On October 29, 2001, I received a call - as did many other folks in the Charlottesville area - from TDM Research. The person calling would not give a name and said she could not tell me what the research was being used for or whom TDM research was.

The first question asked was: In general, do you believe gays and lesbians should or should not be allowed to be legally married?

The second question was: In general, do you consider civil rights for gays and lesbians to be more equal rights or special rights?

The third question was: Do you vote only for Democrats, mostly for Democrats, only for Republicans or mostly for Republicans?

Having answers to their questions, the person conducting the interview hung up. And, as you might expect, no number for them came up on my caller ID.

So I inquired by email, who is TDM research? Why were they calling? How would the information be used? And who was their client?

Fortunately, a number of readers referred me right away to http://www.tyson.org/TDM.htm.

According to their website, "TDM Research and Communications" was founded in 1989 to conduct field interviews for Democratic pollsters and to execute small voter-contact programs, projects and other kinds of grassroots operations. Over the years, TDM has grown from an 18-line operation in Birmingham to a 115-line operation with a second center in Austin.

During the 2000 election year, TDM gathered the data for over 350 polls for Democratic pollsters nationwide. As they had in 1998, they did this "without missing a single deadline to a client."

A sister firm of the Tyson Organization, their "primary focus is executing high-quality telephone canvassing and turnout programs in political campaigns." Types of calls they offer include voter ID surveys, persuasion calls and get-out-the-vote calls.

In the recent past, Tyson's client list in Virginia has included Gladys Keating (AD43) and Leslie Byrne (SD34); Jean Brown (SD33); State Sen. Stanley Walker (SD06) and Dave Roberts (HD48) and Lindsay Dorrier (HD58); and Hampton Commissioner of Revenue Ross Mugler, Roanoke Commissioner of Revenue Sherman Holland; Julia Lyman (HD035); the Sierra Club of Virginia and Virginia Citizens' Action.

So what was up with calls made to the Charlottesville area on October 29th?

An October 30th call to Ron James, Human Resources Director in Austin, Texas yielded the following: TDM signs confidentiality agreements with its clients that disallow even discussing the survey.

Could they confirm that TDM was actually polling in the Commonwealth of Virginia on October 29th? Couldn't say.

Could they verify the purpose of the calls, i.e. whether they were voter identification, persuasion calls, or get out the vote calls? Couldn't say.

Could they identify who the client was? Couldn't say.

On October 30, 2001, I also left a phone message for Debbie Diehl at TDM, informing her of a Virginia law which went into effect in July 2000, requiring certain persons responsible for campaign telephone calls to identify themselves.

Subsequently, I received the following response from J.D. Angle, a Vice President at Tysons, saying:

"Debbie Diehl at our sister firm, TDM Research, referred your request to me. We have a confidentiality agreement with our client that prohibits me from providing the information you have requested … I was not able to find a new law requiring the payee to be disclosed when conducting a survey of the nature you received."

Well, busy with impending elections, I sent J.D. Angle back an e-mail citing the relevant part of the Virginia code, 24.2-1014.1 but was unable to get back to him until Wednesday, November 7, 2001.

So what about TDM calls and confidentiality agreements?

It has been a common practice of political pollsters to sign confidentiality agreements with their clients that prevent the disclosure of the payee, since knowing the origin of the call might prejudice answers and knowing the questions plus who's asking them would give information to the opposition.

Virginia code, 24.2-1014.1 only requires that the person making such phone calls disclose the payee before the conclusion of each phone call.

While this would seem to solve the problem of prejudiced answers, this does not solve the problem of disclosure for the client who does not wish to broadcast their strategy to the opposition and to the world.

J.D. Angle with Tysons notes, "we believe that simply hiring us discloses something" since Tyson only works for Democrats and Independent causes.

Since learning of the Virginia law, Angle says, "we will be as diligent as we can about these rules and regulations, and will advise our clients that we are going to do so."

"I think one reason for new legislation in this area is 'push polling,'" says Angle. "We don't do it. And as you know, in the long run the client always gets busted for it."

With regard to Virginia code 24.2-1014.1, State Board of Election employee Lorraine M. Thompson says all pollsters are required to identify who authorized and is paying for campaign telephone calls before the end of the conversation if: "telephone calls (electronic or otherwise) are made to 25 or more telephone numbers in the Commonwealth; calls are made during the 180 days before the general election (November 6, 2001); calls convey or solicit information relating to any candidate or political party participating in the election; and callers are compensated under an agreement with the client."

"You are further advised that neither the State Board of Elections nor the electoral Board or General Registrar of any county or city has investigative authority under the laws of the Commonwealth. Therefore, any person alleging a violation of the Election Laws must file the complaint with the Commonwealth's Attorney of the county or city in which the alleged violation occurred" (Lorraine M. Thompson, electronic mail, November 1, 2001).

The statutory penalty for failure to identify the sponsor of the phone call is $2,500 and, "in the case of willful violation, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."

According to Mary King with the State Board of Elections, no one at the board can recall anyone ever bringing an action over a phone call.

So, what to do? Chances are someone associated with Democrats or with Independent causes made the call. And, calls by TDM would not appear to be a willful violation and would not therefore appear to constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor, assuming TDM was unaware of the Virginia law at the time the calls were made.

Still, in light of gay and lesbian issues which came up in the statewide Virginia campaign in 2001, I am left wondering what purpose the call served, what the difference is between a "persuasion call" and "push polling" and at whose behest the call was made.

I am also left wondering just how TDM Research has changed its practices to conform to Virginia law and how many polling organizations out there are unaware of the Virginia code.

Although I did not receive any such calls myself, I understand that firms associated with Republican individuals and interests also adopted similar practices in the current election cycle. And one firm, Public Opinion Strategies, actually ended up making call-backs as a kind of corrective measure for their mistaken violation of the law in the Rob Bell (R) - Charles Martin (D) race for the 58th House District in Virginia.

If you know what purpose the call by TDM served or who the client was or have thoughts about political pollsters and/or Virginia code 24.2-1014.1 and the way the code is honored by political pollsters, please send your thoughts to george@loper.org where the most representative comments will be placed on my web site with full attribution.