You do love to argue style over substance. Very revealing. And tedious.

It's neither inaccurate nor insulting to say you're ill-informed on this issue. You either don't care to learn or refuse to acknowledge what's happened in other communities with similar ordinances so as to become better informed about how the courts (lower case) might view the constitutionality (again, lower case) of the Springfield version, given the chance.

You are correct that this ordinance was written specifically to discourage enabling behavior from a vehicle in a traffic lane. The reason, of course, is that act is not protected speech and can be hazardous to others. Note that the ACLU's interest was piqued when the original language included fines for both panhandler and enabler. That was revised to address only folks such as you, who, once again, are invited and encouraged to enable to your heart's delight under safer conditions. However, no municipality is under any obligation to enable your enabling.