LANSING -- As political automatic phone calls become more prevalent, legislators are taking steps to control them.

The Senate has passed several bills that would require robocalls to clearly identify which, if any, candidate authorized the message and who paid for it, said sponsor Sen. Bill Hardiman, R-Kentwood

Another bill is pending that would require a cell phone user's permission before his or her phone number can be made public, Hardiman said. It is partly intended to prevent robocallers and telephone directories from getting those numbers.

"People would mind if their cell phone number was published without their permission." he said.

A standard robocall is under 30 seconds and usually talks about the reasons for voting for a particular candidate, said Ryan Steusloff, director of political services at Wilson Research Services in Washington, D.C. Wilson Research provides consulting and other services for businesses and political campaigns.

"Sometimes, it's just to remind people to vote," he said.

Hardiman said some automated calls are purely negative, attacking a candidate without revealing who sponsored the call.

That can be confusing or downright annoying, he said.

Hardiman said he hasn't authorized robocalls in his own campaigns, but supporters have made them on his behalf.

Robocalls were still somewhat novel in the 2004 elections, said Dave Drwenske, a Cadillac resident who worked on last year's campaigns for Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard for U.S. Senate and Dick DeVos for governor.

But in 2006, "everyone and their brother" started using them, he said.

It costs only a few cents for each call, Drwenske said. "It's cheap and proven to be effective."

Some people get annoyed by robocalls, especially if they receive several in a day, he said.

"By the end of the campaign, there were multiple death threats (against campaign staffers) from annoyed people," he said.

Robocallers don't pull names randomly from a phone book, Steusloff said. They go through voting records and tailor messages to specific demographics.

"We'll have a message that targets pro-lifers, for instance," he said.

Although limiting robocalls could be interpreted as a First Amendment issue, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan doesn't object to the bill, said legislative director Shelly Weisberg.

And Hardiman said, "It doesn't hurt freedom of speech."