https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/29/republican-fundraising-go... -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: AO 2022-14 Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 12:03:20 -0400 From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com> To: ao@fec.gov https://www.fec.gov/data/legal/advisory-opinions/2022-14/ * Opposing the proposal as written. * Permitting unsolicited electronic bulk mail advertisements from political actors is an involuntary contribution from Gmail users. Google's statement that the Gmail service is "free" for its users is inaccurate. As Google admits against interest, Gmail users are subjected to advertisements and also may subscribe to the service. Moreover, data transmission and storage costs are significant. Political electronic bulk mail is distinguishable from physical bulk mail. Electronic mail is receiver pays (via advertisements or subscription). Physical mail is sender pays (via stamps or permits). Therefore, this is not without cost to the recipient. Google reports an immense profit. It is undesirable and unseemly to pay (via advertisements or subscription) and then receive more bulk advertisements. Support a requirement that all political and other bulk senders be "opt-in". Support that that for every bulk message: The requestor must meet reputational thresholds and ensure that their messages are secure, filterable, and follow best practices for the user experience, including for example: (i) “one-click” unsubscribe, which enables a user to efficiently opt out of future communications; (ii) approving and following unsubscribe requests within 24 hours, which respects the user’s choice; and (iii) ensuring that all links in the message can be scanned by Google for phishing and malware detection, which helps to protect the user from harmful content. At our residence, the US mailbox is positioned near the recycling bin. Bulk mail generally goes directly into recycling without being viewed. Sadly, receiver has to pay for recycling (via taxes). Likewise, we expect unsolicited electronic bulk mail to go directly to recycling (the spam folder is automatically deleted, recycling storage). This is a helpful reduction in user data transmission and storage costs. --- I have been a Gmail user for many years. I am also a Google Fi customer. Don't be evil. William Allen Simpson Ann Arbor, MI
On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 12:11:07 -0400, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com> wrote:
At our residence, the US mailbox is positioned near the recycling bin. Bulk mail generally goes directly into recycling without being viewed. Sadly, receiver has to pay for recycling (via taxes).
The incremental cost of unwanted postal mail deposited in a recycling bin in most US municipalities is 0.0000% of the monthly charge. The sender is, however, paying USPS for (however degraded) delivery. This works for me. mdr -- "There are no laws here, only agreements." -- Masahiko
I’m unsure how you came up with this calculation, but I can promise you it’s not correct. Shane
On Aug 1, 2022, at 9:38 PM, Michael Rathbun <mdr@tesp.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 12:11:07 -0400, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com> wrote:
At our residence, the US mailbox is positioned near the recycling bin. Bulk mail generally goes directly into recycling without being viewed. Sadly, receiver has to pay for recycling (via taxes).
The incremental cost of unwanted postal mail deposited in a recycling bin in most US municipalities is 0.0000% of the monthly charge. The sender is, however, paying USPS for (however degraded) delivery. This works for me.
mdr -- "There are no laws here, only agreements." -- Masahiko
On 8/1/22 9:47 PM, sronan@ronan-online.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2022, at 9:38 PM, Michael Rathbun <mdr@tesp.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 12:11:07 -0400, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com> wrote:
At our residence, the US mailbox is positioned near the recycling bin. Bulk mail generally goes directly into recycling without being viewed. Sadly, receiver has to pay for recycling (via taxes).
The incremental cost of unwanted postal mail deposited in a recycling bin in most US municipalities is 0.0000% of the monthly charge. The sender is, however, paying USPS for (however degraded) delivery. This works for me.
I’m unsure how you came up with this calculation, but I can promise you it’s not correct.
Likely bulk mail may be a bit higher here, as this is the household of a former Member of Congress. There is rather a pile of political mail. But that 0.0000% calculation is egregious nonsense for any location. In this household, approximate percentage of curbside recycling by weight is: 70% paper, mostly bulk mail 25% cardboard, mostly Amazon 5% plastic milk jugs This year's recycling plant upgrade was $7.25M, of which $800K was a grant. Remember that grants come from taxes, too. On topic, back in the day (2003), measured bulk email was 80%+ of our traffic. It's not so much percentagewise anymore, because of streaming. I'm willing to guess that it's still on that order relative to email itself. If you have any interest regarding (for or against) an increase of spam traffic, please comment on the FEC proposal. Links in the OP. (Comments due by August 5, 2022)
I welcomed bulk mail after I switched to reading news online - needed something to start the fireplace. If I could I'd ban plastic envelope windows.
On Aug 1, 2022, at 7:38 PM, Michael Rathbun <mdr@tesp.com> wrote:
The incremental cost of unwanted postal mail deposited in a recycling bin in most US municipalities is 0.0000% of the monthly charge. The sender is, however, paying USPS for (however degraded) delivery. This works for me.
Just to clarify, this is specifically about *campaign-related* USPS mail. Because Congress has enjoyed franking privileges (meaning they get to send out USPS mail that is related to their official congressional business at no cost to the congressperson, and instead on the taxpayer's dime) for, well, ever. -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
participants (5)
-
Anne Mitchell -
Dave Taht -
Michael Rathbun -
sronan＠ronan-online.com -
William Allen Simpson