I know this will come as a shock to most of my dear readers, but as it happens, I am a bit of a nerd (Ed: No!). It is true, and I have always been one. I was on the safety patrol in elementary school, and in high school, I started up the astronomy club. I have always been interested in learning about, well, just about everything. Nerd, to be sure. But to my fellow nerds out there, especially the young ones, as it turns out, being a nerd is not a bad thing.

When the Air Force sent me twice in the late 1990s to work on the staff of the White House National Security Council, I made a wonderful discovery — nerds run the world. The top levels of government, of business, of media (Ed: Hey, wait a minute…), and more are all dominated by people who grew up wondering how things worked and who read a lot of books. So being a nerd is a good thing.

And so, like my fellow nerds out there, I have a well-turned copy of the U.S. Constitution next to my computer, in easy reach when I need to check something. And I encourage you all to re-read the document from time to time. Too much attention is paid to the “sexy” parts, like the First Amendment, and too little is spent on the, well, more nerdy parts, like Article 1, Section 4.

I was reminded of the importance of this section when I read the recent Colorado Politics “Out West Roundup,” section talking about the Montana race for the U.S. Senate. I recommend this section of CP highly, as we in the west need to keep up to date on what is happening in our region.

It seems that the good people of Montana are being subjected to even more political advertising about their Senate race than we are here in the Centennial State. With a population of just over 1 million folks, Montana is a huge state with a tiny populace. But the Founders, in their 18th century wisdom, gave every state two senators regardless of population. That is how we end up with a single county in California, for example having more people than seven western states added together. The Californians get two senators, and those other folks get 14. That is an example of why we should alter the Electoral College, but that is for another column.

Montanians (Montaners? Montanaites?) have seen over $118 million poured into their state for and against the Democrat and the Republican candidates. Dems see a chance to snag a critical seat away from the GOP, and the Republicans are running scared in this supposedly deep-red state. Hence the resulting spending that equates to roughly $184 per voter up there in the Big Sky state. That comes out to about 10 times more spending per voter than we are seeing here in Colorado. That is, to use the poli sci professor fancy word — nuts.

Now, I am a political junkie and I have spent much of my professional life studying American politics. Yet I do not enjoy non-stop political ads (especially the negative ones) and I know of no rational person who does.

Which, of course, brings me back to Art I, Section 4…

The words that start that section seem rather technical and dull, but they could prove to be immeasurably important if we really want to do something about runaway political spending. The Founders wrote, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof” (though the U.S. Congress can overrule them if need be). So, what does that mean? The time and places parts are easy, but it is the “manner” part of the sentence that might be the most important. The Founders clearly are saying that the various states have the power to shape the manner in which their elections are held. 

And what is part of that manner? Things like how you get to be a candidate (usually by collecting signatures) and how various state officials oversee the balloting. But I propose a bolder idea: let the states regulate the “manner” of political spending — to include advertising — within their own state borders. 

Now, I can already hear the argument that such actions by a state legislature would violate the First Amendment (think Citizens United), but my counterargument would be that the “manner” issue is addressed in the actual body of the Constitution, while the First Amendment is, well, an amendment. So, if, Montana decided that political advertisements on TV could only be shown in the three weeks before voting starts, I think that would pass constitutional muster. Similarly, if Colorado’s state legislature banned third-party political advertising on TV, we would see far fewer negative ads and we might be able to study the candidates better. If we mind our manners (Ed: terrible pun), we might make our campaign seasons more reasoned and less shrill.

I know this is a crazy idea, but the nerd in me thinks it just might work.