• Scope – Question 3 [67 FR 4537]
  The proposed rule appears to create a double standard for charitable organizations. Currently, legitimate charities, like the March of Dimes, depend upon outside telemarketing firms to assist with fundraising and volunteer recruitment. Outside firms are able to manipulate large amounts of data through sophisticated computer software and have the capacity to make telephone calls in a highly cost-effective manner.
  For example, through the use of telemarketers, the March of Dimes was able to place 20 million telephone calls in order to recruit 1.2 million volunteers for our Mothers March ® fundraising program in 2001. Although the March of Dimes is a large charitable organization, the costs associated with setting up and operating an in-house telemarketing system are prohibitive. Generally, non-profits that conduct in-house telemarketing campaigns are able to do so on only a very small scale. Although the “USA Patriot Act of 2001” (P.L. 107-56) includes charitable solicitations as a class of covered telephone calls, we do not believe Congress intended to give charities that conduct in-house telemarketing an advantage over those that cannot afford the cost of an in-house system.
  
  Further, we are concerned that the changes proposed to the Telemarketing Sales Rule will impose great new costs on charitable organizations without any corresponding benefit to the consumer. The rule creates a false distinction between telephone calls made by telemarketers on behalf of charities and telephone calls placed directly by charities. From the consumer’s perspective, a call from a contract telemarketer working on behalf of a charity is still a call from the charity. Telemarketers can be expected to pass on the costs of scrubbing names to the charity as well as the cost of any required technological upgrades. The net result is that a greater percentage of the charity’s revenue will have to be devoted to fundraising and volunteer recruitment, leaving fewer resources for community services, research, education and other mission activities. The consumer is ultimately hurt because fewer dollars are going to the charitable cause as more dollars are diverted to telemarketing compliance.
• Definitions – Question 3 [67 FR 4537]
  The definition of “charitable contribution” as “any donation or gift of money or any other thing of value” is vague. Specifically, it is not clear from this definition whether a solicitation for volunteers would be considered “any other thing of value.” A typical fund raising model is to solicit volunteers who then ask their friends and neighbors for donations. Volunteers are also recruited from within the business community to enlist their colleagues to support charitable causes. Often, the actual telephone solicitation is for volunteer time not a financial contribution. We encourage FTC staff and Commissioners to improve the clarity of the definitions and to specifically exclude requests for volunteer time.
• Definitions – Question 4 [67 FR 4537]
  The definition of a “donor” does not accurately reflect the nomenclature used by the industry. Within the field of fundraising, a “donor” typically refers to an entity that has contributed money, goods or services in-kind. Being a “donor” connotes an established relationship with the non-profit charitable organization. A person who donates time is referred to as a “volunteer.” A prospective donor or volunteer is referred to as a “prospect.” Use of the word “donor” to connote either a donor or a prospect is confusing.
  
  The March of Dimes suggests deleting the definitions of “Customer” and “Donor” and substituting the term “Consumer” to define any person who is or may be required to pay for goods or services offered through telemarketing or any person solicited to make a charitable contribution through telemarketing.
• Abusive Telemarketing Acts or Practices – Question 6 [67 FR 4539]
  If implemented, a national “do not call” registry maintained by the federal government should preempt state lists. Otherwise it will simply add to the number of lists in current use, thereby increasing transaction costs for consumers and charities. Intrastate calls could be managed by allowing states to “opt in” to the national “do not call” list. Current State “do not call” lists have resulted in a patchwork of regulations that
  create confusion about which organizations and activities are covered and which are not, especially in the area of charitable solicitations and volunteer recruitment. A national registry could, if properly constructed and managed, provide consistent “one stop shopping” for consumers and telemarketers.
• Abusive Telemarketing Acts or Practices – Question 9(c) [67 FR 4539]
  The March of Dimes is concerned that, if this section of the proposed rule is not modified, legitimate charitable organizations could be penalized and their ability to maintain established donor relationships significantly harmed. At the March of Dimes, prior donors and current volunteers make up more than 2/3 of recruited volunteers. The most generous donors and volunteers are those who have a prior relationship with the Foundation. Their contributions represent 80% of the revenue generated for our Mothers March ® program, totaling $23 million in 2001. Repeat donors and volunteers are the most committed to the March of Dimes mission of promoting maternal and child health. If the Foundation cannot contact prior donors and volunteers on the basis of a preexisting relationship then the effectiveness of our fundraising program will be jeopardized. Moreover, if this portion of the proposed regulation is not changed, consumers will lose the opportunity to hear from organizations they support and funds previously used to operate health, education and social welfare programs will be used to offset increased fundraising costs. Every dollar that is directed toward telemarketing compliance is a dollar less for much needed charitable services.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. We look forward to working with you to ensure that consumers are protected from fraudulent telemarketing without interrupting or damaging the ability of legitimate charities to carry out vital, research, education and community-based services.

Sincerely,
Jennifer L. Howse
President