STATEMENT OF ORSON SWINDLE
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART

in Credit Approval Service, File No. X000076

For the most part, the relief in these settlements is entirely appropriate to address the egregious law violations alleged in the Commission's complaint. I do not support the ban contained in Part I, however, to the extent that it covers soliciting charitable donations. For the same reasons I expressed in Federal Data Service, Inc., I do not believe that fencing-in relief that extends to charitable solicitations is justified in this case.⁽¹⁾ Seeking charitable donations is not sufficiently related to the alleged false claims in this case to justify a permanent ban on the solicitation of charitable contributions. In addition, even if such fencing-in relief were reasonably related to the violations alleged, I believe the public interest would be better served if the Commission imposed less restrictive forms of relief than a ban burdening non-misleading, fully protected speech.⁽²⁾

1. Statement of Commissioner Orson Swindle Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part in Federal Data Service, Inc., File No. X000064.

2. See Riley v. National Fed'n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 786 (1988); Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Orson Swindle in Eight Point Communications, Inc., File No. X990004.