Don't waste public's time, senator

Sometimes there’s something to be said for making a point with legislation, but it’s really just a waste of time when the bill is patently unconstitutional like one that is aimed at restricting news organizations from editorializing on elections.

Mind you, it appears that Sen. Chas Vincent, R-Libby, sponsored Senate Bill 320 in order to tweak the nose of the state’s voters who approved Initiative 166 even though it was plainly unconstitutional.

There is obviously no way that a newspaper could be prevented from writing its own editorial, or publishing the opinions of citizens about an election or candidates. So Sen. Vincent is just being cute when he suggests otherwise.

The First Amendment expressly protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which is why American newspapers have been editorializing on politics and elections for more than two centuries. Nothing is going to change that.

So how do time and resources from the legislative services shop get spent on a bill that is clearly unconstitutional, and how does it pass a Senate committee on a 7-5 vote as it did on Friday?

This isn’t one of those debatable gray areas, such as states’ rights legislation that pits the 10th Amendment against the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause for the federal government. This is an affront to common sense.

You could make a case that there is a place for satire and spoof in legislation, but we doubt you would find many voters sympathetic to that idea. It’s the Senate, not “Saturday Night Live.”

Vincent wryly crafted the bill as if he actually wanted to implement the will of voters who passed Initiative 166, which partly directed policy makers to create a level playing field when it comes to campaign spending. The ballot initiative was a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and declares that corporations aren’t human beings and don’t have constitutional rights and therefore can be banned from participating in electioneering.

You might even think that Sen. Vincent agreed with I-166 if you just read the bill’s proposed changes in the Montana Code, but it’s the “whereas” clauses at the beginning of the bill that give away his real intention. In particular, he notes that one Montana Supreme Court justice wrote about I-166 that it “simply does into the wind what most Montana children learn to avoid early in life.”

Legislators all seem to be aware of the joke, but we are afraid this is just going to confuse well-intentioned citizens who think the Legislature is serious about getting the people’s work done.

If Vincent’s bill was mainly aimed at illuminating how I-166 is at odds with  Citizens United, we think this is an odd way of making a point. We refer Mr. Vincent back to another one of his “whereas” references and ask if it doesn’t apply to Senate Bill 320 as much as anything, namely:

“...shooting popcorn at a brick wall will accomplish nothing, even if it makes one feel good.”

Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Daily Inter Lake’s editorial board.