Despite broad support, the U.S. Senate has blocked legislation to create a federal shield law, which would prevent journalists from being forced to disclose sources of information to the government.

It’s a needed law. Almost every state has one. Maine is one of the newest, enacting a shield this year. The law created several tough conditions government must meet to compel journalists to reveal confidential sources.

The purpose of a shield is two-fold: to protect the American press in its watchdog role, and to protect their sources from potential retaliation or retribution by those who wish to silence their right to speak freely.

A federal shield for journalists is an absolute necessity. The Information Age has transformed the newsgathering process; a hodge-podge of shield standards state by state is an unnecessary complexity that should be replaced with clear federal guidelines.

Journalists must be free to do their jobs without fear of lawsuit or subpoena, an all-too common scenario which infringes on the cherished constitutional freedom of the press.

There are day-to-day needs for a federal shield as well. Journalists should never become information-gatherers by proxy for private attorneys or the government – regardless of whether the matter is of national prominence or picayune importance, the information collected by journalists should be shielded.

Only in clear cases of criminal behavior, when all other avenues are exhausted, and a distinct public interest is at stake, should compelling a journalist to reveal their source of information be considered.

It’s a sensible threshold that deserves placement in American legal code.

Yet the federal shield bill has stalled because of political factors. Republicans oppose it because of partisan rancor over Democratic opposition to certain energy policies. National security officials are also obviously against ceding any of their subpoena power, especially toward such fertile fields as journalists’ notebooks.

A federal shield has broad support, including from both presidential candidates. The House of Representatives has endorsed it. But the U.S. Senate, embroiled in politics, blocked its progress this week by a razor-thin margin.

The Senate vote was 51 to 43, with 60 votes the magic number for the shield to progress. But both presidential candidates missed the vote, as did two other Democratic senators, whose party is the shield’s support base.

So the final vote was tighter than it seemed.

Sen. Susan Collins supported it. But Sen. Olympia Snowe did not; she stood with the Republican opposition, and has expressed concerns about national security and the bill’s controversial definition of a journalist.

The latter is not a concern. Maine lawmakers, faced with this quandary, struck the proposed definition of journalist and passed the bill without debate. Congress can do the same.

Snowe is waiting on compromise legislation before re-evaluating her vote. Our stance is her position should resemble her position in 1979, when she, representing Maine in the House, introduced legislation similiar to a shield.

The shield is stuck in party politics. It will take an influential senator, skilled at cross-aisle negotiations, to break the stalemate. There is no better person to do this than Snowe, whose opinions carry weight with her colleagues.

We urge the senator to support the shield.

And get a few friends to come along, too.