Leave it up to our Georgia

State Ethics Commission to say, 224 years later, that

under Georgia law he would have had to.

When Fayette citizen Carl

Avrit made the fateful decision last September of warning

people that taxes were coming, taxes were coming, unless

people showed up at the polls to oppose them, he could

hardly imagine then that his patriotic act would embroil

him in what appears to be a major First Amendment issue.

That issue is whether the

government can compel people to dilute their political

messages with costly and largely meaningless additions.

Like a sales tax that adds to the price without adding to

the value of an article, these additions burden and weigh

down the important messages to which they are attached.

The Avrit case, like many

others, is the result of circumstances, and totally

unintended, I am sure, by Mr. Avrit. A broadside born of

pettiness is what gave it life, and while most of the

buckshot missed the target, one pellet struck what is

turning out to be a vital artery of our freedoms, the

right of free speech emblazoned in our First Amendment.

So Mr. Avrit, out of

patriotism, sponsored phone calls warning our citizens

that extra sales taxes were coming unless they showed up

at the polls to oppose them. Does the government, which

wanted to increase our taxes, have the right to set up

barriers to our awakening the citizenry to its plans? Is

it wrong to encourage people to vote? (Judging from

recent newspaper reports, the mayor of Peachtree City is

likely to say No.) Is it right to impose costly

requirements on citizens who want to encourage people to

vote? How far can the government go?

The most recent newspaper

accounts we have indicate that Mr. Avrit plans to appeal

the Dec. 20 state Ethics Commission's decision to require

identifying tags, costly in both money and impact, on

organized phone solicitations related to elections. I am

grateful that we have a judicial system that would allow

him to do just that.

While a decision at the

superior court level will hardly be more meaningful than

the state Ethics Commission's decision, the next level of

decision-making could make legal history. In fact, this

case has the potential to go all the way to the U.S.

Supreme Court, and that could affect the whole country.

When I read newspaper

editorials purporting to give advice to Kremlin leaders

about Chechnya, or about events in Bangladesh or China, I

often think what a waste of time and paper all that is.

There are serious legal issues right here at home that

are plainly overlooked, and which it would be more useful

to consider.

In the Avrit case, the

issue is how far can the government go in regulating what

people say to influence voters. This case, if approached

from a broad enough perspective, could result in our

getting the government off our backs when we, the people,

are about to make our ballot box decisions. A lot of good

might eventually come from this case, and it might do

Paul Revere proud!

Claude Y. Paquin

Fayette County