I would like to eliminate the exemption for politicians and charities....

The analogy used in the cases at issue is that of a "no soliciting" sign on your door. If you set terms and conditions to the use of your property, the government will enforce that.

Yes, but there also seems to be a set of default terms of use with your physical property. For instance, you don't have to put a sign on your outdoor tap saying "Do not drink", or on your outdoor electrical outlets saying "Do not plug your shit in and use my electricity", why should you have to explicitly say "Do not use my phone to make yourself money"? Most mobile telephone service plans charges you by the minute for those calls, and even some land-line plans charge by the minute.

If, on the other hand, you allow your number to be made public (via the phone listings) and don't specify who can call you, the government can't arbitrarily say that certain people can't call you.

Your address is also in the phone listings, but that doesn't grant public use of your home. Now of course the government says that anybody can come up to your front door and knock, which I guess is the same is someone calling your public phone number (you don't have to answer). And I guess the "Do not call" registry is the same as a "No soliciting" sign, only a well made sign doesn't expire after 5 years. And again, someone knocking on your door doesn't cost you money.

The analogy used in the cases at issue is that of a "no soliciting" sign on your door. If you set terms and conditions to the use of your property, the government will enforce that. If, on the other hand, you allow your number to be made public (via the phone listings) and don't specify who can call you, the government can't arbitrarily say that certain people can't call you.

If the telemarketers want to call me they should have to pay part of my phone service.

Hmmm, ad supported telephone service.....there just might be a business model in there somewhere. Anyone know Larry Page's phone number?

Which courts? and if so why would not this be held up as exhibit A in judicial activisms run amok on a grand scale?

The phone is mine, I own it, I pay for the service, not the telemarketer. If property rights mean anything it should mean that no one has the right, without my specific permissions to use my phone and the service I pay for to sell me something. They have no more 1st amendment right to call me on my phone with the service I pay for then they have a right to paint an ad on my garage.

The courts have also ruled that commercial advertisements are not given full first amendment protections have they not? If the telemarketers want to call me they should have to pay part of my phone service. Opt in should be the law of the land for all commercial advertisements period.

(Sorry I am driven to madness every time I hear about marketing and the first amendment mentioned in the same breath. The founders risked their life for "individual" liberty not marketing.)

Because courts have ruled that that would violate the First Amendment.

Well, there is that. But I'm not sure I see the distinction between banning speech to people who have individually requested to be left alone vice people who have, through their legislature, requested to be left alone. Does the explanation involve a penumbra?

Because courts have ruled that that would violate the First Amendment.