PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 9, 2009
Stop M-Spam Abuse as a Sales Industry Habit Act of 2009 or the SMASH Act of 2009 - Requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue regulations to revise the Telemarketing Sales Rule to explicitly prohibit, as an abusive telemarketing act or practice, the sending of any electronic commercial message containing an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone number that is assigned to a commercial mobile service and listed on the FTC's do-not-call registry.
Prohibits interpreting anything in this Act to preclude or override the applicability of specified provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 or the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 or rules prescribed under specified provisions of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act.
People & committees
Rep. Gingrey, Phil [R-GA-11] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1391 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1391 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1391 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1391 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.