Insanity or Tyranny?

February 10, 2002

by Charles E. Perry

Senator Fritz Hollings, Democrat-SC, recently said that the whole Enron mess proves that we need a constitutional amendment so Congress could limit what a politician spends on running a political campaign. A generous interpretation of the comment would be that Hollings has gone senile, and didn’t know what he was saying, or that he was insane and not responsible. I think the Senator was out to attack one of our fundamental rights, and establish a tyranny.

Think about it, folks, what you give to a candidate, and thus what he can spend, is a fundamental expression of free speech. Your campaign dollars, freely contributed in support of the candidate of your choice, are the only limit on what he can spend on his campaign, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that to limit what a candidate can spend is to limit an expression of free speech in the political arena. Yet here we have a Democrat eagerly saying that free speech, political speech, is exactly what we should allow Congress to limit. Can you get any more tyrannical?

How long would it be, under Senator Hollings maniacal plan, before Congress passed a law saying incumbents could spend whatever they please, but that those who challenge them must be limited? Not long I would imagine. It is obvious that the Senator is calling for an "Incumbents Protection Plan," and that he doesn’t care squat about our right of free speech. The Senator would deny you and I a right which is protected under the bill of rights, and he is so evil that he tries to present this as something good.

We do need to do something about people who buy influence from politicians, but the solution is not to rip away free speech rights from the vast majority of Americans. That’s what Hollings would do, and that’s insanity; tyranny personified. In my opinion, the Senator wants to become a tyrant, firmly ensconced in Washington, free from worry about a challenger unseating him. Nothing else, except that the Senator has gone bonkers, explains his comments.

No, folks, what we should do about campaign contributions is to allow unlimited contributions, but to require full and immediate disclosure. With that, at least, we would know who was buying what politician and possibly be able to do something about it. Under Senator Hollings’ insane scheme, we not only wouldn’t know who was giving what, but we couldn’t counter it with our own dollars. Oh yeah, this is a good idea. (Note: heavy sarcasm)

And there’s another point here: while Hollings cries loud and long about corporate donations, and how we should forbid them, he takes the money! This is hypocrisy of the first order. If he really believes corporate donations are evil, then he should lead the way and turn them down, sort of leading by example. But does he? Nope. Hollings and his PACS have taken money from corporate contributors in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future.

So Fritz Hollings is, in my opinion, a hypocrite and a tyrant, and we should shout him down like the trash he is. Come to think of it, the people of the good state of South Carolina should vote him out. Tyranny such as he proposes has no place in America.

_________________________________________

Charles E. Perry is a freelance writer living in Michigan. He has done a variety of things in his life, including Ward Supervisor at the State of Michigan's Maximum Security Mental Facility. His degree is in accounting, but he discovered writing and now spends his time hunched over a keyboard, hollow-eyed, looking for just the right word. Perry is the author of "How Government Should Work: A Look at the Federalist Papers and the Constitution of the United States," currently pending publication.

Send the author an E mail at Perry@ConservativeTruth.org.

For more of Charlie's articles, visit his archives.