Bill Bennett: “Of course the Government has no business doing that. That is the point we made on Friday when we were having the debate.…”

“Of course the Government has no business doing that. That is the point we made on Friday when we were having the debate. Even if we grant the argument raised by the Senator from Wisconsin and his 126 experts that it can be done in a way that is constitutional, we recognize that it cannot be done in a way that makes sense. It is possible to craft a system that meets the narrow requirements of the Constitution in terms of protecting free speech, but it is not possible to do one in a way that makes any logical sense at all. I had risen to ask my colleague this question about the example we have before us. We are being told this is constitutional because it is voluntary. And I suppose that is the reason these 126 scholars have signed the letter. As long as you agree in advance to give up your constitutional rights, then the Constitution will not defend you. The Senator from Kentucky has said it isn't really voluntary. There is a huge incentive which the Senator from Kentucky describes as a gun pointed at your head to see to it that you are voluntary. So it is not voluntary. This is the question I had in mind. We have an example before us of people giving up their constitutional rights in return for Federal dollars. There are some who are so unkind to call that a bribe. But in the Presidential system now, virtually every candidate for President accepts the bribe; that is, he or she accepts the Federal dollars in return for agreeing to limit their speech.”