The article has some quotable material, starting with,

"What's making people mad is the volume of calls," says Jerry Dorchuck of Political Marketing International, which provides automated calling services to candidates. "People can get 25 automated calls on the day before an election."

It turns out that some states, notable our neighbor to the south Indiana, have taken steps to curb the practice.  Like legislation mandating that campaign signs be cleaned up after the election, as well as a limit on signs near the entrance to a polling place, the use of robo-calls has stood up to court challenges.  

Nineteen states restrict political robo-calls. At least five more will consider limits this year.  The laws range from banning automated calls to limiting times when they occur. Some states require calls to identify who's paying for the call. Other states ban political calls to people on the National Do Not Call Registry for commercial telemarketers. Federal law doesn't restrict calls from political, religious or non-profit groups.

So much for the "freedom of speech" defense that local political parties have given why they can't swear off robo-calls.  If the First Amendment protects such calls, then why does the Federal "Do Not Call" list survive intact for advertisers?  

At the very least, we shouldn't need another campaign law.  The parties involve should realize that this technique is counter-productive.  If the ancients could agree to leave the olive groves and vineyards intact during warfare, then why shouldn't politicians and political movements agree to swear off a technique that doesn't seem to work?