Constitutional fairness

by Bill Jones, Stevensville

Is it starting to look like the concept of fairness in American society as a whole is unraveling, or is it just me? Wasn’t a sense of fairness in our social behavior one thing so cherished that reaction to a lack of it resulted in social behavior such as tea being dumped into harbors? Then, eventually, a world renowned whole new country? That was a social arrangement built around the concept of fairness, and literally forbade unfairness in as many ways as they, at that time, could foresee. One example could be cited, that of the endorsement in any way and to any degree, of laws or the exception to laws of faith based ideas, practices or organizations were to never be. It was important in the 1700’s to not disrupt fairness to all by burdening some for the benefit of others. Kind of a “Don’t tread on me” thing. Fairness to all for any chance that any church might influence any law. The English kingdom and church had settled this issue.

Fairness for business practices is another area where our national, as well as our state, have drawn distinct lines in the sand. In fact, a read of the 1972 Montana Constitution discloses that fairness had not been emphasized near enough in the original. Monopolies are now regulated! For nearly 51 years now. Some enterprises are just naturally monopolistic, which is okay so long as the social arrangement provides for fairness, right? Utilities are regulated for this reason, regulated by the people to maintain a win-win condition at all times. 

So I am questioning whether fairness is about to be chipped away, perhaps even at an accelerated pace here in Montana. The 68th legislature is now sworn and the paperwork tells it all, no matter the campaign speeches, billboards and advertising. It’s not an overwhelming task nowadays to go online and google Montana Legislature and work down the menus to see the text of proposed bills your House District and your Senate District legislators are attempting to turn into law, perhaps even changing our Constitution. You can phone in an opposition. You could email one with a simple “Joe.Blow@legmt.gov” for a brief comment about SB### or HB### they authored, sponsor, or will be voting on.

Do Congress peeps ever support efforts that will negatively affect the citizens in their district who voted for them? No, I’m not a comedian. Let me just cite one example of this new session’s funny business: the freshly elected Senator in Great Falls area (SD10) actually proposed to remove the ratepayer’s representation in hearings when utility companies argue for rate increases and such. (Article 13, General Provisions, has but 6 provisions, called Sections. Section 2 rules that there shall be an Office of Consumer Counsel to furnish the representation of the regulated utility customer’s interests in the cases before the Public Service Commission). The Senator’s plans may or may not be dashed. I’m just saying there are many hundreds of plans being laid that will require vigilance, exposure and protest. Or bye-bye fairness.

Quite likely, the real culprit is a double barreled problem. One: Voters voting straight down ballot for candidates of “their party” with no idea whether the candidates are going to get squishy with the promises. Two: Not finding out by checking out for news about what your candidate has been up to. We must object to false prophets and use the resources as if fairness matters.