RoboScam: Not Your Father’s Push Poll

The plot thickens.  The automated calls we noted Friday received in the New York Congressional District of Republican Congressman John Sweeney (as reported by the Glen Falls, NY Post Star and the Albany Times Union) do not appear to be an isolated incident.   Very similar calls have been received in Iowa and at least three other congressional districts held by Democrats that match the pattern of a classic "push poll" dirty trick.  Why such calls were also made about a Republican remain unclear, but the answer may be a new high tech development in the inglorious history of political dirty tricks.  Details will follow, but for now, let’s call it "robo-scam."

First, the latest details:  Last Thursday, Iowa attorney, blogger and former Iowa Democratic Party Chair Gordon R. Fischer reported receiving a call very similar to those received in New York (hat tip to alert MP reader Drew Miller).  There were jut two questions asked by an automated recorded voice.  He took notes of the call and posted an approximate transcript online (Fischer tells me by email that his transcript is "close to verbatim, but they did talk fast."  He estimates it as "75% accurate"):

This is a two part survey.

Al Gore strongly criticized President Bush for wiretapping American citizens without a warrant. Congressman Leonard Boswell supports President Bush’s wiretapping program.

If you agree with President Bush’s wiretapping program, press 1.

If you disagree with President Bush’s wiretapping, press 2.

If you are unsure, press 3."

[I pressed 3. I’m really not sure].

The voice continued:

"Here is the second — and last — question. Do you support the re election of Congressman Leonard Boswell?

If you support Congressman Boswell’s re election, press 1.

If you do not support Congressman Boswell’s re election, press 2."

[I pressed 1.]

Thank you for your time." CLICK.

On Friday, Fischer posted an update reporting that he had been "swamped by folks who received the exact same call."   

MP was also contacted by a Democratic pollster who requested anonymity but reported that similar calls have been received in the districts of at least four Democratic members of Congress in addition to Boswell.  All of the calls involved automated surveys that asked only two "questions:" One asked about President Bush’s NSA wiretapping program after mentioning that the member of Congress supported it.  The second asked whether the respondent would support the member’s re-election. 

Memories were hazy on the stated identity of the pollster.  Here is Fischer’s report, again via email:

Unfortunately, [I could remember] nothing — it was very fast.  And the "identifier" was only at the beginning of the call.  I think it was something generic like, American Opinion, or Acme Polls, or something.

MP also heard independently about these calls from two pollsters in Iowa who both recieved similar calls.  One was J. Ann Selzer whose company regularly conducts the "Iowa Poll" for the Des Moines Register.  She received an automated poll call, but hung up before listening to the questions.  However, she definitely remembers hearing that the survey would involve just two questions and it was being conducted by "USA Polling."  She explains via email:

I definitely heard USA Polling and of course because I’m in the industry and I know Jay [Leve of SurveyUSA], I made particular note of the name, wondering if this was a spinoff of his enterprise.  Because I am associated with a prominent local poll (The Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll), I do not respond to polls of a political nature in order to maintain my independent status.

These reports are consistent with those from the calls into John Sweeney’s district in New York.  The Albany Times Union reported one recipient who "recalled hearing something about ‘USA,’ and thought perhaps USA Today was conducting the poll."  Another recipient "thought she heard ‘USA’ mentioned on the call as well."

The second Iowa pollster is now retired and emailed MP to say he too had received an automated survey call that asked two questions, one about Bush’s wiretapping program and a second about whether he would vote for Boswell.  He did not remember any reference to Boswell’s support for the wiretapping program (and so did not consider the call a "push poll").  He also remembered the pollster being identified at the beginning of the call as "SurveyUSA."  [Update:  With his permission, I can report that the retired pollster referenced above was Glenn H. Roberts, former and long-time head of the Iowa Poll at the Des Moines Register].

I contacted Jay Leve of SurveyUSA who confirms that his company has not fielded any surveys in Iowa during 2006 about either Congressman Boswell or the NSA wiretapping program.  They did conduct interviews in Iowa from February 10 to 12 as part of their 50-state tracking program, but again, that survey asked no questions about either wiretapping or Boswell.  However, as Leve points out, the apparent confusion of the retired pollster,

just confirms anew how invidious this is for my organization, (that somebody IN the business could confuse it with SurveyUSA), and then more generally, it speaks to the destructive power of the phone calls themselves (as they should concern all public opinion pollsters, who need trust and cooperation from respondents.)

So here are the facts now in the public domain:  Automated "poll" calls were made into at two congressional districts, one represented by a Democrat, one by a Republican.  In each case, the poll involved just two questions, one about Bush’s wiretapping program and one about support for the incumbent member of Congress.  Most of those called (including a lawyer taking notes) remember hearing that the member of Congress "supports President Bush’s wiretapping program."   MP has heard from a Democratic pollster who prefers to remain anonymous that very similar calls have been received in recent weeks in at least four more districts represented by Democrats. 

As I will explain in an update, the calls into the Democratic districts fit the classical pattern of the dirty trick "push poll," albeit delivered by an automated recording.  The puzzling part involves the calls made into the district of Republican John Sweeney of NY, for reasons that require more explanation, do not fit the usual "push poll" modus operandi.  MP has a theory on that one, which I will explain in an update later today.

UPDATE:  So what is going on here?  To try to connect the dots, a little explanation is in order. 

Let’s start with the definition of a "push poll." Many organizations
have posted definitions (AAPOR, NCPP, CMOR, CBS News, Campaigns and
Elections, Wikipedia), but the important thing to remember is that a
"push poll" is not a poll at all. It’s a fraud, an attempt to
disseminate information under the guise of a legitimate survey. The
proof is in the intent of the person doing it.

To understand what I mean, imagine for a moment that you are an
ethically challenged political operative ready to play the hardest of
hardball. Perhaps you want to spread an untruth about an opponent or
"rumor" so salacious or farfetched that you dare not spread it yourself
(such as the classic lie about John McCain’s supposed "illegitimate
black child"). Or perhaps your opponent has taken a "moderate" position
consistent with that of your boss, but likely to inflame the opponent’s
base (such as Republican voting to raise taxes or a Democrat supporting
"Bush’s wiretapping program").

You want to spread the rumor or exploit the issue without leaving
fingerprints. So you hire a telemarketer to make phone calls that
pretend to be a political poll. You "ask" only a question or two aimed
at spreading the rumor (example: "would you be more or less likely to
support John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate child
who was black?"). You want to make as many calls as quickly as
possible, so you do not bother with the time consuming tasks performed
by most real pollsters, such as asking a lot of questions or asking to
speak to a specific or random individual within the household.

Again, the proof is in the intent: If the sponsor intends to
communicate a message to as many voters as possible rather than measure
opinions or test messages among a sample of voters, it qualifies as a
"push poll."

We can usually identify a true push poll by a few characteristics
that serve as evidence of that intent. "Push pollsters" (and MP hates
that term) aim to reach as many voters as possible, so they typically
make tens or even hundreds of thousands of calls. Real surveys usually
attempt to interview only a few hundred or perhaps a few thousand
respondents (though not always). Push polls typically ask just a
question or two, while real surveys are almost always much longer and
typically conclude with demographic questions about the respondent
(such as age, race, education, income). The information presented in a
true push poll is usually false or highly distorted, but not always. A
call made for the purposes of disseminating information under the guise
of survey is still a fraud – and thus still a "push poll" – even if the
facts of the "questions" are technically true or defensible.

So let’s start with the calls to Iowa and the other districts
represented by Democrats. Please keep in mind that this is a blog and
the judgments that follow reflect MPs opinion. Obviously, we cannot
know for certain the motives of those who placed the calls, but they
have all the hallmarks of a classic "push poll" dirty trick.

One big clue comes from the length. The calls asked just two
questions and included no demographic items. Another is the nature of
the first question. It is hard to imagine a real pollster phrasing a
question like the Gordon Fischer describes whether testing current
opinions or reactions to some potential message. Even if the confluence
of Gore’s opposition plus the Congressman’s support added up so some
sort of message worth testing, a real pollster would first ask about
support for the wiretapping program absent the "message" in order to
gauge its effect.

Probably the most important clue comes from the claim that the
Democrats in question "support" the president on wiretapping. In at
least one case reported to MP, the Democrat has not yet made a public
statement on the Bush wiretaps. In the case of Leonard Boswell, Radio
Iowa reported just last Friday that he criticized the wiretapping program
during the taping of a Public Television program (I am told that it typically tapes on Thursday). While it may exist, I cannot find any other statement online
by Boswell on this subject. So the possibility exists that he spoke out after most of the "USA Polling" calls were made into his
district.

Why does that matter?  At very least, the calls misrepresent Boswell’s current position.  However, consider these calls in the context of Karl
Rove’s recent speech to the Republican National Committee in which he
signaled his intent to make disagreements over the NSA surveillance
program a centerpiece of the Republican campaign:

Let me be as clear as I can: President Bush believes if al Qaeda is
calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to
know who they’re calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly
disagree. This is an issue worthy of a public debate.

So again my speculation: Someone out there would like to see Rove’s
hoped for "debate" occur in as many Congressional races as possible. So
they are making thousands of calls into Districts held by moderate
Democrats spreading the rumor that those officeholders support Bush on
wiretapping. They know that Democratic partisans (like this one) will
be outraged and put pressure on their representatives to harshly
criticize Bush on wiretapping. If the members respond to the pressure,
the dirty tricksters get the debate they hoped for. If not, the
Democrats are forced to put out fires ignited by the push poll in their
base.

OK, you say, that may explain the calls to districts held by
Democrats, but what about the calls into the district of Republican
John Sweeney stating that Sweeney "supports" the president on
wiretapping? What possible motive could those calls have?
MP’s admittedly speculative theory requires some explanation of another
form of fraudulent survey: Those that involve political canvassing
under the guise of a survey.

"Canvassing" is a political activity once performed mostly by volunteers.
They would knock on doors or call voters on the phone, identify their
affiliation with a candidate and then ask whethrer the voters planned to support their candidate. Supporters might get a "get-out-the -vote" (GOTV) reminder call
on Election Day. Undecided voters might receive a
follow-up mailings to win them over.

One problem with the honest approach to canvassing is that many
voters choose to hide their true intentions from partisan volunteers.
Over the years, as political campaigns came to rely more on paid
telemarketing firms to conduct canvassing, the purveyors discovered
that they would get fewer "undecided" responses by pretending to conduct a poll.
Although the paid canvassers never make an explicit promise to keep the responses
confidential, their failure to reveal their true identity combined with the use of the terms "survey" or "poll" convey the same
implicit message. That is why it works.

Survey researchers have a name for this particular fraud when used
to sell products: "sugging," an acronym for "selling under
the guise" of research. Sugging not only violates the codes of organizations like AAPOR and CASRO, it is also now prohibited
by federal law.

The telemarketing laws that outlaw "sugging" do not apply to
explicitly political activity such as push polls or canvassing, in part
because of the constitutional protections of political speech. But
legal or not, canvassing under the guise of a survey is an ethical
breach that exploits the credibility of legitimate polls that protect
respondent confidentiality. Pollsters may disagree among themselves
about methodology, but nearly all agree that protecting respondent
confidentiality is sacrosanct. Canvassing under the guise of a survey
makes a mockery of that principle.

Unfortunately, the latest technical innovations in automated polling
make canvassing under the guise of polling even cheaper and easier than
in the past. Now campaigns can call every voter in a district or state
in a matter of days. And in a climate where the use of "high tech
micro-targeting" based on commercial data appended to voter files is
all the rage, such activity may be proliferating.

MP’s theory is that some or perhaps all of the "USA Polling" calls
discussed in this post may be part of a such a "data harvesting"
scheme. Again, this is pure speculation, but more specifically:

• In
  some districts, such as the John Sweeney’s in New York, the calls are
  intended only to identify individual voters who approve of his
  presumed support for the wiretapping program.

• In other districts
  the sponsors get a two-fer: They can identify voters who approve of the
  Bush wiretapping plan while also using the classic "push poll" tactic
  to sow discord in the Democratic base.

Either way, these calls look like a sleazy, unethical
program of unusual scope. Calling it a mere "push poll" seems
inadequate. So henceforth, let’s give it a name more fitting of its
high tech origins:

Roboscam. 

PS: The scammers rely largely on stealth.  They do their business in such a subtle way that is is almost subliminal.  Those who do suspect foul play usually have nowhere to go with their concerns.  If those of us who
object want to do something about it, we need to use the power of the Internet to pool what we know. So I hope that bloggers who read this
message will link to it and urge anyone who has received similar calls
to email me with the details. Big points (and possibly a reward) to
anyone who can capture an audio recording of one of these calls or any details via caller ID.

[Misspellings of Fischer corrected]

UPDATE (2/23):  Posted here.