion and politics is complicated to say the least. From personal appeals to Supreme Court cases, it is hard to find more controversial issues than those involving both church and state. But we should not ignore the topic; rather, it should be tackled head on.

Anti-religious sentiment, or at least sentiment against religion in the public sphere, is alive and virulent. David Silverman, the President of the American Atheists, said that the American “political system is rife with religion and it depends too much on religion and not enough on substance. Religion is silly and religion has components that are inherently divisive. …There is no place for any of that in the political system.”

The American Atheists are at least 4,000 members strong; the FFRF has over 19,000 members who subscribe to the belief that “[t]he history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.” Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Betty Friedan, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. may disagree. American slavery was countered by devout abolitionists like Sojourner Truth. The movement would not have been the same had it not been for those leaders who saw slavery as simply not Christian. The British colonies in America partially owe their origins to the religious movement of the day. People “free from religion” cannot be called superior in Western progressive movements.

Atheism itself is not the issue. But claiming a moral superiority over religious people based solely on their religiousness is a mistake. This extends to the political sphere. Not because any nation should necessarily adopt theocratic tendencies, but because we should treat religion as a social institution rather than a political taboo. Marriage, education, families, and the economy are each social institutions brought up frequently in political discussions. Beyond that, some of the most popular rhetoric connects different institutions to one another; the White House website says that “President Obama is committed to creating jobs and economic opportunities for families across America.” Republican Marco Rubio’s website claims that “Senator Rubio believes there are simple ideas that Washington should pursue in order to improve education in America and prepare our children for the jobs of tomorrow.” Families, jobs, children, and education are all important in American society. They can also be highly personal and emotional when included in our political discourse; what really makes them so different from religion as a social institution?

To the liberals, even if you don’t buy into the idea that religion is an equally important social institution to others, you cannot deny that it shapes America’s politics, and therefore it deserves discussion. Every American president has been Christian and male, but could any liberal be taken seriously while arguing that we can’t talk about gender discrimination in our politics? Barack Obama is the only Black president of America’s forty four, but what Democrat could claim that we can’t talk about race in our politics? In this way, there is a deep hypocrisy in the liberal canon. Further, if religion in politics is shunned by everyone except for Christian conservatives, then the conversation will be dominated by them alone.

To the conservatives, look at the statistics. The Pew Research center shows that people who fall under the group “Protestant/Other Christian” (distinguished by Pew from Catholics and Mormons) voted for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama at a rate of 57 percent to 42 percent. This disparity is actually wider than it was during the 2008 election in which John McCain received 54 percent of the same group to Obama’s 45 percent. Jews in 2012 voted for Obama over Romney at a rate of 69 percent to 30 percent. The widest gaps are those within the groups “Religiously unaffiliated” and “Other faiths” who voted for Obama-Romney at rates of 70 percent – 26 percent and 74 percent – 23 percent, respectively. Reaching out to Latinos and Blacks is proving to be difficult, but there are plenty of non-Christian groups that the Republican party has largely overlooked.

Religion isn’t entirely absent from the political conversation, but where it is present, its place is static and stale. MSNBC will face off right-wing Christians who lambaste abortion and gay marriage against level-headed leftists. FOX News will pit religious people claiming family values against out-of-touch academics. When liberals eschew religious political discussion and conservatives only make room for their Christian constituents, the discussion doesn’t move anywhere. There is not only a need to have bring religion into the rest of our political discussion — to have faith in politics –but to remove it from its stereotypical and often misrepresentative position. Freedom of speech and religious freedom should flourish together with a substantial discussion that allows America to have faith in our politics.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Having Faith in Politics appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/faith-politics/feed/ 4 23714