"CONvention CONspiracy" losing its fearful power

In the animated movie Monsters Inc., the eponymous company was falling on hard times as it had become ever harder to terrify human children in a modern society. Yet, fear -- an energy source -- was how the firm generated its profits.

The opponents of the Term Limits Convention are running into the same problem.

Once considered a potent tool to thwart efforts to limits terms of Congress, the myth of the Convention Conspiracy -- or "CON CON" -- is losing its ability to scare voters, legislators and, presumably, children who do their homework.

The Conspiracy Conventioneers claim that nefarious forces -- including groups like U.S. Term Limits -- are plotting to utilize an Article V amendment convention to rewrite or abolish the Constitution.

To anyone who has examined the issue, the CON CON is ridiculous on its face and more and more people are examining it. In the state capitols, where the term limits convention bills are being debated, we find that few really believe the CON CON story.

Under Article V, the Founders provided two methods for amending the Constitution.  One is the Congressional method, under which the U.S. Congress can – with a two-thirds vote – propose a Constitutional amendment.  The Congress is under no limitations in what it proposes. Indeed, some 200 amendments are introduced to Congress every session. Few ever meet the high threshold required by Article V to qualify them as official proposals that can be sent to the states. Those that do pass muster have zero force or effect until three-quarters of the states ratify them. This has only happened 27 times in U.S. history and ten of those are the Bill of Rights, ratified immediately after the Constitution was adopted.

The second method is the convention route. It was added to satisfy those of the Founders such as Anti-Federalist George Mason of Virginia who were concerned the new Constitution gave too much power to the Federal Government. The states needed a way to amend the Constitution without relying on Congress. Hence, the convention route was added – the final draft largely written by Federalist James Madison – and approved unanimously at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Convention route gives a convention – called upon applications by two-thirds of the states – the same power as the Congress to propose amendments. It does not create any additional powers to enact, alter or abolish any law.  The convention is, as Article V states, a "convention for proposing amendments."

Unlike a session of Congress, conventions can be called for limited purposes. Indeed nearly all applications for Article V conventions have been applications for conventions to tackle specific issues.  Historically, there have been over 400 calls with at least one from every state.

Whether limitation to one issue is possible is the central fetish of the Conspiracy Conventioneers.  This is absurd.  If 34 states apply for a limited convention, a limited convention will be called. With delegates chosen for the limited convention and sent with instructions with a limited convention in mind, there is no reason to think that a convention would not be limited. Indeed, in spite of occasional grandstanding by politicians, conventions have historically stayed on subject, as have most hearings and other government meetings officially called for a specific purpose.

But the real safeguard lies with the states and with the people. Any amendment proposed by an Article V convention must be ratified by three-quarters of the states. That is 38 states, or at least 75 individual legislative chambers as most states (except Nebraska) have two.  To think that anything outrageous -- or even controversial -- can survive that gauntlet is quite fanciful. Indeed, we believe only immensely popular and bipartisan proposals like term limits or maybe a balanced budget amendment have a snowball's chance of meeting that threshold.

This does not mean we never hear about the Convention Conspiracy as we advocate for a term limits convention. But increasingly, the CON CON myth is used as cover for politicians and front groups who don't want to admit to voters they oppose term limits or a balanced budget amendment.  They would rather pretend they are standing up for citizens, rather than against them.

They know there are still good people who, having not yet investigated the CON CON, will quake as the term limits opponents share their ghostly tale.  However, there are less every day.

Just as in the movie, no one is a greater threat to the fear-mongers than someone who knows the truth -- and is not afraid.

Citizens calling for TERM LIMITS CONVENTION

Each election cycle, hundreds of Congressional challengers (and even an incumbent or two) sign the U.S. Term Limits Congressional Pledge to sponsor and vote for a term limits amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And each national election day, a dozen or two new signatories are elected to Congress. We believe we are headed toward a critical mass that will one day secure a floor vote on this popular reform. 

But skeptics (including many term limits activists!) tell us Congress will never, ever vote out a term limits amendment. OK, maybe, but what if there were a way to pass a Constitutional amendment without the consent of Congress?

Well, there is.

Article V of the Constitution provides two ways to amend that document. The first is the traditional route through the Congress and then to the states for ratification. But the founders knew there would be times when Congress would refuse to act against its own interests even when an overwhelming majority of Americans demand it. Hence, they provided a way to bypass Congress.

If two-thirds (34) of the states call for a convention of states for the purpose or proposing an amendment on a specific subject, the amendment convention 'shall' be called. The amendment it produces would go back to the states -- not the Congress -- for ratification. 

It is now clear that the best and fastest way to impose term limits on Congress is through a term limits convention as authorized by Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Hence, U.S. Term Limits is launching a massive nationwide campaign to convene it.

A single-amendment convention committed to specifically and exclusively imposing term limits will get bipartisan support. It will bypass the career politicians in Washington. It will allow average people like you and me to clean up corruption and careerism on Capitol Hill and reintroduce the regular rotation and competitive elections that the founders intended.

Convening an Article V convention will not be easy, however.  We’ll have to lobby the various states to support this historic idea. This will be a tough and costly fight. Sign the online petition here. Make a financial contribution here. When the bill is introduced in your state, U.S. Term Limits will alert you with the bill info and how you can help get it passed.

Let's hit the restart button on Congress and make history!

(You can follow the progress of the campaign on Facebook, Twitter and/or the new U.S. Term Limits blog.)

Georgia's Bob Johnson: Term Limits NOW!

Congressional term limits have emerged as a key issue in another tight primary race, this one in Southeast Georgia where term limits supporter Dr. Bob Johnson is tangling with term limits opponent -- and 25-year political veteran -- Buddy Carter. The runoff election is July 22.

Georgia's District 1, which stretches from Savannah down the eastern Georgia coast to Florida, is a natural term limits battleground.

Incumbent Jack Kingston, who is running for the U.S. Senate, is a signatory of the U.S. Term Limits Congressional Pledge. Over 175 Congressional candidates in 2014 have signed the pledge in which they commit, if elected, to cosponsor and vote for the existing Constitutional amendment bill limiting House reps to three terms and Senators to two. Just this last week, Kingston fulfilled the pledge and signed on to the bill. Kingston's opponent, David Perdue, is also a signer.

So the question is, will District 1 remain a safe one for term limits?

Former Army Ranger and cancer surgeon Bob Johnson says 'yes.'  He signed the U.S. Term Limits pledge and has been speaking about this issue at debates and to the media. He even enlarged an unsigned copy of the pledge and brought it to his opponent's office for a signature.

No dice. Georgia state senator Buddy Carter not only refuses to sign but has been explicitly opposing term limits as part of his campaign.

Then, last week, Johnson launched what he called the "Term Limits NOW!" tour across the district, travelling with U.S. Term Limits President Philip Blumel (full disclosure: that's me), speaking and holding rallies to draw attention to the subject. Rhetorically at least, no other issue distinguishes the campaigns more than this one.

If we are to achieve Congressional term limits, it will take efforts like that of Dr. Bob Johnson. The people are already on our side, the question is whether we can elect leaders to match.

(TOP: Dr. Bob Johnson answers voter questions at July 11 event in Brunswick, GA, in front of enlarged U.S. Term Limits pledge. ABOVE: U.S. Term Limits president Philip Blumel and other term limits supporters rally in Savannah.)

Term limits may be Mississippi tie-breaker

Term limits may turn out to be the deciding issue in the Mississippi U.S. Senate primary race where standard issue professional politician Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) is locked in a tight runoff with election reformer Chris McDaniel. Decision day is June 24.

Sen. Cochran didn’t know it, but he fired the opening salvo of this battle in February 2012 when he was one of the 75 percent of Senators to oppose  Sen. Jim DeMint’s Sense of the Senate amendment calling for Congressional term limits.  Just months later, Gallup published new polling data that shows 75 percent of Americans support Congressional term limits. Oops.

As McDaniel has said: “After spending decades in Washington, too many career politicians lose touch with the people who elect them.”  Indeed.

Even though Cochran slipped into the House in 1972 and the Senate in 1978 in competitive open-seat elections, he is an active opponent of term limits which would mandate open seat elections in every seat periodically.  Since his election to the Senate, he has faced largely nominal challengers or, as in 1990, no challenger at all.

Seemingly untouchable by voters like most incumbents, he has established mutually beneficial relationships with special interests.  Sen. Cochran is ranking member and former chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry as well as the Senate Appropriations Committee.  It is not surprising that Sen. Cochran’s largest contributor is the agriculture industry and, specifically, he is the top recipient of contributions from the following agriculture industry subsectors: crop production, agricultural services, poultry, dairy, forestry products and sugar cane and beets.

It is hardly a coincidence either that Sen. Cochran has been a Senate champion of the federal sugar program, subsidies for ethanol and other corporate welfare programs. He has a similar symbiotic relationship with the defense industry.

According to opensecrets.org, after agriculture, his largest contributors have been leadership PACs (that is, other politicians vying for votes and support), law firms, lobbyists and defense firms.

In his defense, Sen. Cochran boasts that he brings Federal money home to Mississippi. And he does.  The problem is nearly every other senator is bragging about the same thing.  The result, as Chris McDaniel says, is “after too long, career politicians in Washington have allowed our national debt to grow out of control.” In his long tenure, Sen. Cochran has voted to raise the debt ceiling some two dozen times.

That is how the system works and Sen. Thad Cochran is a product and defender of that system.

Will Chris McDaniel be different after a couple of decades in office?   We are unlikely to find out. McDaniel has vowed to serve only two terms, as would be required under the Congressional term limits bill currently introduced in the Senate by Sens. David Vitter and Rand Paul.

More importantly, McDaniel is one of over 160 (so far) Congressional candidates to sign the U.S. Term Limits pledge in which candidates promise to “cosponsor and vote for” the Congressional term limits bill.

As Sen. Cochran is reaching out to Democrats and independents to save him on June 24, McDaniel is pressing the term limits card.  Gallup tells us that these Democrats and independents favor term limits by large majorities, just like his fellow Republicans. McDaniel is letting them know via a new TV ad that term limits are his priority. Why should they make the effort to cross party lines and vote in the GOP primary?

My guess is they won't.

Arkansas: The most deceitful ballot title EVER?

As chronicled in this blog, politicians will go to great lengths to thwart voter-approved term limits. They lose by one scheme, they try another.  In Arkansas they are trying several simultaneously and topping it off with the most dishonest ballot title, well, ever.

The plan is to hide a provision in a long so-called ethics bill that would double Arkansas state term limits from six to 16 years in the House and eight to 16 years in the Senate with an overall term limit of 16 years. This change is being presented as minor as, after all, isn't the current overall limit only 14 years?  This deceptive proposal will appear on the November 2014 ballot.

That is bad enough. But now this, announced last week from the Arkansas Secretary of State:

ISSUE NO. 3

HJR 1009

Popular Name

An amendment regulating contributions to candidates for state or local office, barring gifts from lobbyists to certain state officials, providing for setting salaries of certain state officials and setting term limits for members of the general assembly. 

Setting term limits for members of the general assembly? What?  Eight-year term limits were set by voters in 1992 and reaffirmed by them in 2004. This amendment weakens them, doubles them, lengthens them to 16, whatever, but it does not set them.

Read that wording again. Do you believe in "setting term limits for the general assembly?" I do! More importantly, all term limits supporters in Arkansas and everywhere else support "setting term limits for members of the general assembly."

That is what the politicians are banking on. They know Arkansans support term limits, so they have crafted language that will trick voters into voting yes. This is a scam, perhaps the most deceitful ever.

It is likely this scam title will have a date in court before a date with the voters. Stay tuned.

The emerging 16-year term limit scam

Since the first state term limits were approved by voters in 1990, professional and wannabe professional politicians have tried to overturn them. This opposition has come in progressively devious waves.

The first and most successful counterattacks were legal and several referenda were shot down in courts or in a few cases by legislative action. Examples include Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts,Wyoming and Illinois. The biggest legal victory of the anti-term limits forces was the U.S. Supreme Court's split (5-4) U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton decision in 1995 which nullified the Congressional term limits laws passed by 21 states.

But the remaining 15 state term limits laws are now cast in stone having passed their legal tests. In these states, politicians have to ask voters -- not courts or legislatures -- to abolish or weaken the popular limits at the ballot box. This has proved much more difficult than finding friendly judges.

The first reactionary response was for simple abolition of the limits. As the limits starting taking effect, there was a wave of legislation launched in the term limits states to repeal them. This went nowhere, as voters learned to love term limits more over time, not less.

Next there was a wave of tricky referenda by politicians who "support" term limits but would like to see them "improved" by making them weaker, usually 12 years. Typically, these were written in a way to suggest that the referenda were establishing limits, as if for the first time, to trick a margin of voters into believing the referenda were pro-term limits! This too went nowhere, but it required mobilization by term limits activists to make sure the voters weren't being fooled. Examples include Arkansas, Montana, Maine and California.

This year, politicians in Arkansas, Missouri and Montana are launching the most deceitful strategy yet to free themselves from voter-approved term limits.

Professional politics is an industry. Like other industries, the participants -- parties, politicians, special interests -- compete, often fiercely. But as members of the same industry, they also have common incentives and interests. In the oil industry, for example, the companies compete in the marketplace, surely, but they still have common interests which unite them. Hence they have industry organizations with lobbyists to press their common demands and interests.

Politicians are no different. They compete at the ballot box. But when the dust settles, they talk, they share ideas, they plot, they scheme, they connive... You know.

Hence a new wave of anti-term limits bills are appearing in several states simultaneously with the most outrageous strategy yet. In states with 8-year term limits, politicians are suggesting that 8 years in each house is really a 16-year limit. So, it would be just a small tweak make the 16-year limit official, with the small alteration that politicians could 'spend' their 16 years in either house.

Of course, what this really means is a comfy 16-year stint in one house, as all politicians know the great majority of  reps cannot successfully make the jump to the other. Getting re-elected to one's own seat, on the other hand, is nearly automatic.

This is a scam. A version of it made it to the ballot in Arkansas and passed at least one house in Missouri and Montana last year. In Arkansas, they added additional cover, as they hid this teeny-weeny tweak inside an ethics bill of mild, pleasant-sounding restrictions on lobbyist gifts and contributions. Don't be surprised to see copycats pick up the 'ethics bill' gimmick as well.

So 2014 is the year of the 16-year term limits scam.

Nationwide, polls show the voters' support for term limits has not dimmed over time. The politicians can only succeed though obfuscation and deceit. That places a new burden on us as citizens to get the word out, but we have one big advantage: the simple power of the truth.

OKC RISING: Citizens on march to impose 8-year term limits

Oklahoma was one of the earliest bastions of term limits – boasting the first successful statewide initiative to limit state legislators’ terms – and in light of experience term limits have only grown more popular there.

Since that 1990 initiative there have been others, notably a 2010 vote to limit the governor to a lifetime 8-year limit. This legislatively-referred referendum also imposed an 8-year limit on the lieutenant governor, attorney general, auditor and inspector, state treasurer, labor commissioner, insurance commissioner and state schools superintendent. It won by 70%.

But Oklahoma citizens aren’t done yet. A new effort, launched by activist Bob Dani, would limit the terms of the mayor and city council of Oklahoma’s largest city to eight years in office.

The effort needs 6,000 signatures of Oklahoma City voters to place the idea on the March 4 citywide ballot. Signature collection is under way and Dani reports the campaign is on schedule in spite the winter weather. The effort is a mix of volunteer and professional signature collectors, so supporters are encouraged to either get out on the streets with their clipboards or make a financial contribution to the campaign. The end result will be the same.

The voters will do the rest. If Oklahoma’s history, current polling and the experience of other municipalities across the country are any indication, victory is nearly certain if the will exists to get the proposal to the ballot. Please help.

Oklahoma City would be joining a growing club of term limited cities across the country. Today, only about 9% of America’s municipalities are term limited, according to my latest copy the League of Cities Municipal Handbook. But among larger cities, where the need for term limits is greatest, the reform has been adopted at a much faster rate. Nine of the largest 10 cities in the United States are term limited, along with about 51 percent of cities with a 250,000+ population.

Bob Dani

Oklahoma City fits the bill. With a population of 600,000, the government of Oklahoma City wields considerable power and resources and the influence of special interests in Oklahoma’s capitol city are intense.

“Just like the Mayor says, Oklahoma City is always striving to be a ‘Big League City’,” says Dani, the moderator of the weekly political forum known as the High Noon Club. “These limits will put a stop to career politicians. All citizens will benefit from more choices, new faces, new ideas, new perspectives, and new solutions to old problems."

He is right – and there is no question it can be done. But the clock is ticking. To sign the petition and help collect signatures from others, please contact OKC Term Limits Now! Chairman Bob Dani at (405) 990-1900 or rndani@gmail.com. To make a donation in support of our effort, go here. Follow the effort on Facebook.

Go OKC!

Regnat Populus strikes Devil's Bargain with corporate interests

The anti-term limits amendment apparently headed to the November 2014 statewide ballot in Arkansas might not have started out as a scam. But as it made its way through Little Rock, a Devil's Bargain was made with aspiring career politicians and corporate interests that sunk an effort to promote 'ethics' in Arkansas government.

The "ethics bill," as it was originally called, came out of proposals offered by a citizens group called Regnat Populus which had emerged from the deflating Occupy Little Rock phenomenon in 2011. The ostensible idea was to reduce corporate influence on legislators decisions with some mild reforms regulating lobbyist gifts and direct corporate contributions.

Ordinarily, the plan would have had to qualify for the ballot via petition. But helpful legislators offered to refer it to the ballot for them sans signatures -- for a price. That price was a plank to gut Arkansas popular voter-approved term limits law. The provision, buried on page 16 of the final bill and not included in the ballot title (!!!), would change the House term limit from 6 to 16 years and the Senate limit from 8 to 16 years.

It is likely that Regnat Populus and their legislative accomplices expect more than a free limo ride to the 2014 ballot. Nixing the Arkansas term limits law has long been a priority for corporate special interests and they have proven themselves willing to open their wallets to preserve the relationships they have cultivated in Little Rock.

The last time legislators referred an anti-term limits amendment to the ballot was 2004. Citizens hated it (it lost by 70%!), but corporate special interests loved it. In fact, according to FollowTheMoney.org, nearly all the money spent to promote the anti-term limits amendment came from them.

CORPORATE SPECIAL INTERESTS VS. TERM LIMITS 2004

ARKANSAS FARM BUREAU	$105,841	25.91%	Agriculture
ARKANSAS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION	$30,000	7.34%	General Business
ARKANSAS STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE	$26,710	6.54%	General Business
ENTERGY	$25,000	6.12%	Energy & Natural Resources
ARKANSAS REALTORS ASSOCIATION	$25,000	6.12%	Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
STEPHENS GROUP	$15,000	3.67%	Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
ARKANSAS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION	$12,500	3.06%	Labor
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION	$12,500	3.06%	Labor
ALLTEL CORP	$10,000	2.45%	Communications & Electronics
ARKANSAS HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION	$10,000	2.45%	Health
TYSON FOODS	$10,000	2.45%	Agriculture
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOUNDATION	$10,000	2.45%	Government Agencies/Education/Other
ARKANSAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION	$10,000	2.45%	Communications & Electronics
ARKANSAS BAR ASSOCIATION	$7,500	1.84%	Lawyers & Lobbyists
ARKANSAS HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION	$5,000	1.22%	Health
ARKANSAS STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION	$5,000	1.22%	Labor
WHOLESALE BEER DISTRIBUTORS OF ARKANSAS	$5,000	1.22%	General Business
ARKANSAS HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION	$5,000	1.22%	General Business
MCMATH WOODS	$5,000	1.22%	Lawyers & Lobbyists
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER	$5,000	1.22%	Energy & Natural Resources

Naturally, special interests can't stand competitive elections and rotation in office, as they raise the cost and reduce the value of the mutually beneficial relationships they must create to succeed in achieving their legislative goals. None of the puny 'ethics' planks in the original bill packs the wallop that term limits do in reducing special interest influence.

But the politicians and interests have also learned the hard way that a frontal assault on term limits is doomed at the ballot box. Hence they have devised a referendum so deceptive that they have hoodwinked and co-opted Regnat Populus along the way. We'll see if voters will be as easily taken for a ride.

Opposition to anti-term limits amendment pushes Arkansas Senate candidate over finish line

Tuesday was the first time voters had a chance to weigh in on the Arkansas legislature's sneaky passage of an anti-term limits amendment unscrupulous politicians are calling an "ethics" bill. It appears the voting public is not so easily fooled.

It was a special election called to fill a vacant seat due to the resignation of Sen. Paul Bookout in August after he was busted and fined $8,000 for spending campaign money on personal items. In Tuesday's run-off, John Cooper bested Dan Sullivan by a slim margin. Not surprisingly, ethics played a key role.

Cooper and Sullivan were running neck and neck, sparring particularly on a so-called 'private option' under the Affordable Care Act. They were virtually tied in the first primary election and appeared to be so going into the runoff.

At the end, with controversy growing about the deceptive anti-term limits amendment referred to the November 2014 ballot, Conduit For Action launched two post card mailers pointing out Sullivan's clearly stated support for the anti-term limit amendment. Cooper, on the other hand, signed a U.S. Term Limits pledge that he would take no actions as a Senator to weaken Arkansas state term limits.

Given the slim margin of victory (it appears the final count will be less than 100 votes), it is suggested Cooper's embrace of the popular voter-approved (twice!) term limits law put him over the top.

"Cooper and Sullivan differed over whether a proposed constitutional amendment that weakens term limits was a good one or a bad one," said Dan Greenberg, president of the Advance Arkansas Institute, a nonprofit public policy research organization. "Cooper thought it was a bad idea and the final tally suggests the voters agreed with him."

Ironically, it was this deceitful "ethics" bill that may have sunk Sullivan's candidacy, in a seat where unethical behavior led to the special election in the first place.

Cooper will face Democrat Steve Rockwell in the special election, which takes place on January 14, 2014. As of now, it is unknown what Rockwell's position is on the anti-term limits amendment.

USTL opens new digs in South Florida

With term limits polling at historic highs and Congress at historic lows, U.S. Term Limits is ramping up operations in preparation for the coming national battle over Congressional term limits.

The single issue advocacy organization, long headquartered in Fairfax, VA, has opened a new branch office in Palm Beach with a new full-time activist focused on lighting term limits fires across the country. Nick Tomboulides, formerly part of the Ford Motor Company social media team, started on Oct. 8. Tomboulides was a successful college activist at the University of Connecticut and an alumnus of the Washington DC-based Leadership Institute's acclaimed training program.

The reason for the Florida location is for Tomboulides to work more closely with USTL President Philip Blumel and USTL Treasurer Rick Shepherd who live in the Palm Beach area.  The office is located at 2875 South Ocean Boulevard #200 in Palm Beach, just north of Lake Worth Beach.

But Tomboulides' focus will be national. 

The time is right. Today there are genuine term limits bills introduced -- with cosponsors! -- in both Houses of Congress and last year the state of Florida voted to officially ask its Congressional delegation to support a Congressional term limits amendment. Dozens of sitting Congress members have signed the USTL pledge in which they committed to cosponsor and vote for such an amendment and USTL plans on expanding the successful pledge program for the 2014 and 2016 elections cycles. The clamor from the people for Congressional term limits is growing louder and the USTL board believes that the time has come to renew the emphasis on Congressional limits.

At the same time there is action in the states, with the petition drive to term limit the Illinois legislature and the deceptive attack on voter-approved term limits in Arkansas. There are many local campaigns springing up as well.

For U.S. Term Limits to sustain its reputation as the nation's oldest, largest and most successful term limits advocacy organization, it must seize the day. And it is.

Please help take advantage of the historic opportunity we have right now by making a contribution to U.S. Term Limits.

Voters betrayed by the Arkansas gang of four

Here is the Oct. 16 press release from U.S. Term Limits about four state legislators in Arkansas that signed a pro-term limits pledge during the 2012 campaign, but violated it immediately after they won the election.

 

U.S. Term Limits President Philip Blumel called on four members of the Arkansas General Assembly today to honor their term limits pledge by renouncing support for the anti-term limits amendment, and helping to remove it from the Nov. 2014 ballot.

"These legislators signed a pledge to the people, stating that they would never take any action to lengthen Arkansas' voter-approved term limits of six years in the House and eight in the Senate," Blumel said. "By voting to give themselves 16 years in their seat, they have joined the laundry list of politicians who say one thing and do another. Now is the time for them to restore trust with the people of Arkansas by taking it off the ballot."

In the Arkansas House, Bob Ballinger (R-97) and Randy Alexander (R-88) signed and violated the term limits pledge. In the State Senate, the two offenders were David Sanders (R-15) and Gary Stubblefield (R-6). State Senator Alan Clark (R-13) signed the pledge but did not vote at all on the anti-term limits amendment. All five were first elected to their current offices in 2012.

In 1992, 60% of Arkansas voters placed term limits of three two-year terms on the State House and two four-year terms on the State Senate. The people returned to the polls in 2004 to defend these limits, voting down an extension amendment by a margin of 70%-30%.

Now, politicians are trying again to weaken the popular state law by putting the The Arkansas Elected Officials Ethics, Transparency, and Financial Reform Amendment of 2014 on the ballot. If approved in the fall of next year, it would double the term limit in the Senate and more than double it in the House.

"The name is not at all what it implies, and the politicians know that." Blumel cautioned. "This sort of sleazy political maneuvering is the reason term limits are so popular in the first place."

Nevada Supremes take on Reno cheater case

Typically, term limits win at the ballot box with 60-70 percent of the vote. The best refuge for self-interested scoundrels seeking to evade them has been the courts. The latest episode in this long-running story is unfolding in Nevada.

Weak 12-year term limits were inserted in the state constitution by voters in 1994 and 1996 (it takes two votes in Nevada) with 70 percent of the vote. The term limits apply to all local governing bodies in the state including the Reno City Council. But two 12-year veterans of the council, current incumbent Dwight Dortch and former councilwoman Jessica Sferrazza, are running for mayor anyway. Their argument is the mayor is not a member of the council.

Mayoral candidate George "Eddie" Lorton begs to differ. His copy of the Reno City Charter clearly states that the mayor is a member of the council:

"The mayor shall serve as a member of the city council and preside over its meetings." (Section 1.014, Reno City Charter)

And his copy of the state constitution says, "No person may be elected to any state or local governing body who has served in that office, or at the expiration of his current term if he is so serving will have served, 12 years or more." (Nevada Constitution, Article 15, Section 3)

That's pretty explicit. How can one get around that?

Not by tackling it honestly. Instead, the term limit cheats in this case are simply ignoring it and charging ahead with their mayoral campaigns and, when challenged, are using a schoolyard defense: Other politicians are doing it!

It is true. In Henderson during the term limit era, Mayor Andy Hafen served 12 years on the Henderson City Council and then ran for mayor in 2009. He is still there.

Defenders of the cheaters also point to a 2008 opinion in their favor by the state attorney general who claimed the mayor's position could be construed as separate from the council and hence years as a council member do not count against a mayoral term limit. The trouble with that opinion is that Lorton has a newer, contrary one from the Legislative Counsel Bureau, the legal team for the state legislature. Most importantly, the 2008 opinion predates the very explicit language quoted above that states the mayor is indeed a member of the council.

In a petition to the Supreme Court he filed earlier this month, Lorton also points out the logical absurdity of the cheaters position. The official description of the amendment passed by voters states the reasons for the term limits are to "stop career politicians since no one will be able to hold office for several terms ... local governing body members would have the opportunity to focus on the issues instead of reelection." Does a term limit with such a goal really permit someone to serve on the council for six terms and 24 years?

Chief Justice Kris Pickering announced that the issues raised by Lorton have "arguable merit." You bet they do. He ordered an answer within 30 days from the two term limit cheaters, the city clerk and the voter registrar. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: The politicians' far-fetched claim that the mayor wasn't a member of the council was shot down by the Nevada Supreme Court on Feb. 21. The citizens won this one. While voters had approved 12-year term limits, these politicians were trying to stretch them to 24. Thanks to Eddie Lorton and others who took the initiative to put a stop to this.

NEWS FLASH: Montana pols don't like to be term limited

As if it were news, the Washington Post reported this week that Montana "legislators in both parties expressed frustration" with state term limits and are considering taking another stab at gutting them.

Hold the presses! Incumbent politicians don't like term limits!

The fact is, of course, that Montana politicians have opposed the limits since voters first imposed them in 1992 with 67 percent of the vote.

Citizens feel differently. Last time we heard from them on this issue they voted down with 70 percent a 2004 referendum that would have repealed the limits. No poll since has suggested voters have changed their minds.

And why would they? In spite of the politicians' stories of limit-inspired calamity, Montana is in decent shape. In a 2013 ranking of states, Montana is #9 in terms of state GDP, employment and net migration -- all things highly influenced by government policy.

While every legislature like every marriage is dysfunctional in its own way, some are clearly better than others. And Montana, along with most of the other 14 term limits states, are typically crowded in the upper half of such rankings.

The Montana term limits are not strict ones. In fact, they are as loose as a limit can be while still retaining the beneficial aspects of term limits. Montana legislators are limited to eight years in the House and eight years in the Senate. A good portion of the Senate is made up of former House reps. They are also not lifetime limits. A Montana politician can sit out a term and then run again in the future as a challenger.

In the Post article, the politicians comically cite their own inexperience as an argument against the limits, although this alleged lack of experience doesn't appear to hinder the governor of Montana or even the president of the United States, both of which face eight-year limits. Of course, legislators -- like governors, presidents and CEOs -- generally do have considerable experience before being elected. They are not infants, after all, but instead successful citizens who their fellows have entrusted with public functions.

So what is the politicians' real objection to term limits? Here it is: They do not want to face electoral competition. According to a 2012 report by Ballotpedia, the Montana legislature is ranked #10 nationwide in terms of the competitiveness of its state elections.

There are lots of primary contests and regular rotation in office in Montana. The legislature stays fresh, with new faces and ideas and lots of opportunities for citizens to successfully run for office. This means too that there are a lot of ex-legislators running around, which makes for a better educated polity and greater transparency. These are all things that aspiring career politicians everywhere find burdensome.

In other words, term limits are working in Montana and politicians there want to nix them precisely for this reason. Don't let them.

OBIT: Ex-Speaker Thomas Foley's term expires

by Paul Jacob via Town Hall

We never met. Even if we had met, we wouldn’t have been friends: we wouldn’t have traded holiday cards, certainly wouldn’t have shared a drink or played tennis or joked together at a party. (I wonder if he played tennis.)

Former Speaker of the House Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) passed away on Friday at age 84. We were political antagonists, twenty years ago, when the issue of term limits placed us at loggerheads.

It wasn’t personal. Foley was just another congressperson to me, though his 30 years in Congress and his leadership position obviously made him more answerable for the then-high levels of congressional arrogance and dysfunction — which seem so much less toxic now, in retrospect, because of the passage of time and the fresh memories of current congressional malevolence.

In those days, I served as executive director of U.S. Term Limits, and was campaigning to place limits on the number of terms any person could spend in Congress. The idea was to disable politicians from holding power for decades without ever having to return home to live under the laws they had passed.

Back then Congress exempted itself from many of the laws it enacted. That practice has noticeably changed, as sometimes now the president must also be called in to exempt Congress from the laws it passes, as with Obamacare.

In 1992, working with citizen leaders in 14 states, we petitioned to place term limits initiatives on the ballot — the most states to ever vote on a single issue in the same election cycle. Voters in all 14 states approved term limits, including in Speaker Foley’s home state of Washington.

Washington’s Initiative 573 lost narrowly in Foley’s congressional district, but won statewide. The voters had spoken and, though the Speaker was returned to office for the next term, he was also now limited to no more than three additional terms, six years.

So, Speaker of the House Tom Foley sued in federal court to overturn the vote cast by the people of his state imposing term limits on him. It was neither the first nor the last time a politician sued his voters, but few campaign managers recommend it. Being a plaintiff in the lawsuit against term limits proved Speaker Foley’s undoing, a misstep from which he could not recover.

Foley and his spokespeople often cited the fact that folks in his district had sided against the term limits measure. True, but even among that very slim majority, his lawsuit to overturn the people’s vote felt like a slap in the face and was seen as an unmistakable sign Mr. Foley had “gone Washington.”

The other Washington.

As the 1994 election approached, congressional Republicans were embracing term limits in their Contract with America, and so was a young lawyer from Spokane named George Nethercutt, who was challenging Speaker Foley. Nethercutt not only claimed to favor term limits, he pledged to serve just three terms, as Washingtonians had voted, and he promised never to sue his constituents as Foley was doing. The term limits movement spent more than $300,000 on TV and radio spots and mailings reminding eastern Washington voters of all that Foley had done to deny their vote and block his own term limits.

On that election night some nineteen years ago, Tom Foley’s opposition to term limits made him the first Speaker of the House since the Civil War to be defeated for re-election. Historically, sitting speakers have been rarely defeated. In modern times, with the power of incumbency, it had never happened.

Galusha Aaron Grow, a Radical Republican from Pennsylvania, was the last speaker so turned out back in 1862, after a dozen years in Congress . . . but just a single term as House speaker. Ironically, Grow had replaced William Pennington, a New Jersey Republican who was defeated for re-election in 1860 after serving his only congressional term — the last portion of which he was installed as a compromise speaker.

Not much has been made of George Nethercutt’s amazing victory in 1994, because Nethercutt broke his word, refusing to step down from office after three terms.

Much is made of Foley’s historic defeat, however. In recognizing the passing of the former Speaker, Reuters reported that, “a conservative mood shift made him one of the few speakers ever defeated for re-election.” Time noted that, “Foley wasn’t the victim of scandal or charges of gross incompetence.”

Well, yes and no. Not “scandal” in a criminal way — or the X-rated sense that politicians are so fond of providing to a mass audience these days. But for the voters of eastern Washington, suing to overturn their vote for term limits was politically scandalous, indeed. (Personally, I like their standards.) As the Seattle Times explained in remembering the man, “Few things unleashed the ire of Mr. Foley’s constituents as much as his dogged campaign against term limits.”

Though he was wrong about term limits and I was right, let me say after 20 more years of experience that I like Mr. Foley’s style. He seemed a happy warrior, never inspiring personal animosity. Hey, in politics, that’s saying something.

Memories of Speaker Foley spark in me a remembrance of what the people of eastern Washington did at the polls some twenty years ago. Those voters certainly did not want to let a nice man like Tom Foley go. But neither could they countenance his lawsuit. They were not swayed in the least by the lavish gifts a Speaker of the House could bestow on their area, and instead, they voted, heroically, to fix the broken Congress.

May Speaker Foley rest in peace. And may none of the rest of us rest until we again have a Congress that truly represents the American people.

 

Paul Jacob is president of Citizens in Charge Foundation and Citizens in Charge and former executive director of U.S. Term Limits. His daily Common Sense commentary appears on the Web and via e-mail. This piece originally ran on the Town Hall website on Oct. 20, 2013.

Armor's 'Why Term Limits' an oldie but a goodie

I am sometimes asked for the best primer on term limits. I respond that I haven't written it yet!

I wish I were joking. There have been some good books written on term limits -- The Cato Institute's scholarly Politics and Law of Term Limits and George Will's thoughtful Restoration come to mind. But not a primer, not THE book to tell the whole story from the angles of history, current politics, philosophy, law and statistics.

Or so I thought. I picked up a used copy of John Amor's Why Term Limits? and realize my sniffy response will need to be fixed.

Amor's, with the highly accurate subtitle Because They Have it Coming, is such a book. It is dated, as it was published in 1994. But 1994 places it in the midst of nationwide term limits victories and it is full of the optimism and fire that characterized that period. Recall that 23 states term limited their federal and/or state legislators via primarily citizen-led initiative movements. This was just before the great disappointment of 1995, when the Supreme Court invalidated all Congressional term limits in their U.S Term Limits v. Thornton decision. Those were heady days.

While many of the specific examples and stats are dated, they are not out of date because nothing has changed: "Special interests donate 90 percent of their money to incumbents, because 95 percent of incumbents win, because special interests donate 90 percent of their money ... You get the idea." Yes, we do.

There is much to learn here even for seasoned term limits warriors. And there are some approaches to the issue I have never encountered.  One example is that Amor divides the House between those who have served six years or less and those who served longer, made some adjustments to keep the party proportions consistent with the 1992 Congress, and looked to see if the fresh reps voted differently as a group.

They did. A case in point was the bipartisan Penny-Kasich spending reduction plan in 1992. The veterans and the leadership (big overlap here, naturally) voted it down 216-219. But the newer reps -- those presumably more reflective of the current thinking of the citizens -- would have passed it overwhelmingly.

In sum, this is the primer you are looking for, at least until I -- or you -- write an updated one.

Illinois 'legislative reform' package is more than just term limits

The Illinois 8-year term limits initiative intended for the November 2014 ballot is a package of reforms, yet all the attention will be paid to its centerpiece. Indeed, it is the 8-year term limits that will offer the most profound changes to the way Springfield works -- or doesn't work.

But what of the other elements? Are they legit? Is there a surprise inside? Color me cynical, but there are politicians in the room!

Reviewing the amendment here, it is clear there are no hidden trap doors or bended mirrors. Each element complements the term limits plank in an attempt to make the Illinois legislature more simple, flexible and representative. And, like the term limits, most of the ideas have been tested in other states.

THREE HOUSE SEATS PER SENATE DISTRICT -- This amendment would divide the Senate districts into three House seats instead of the current two so that an incumbent house member would be limited to one third instead of one half of the Senate District in terms of name recognition. This is another shift in power from incumbents to outsiders. That is, to citizens.

CHANGES IN CHAMBER MEMBERSHIP -- To accommodate the plank above, this amendment changes the number of members in each chamber. The House will expand from 118 to 123 members and the Senate will shrink from 59 to 41. A secondary benefit of this is that the House is the more representative of the two chambers, or at least it will be once the term limits kick in. It has shorter terms, more elections and smaller districts where one citizen can have more influence. On a net basis, the membership changes reduce the overall number of members and saves some money.

VETO POWER -- In Illinois it is unusually easy for the legislature to overturn a veto by the governor, requiring only a 3/5 vote. Under this amendment, the requirement would be 2/3 as it is in 36 other states.

NO MORE 2-YEAR SENATE TERMS -- This one is a simple housekeeping item. It abolishes the odd two-years term in the Senate that somewhat complicates the election process, encourages political gaming and confuses voters. In the future, all Senate terms will be four years as in most other states.

TERM LIMITS -- The crown of the amendment is, of course, the eight-year term limits. Eight years is the most common and time-tested term limit in America from the U.S. President and numerous state governors to nearly a dozen state legislatures and an uncountable number of county commissions, mayors and city councils.

This is a well-constructed package that makes both large and small tweaks to the structure and process of the legislature to push it in a more representative direction.

We need 300,000 signatures to put the question in the voters' hands. Let's get to work.

Term limits address the special ills of Illinois

As reported earlier, a campaign has been launched to put 8-year legislative term limits and other reforms on the Illinois ballot for November 2014. While every state legislature should have them, there are characteristics of the Illinois legislature that make limits essential.

While many states have part-time legislators who are paid nominal amounts for their service, a seat in the Illinois legislature is a full-time, year-round job paying a professional salary of $67,836 a year plus expenses. Legislators can retire earlier than other state workers and get a better pension too. The job attracts professional politicians like moths to a flame. Indeed the two best represented occupations in the legislature are lawyers and, you guessed it, professional legislators. Illinois suffers greatly from this narrow range of experience.

Illinois is among the nation's most corrupt states. Corruption is highly correlated to tenure because secure tenure breeds the hubris and opportunity necessary for corruption to blossom. Not only that, but the closed, tight circle of a government without regular rotation is far less transparent – and hence less accountable – than a more open, term-limited one.

Illinois state elections are simply not competitive. Since 2001, 97 percent of incumbents won reelection. Term limits mandate open seat elections at least every eight years in every seat. With term limits, the era of automatic incumbency will end, quick.

At election time, it is normal for half of the legislative seats to be uncontested, which means no elections are held and voters have no say in who represents them. This may continue to be true in non-term limit years, but in every seat a potentially competitive open seat election will be right around the corner under 8-year term limits.

 

Supporter in Cary, Ill.

The political culture in Illinois is characterized by political scientists as "individualistic," where the business of politics is chiefly concerned with about who is getting what. Who wins elections determines whose supporters get rewarded. (This is often contrasted with more "moralistic" or ideological political cultures such as in, say, Wisconsin.) The result is that a symbiotic relationship emerges between the legislator and the special interests that serves both their interests, permanently. Term limits tear up these cozy relationships and greatly reduce the influence of lobbies, whose resources are stretched thin between competitive races and who are constantly having to create new relationships.

One of the most marked peculiarities about the Illinois legislature is the centralization of power in the hands of party caucus leaders. Unlike other states and the U.S. Congress where committee chairman wield great power, in Illinois committees are more like rubber stamps for what the leadership wants. The leadership even chooses staffs for legislators and doles out campaign money for targeted races around the state. Term limits will change that.

Chris Mooney, a professor of political studies with the Institute of Government Affairs at the University of Illinois, believes it is for this reason more than any other that the effect of term limits will be a profound one in Illinois.

"The most prominent characteristic of recent General Assemblies is the centralization of power in the hands of long-serving party caucus leaders; by ousting these and other senior legislators, term limits will almost certainly effect a complete reconfiguration of the state's political power structure."

That is what Illinois needs and what voters want.

It's about time: Term limits coming to Illinois!

By nearly any metric, Illinois is a basket case. In terms of growth of gross domestic output and growth of employment the state has long trailed the nation. Taxpayers have been migrating out of the state. The treasury is empty and taxes are rising in a self-destructive attempt to keep the state government afloat. One state scorecard ranked Illinois 47th among the 50 states in economic performance in 2012 and 48th for economic outlook.

How can this be?  Illinois has a full-time, professional legislature which is made up of predominately lawyers and experienced professional legislators. There is little turnover, with one study showing that overall turnover of the Illinois legislature to be the seventh lowest in the nation.  Certainly such a stable and experienced full-time team of lawmakers should make Illinois among the best-managed states.

Or, maybe this is precisely the problem. Maybe legislatures operate better with regular turnover, meaningful voter input via competitive elections, better incentives and a wider range of experience.

Bruce Rauner

Recent polling shows voters think so. A Paul Simon Public Policy Institute Poll published in November 2012 suggests some 78 percent of Illinois registered voters believe term limits are what is needed to shake up Springfield.

And it looks like they are going to get their way. A campaign has sprung up, led by venture capitalist and gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner, which aims to put a reform package on the ballot for 2014 with 8-year term limits as its centerpiece. The committee is currently raising money and making plans to collect the 300,000 signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot. You can help the Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits at their website here.

Before the first signature is collected you can already hear the politicians and special interests dusting off their favorite defense: "We aleady have term limits, they are called elections."

The problem with that little flower of homespun wholesomeness is that it isn't true. Over half of all legislative seats in last year's Illinois general election went unopposed. There were no elections held at all!  Even where elections were held for contested seats nearly all were nominal, lopsided affairs. A study of the legislature from 1992-2003 showed that the average vote margin in nominally contested races was never less than 25 percent.

Nothing has changed since then. Competitive elections are virtually unknown in the state of Illinois.

Consider this: Since 2001, incumbents seeking re-election have won more than 97 percent of the time.

Term limits will return turnover to the Illinois legislature, give voters greater voice, change the leadership of the body and toss out the professional legislators. It's time, let's get it done.

New Yorkers punish term limits foe in mayor's race

At first considered the front-runner, term limits foe Christine Quinn went down in flames Tuesday as New York Democrats chose Bill de Blasio to be their nominee for New York City mayor. She didn't even end up in second place, trailing far behind William Thompson.

Quinn's flame out was not quite as spectacular as that of Anthony Weiner, but it followed a similar course.

Quinn was Speaker of the New York City Council in 2007 when Mayor Michael Bloomberg decided he wanted to run for office for a third term in defiance of New York's term limits law. The popular 8-year term limit had been passed and  then reaffirmed by voters in 1993 and 1996.

After internal polling showed voters would again affirm term limits in 2008, Mayor Bloomberg decided to simply ignore the earlier referenda and lengthened term limits from 8 to 12 years via a simple council vote. Oh yes, it lengthened the terms of the council too. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

The ringleader for this betrayal of the voters was Chris Quinn. Voters never forgot. Term limits dogged her campaign since day one and many prominent supporters pointed to the issue as the primary reason for turning to de Blasio or Thompson.

Quinn, a married lesbian, was quoted by the New York Daily News saying that although her candidacy fell short, she hoped it enabled lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teens across the city to dream that they could make history someday. That's nice, but exit polling suggests she lost the gay vote too.

The May 1 Village Voice headline read: "LGBT purists to Christine Quinn: We'd love a gay mayor. Just not you." The Voice's Steve Weinstein wrote that Quinn's detractors point to 2006, when her peers elected her speaker, as the moment when she sold out her progressive base ... sucking up to a man [Bloomberg] whose endorsement would help smooth her way into the mayoralty. Two years after becoming speaker, Quinn led the council in overturning two voter referenda on term limits, enabling Bloomberg -- and City Council members -- to run for a third term ... That single action is likely to define her career."

"Among everyone I know, the first thing they say is, 'She betrayed us on term limits,'" gay rights activist Louis Flores told the Voice.

Quinn betrayed all New Yorkers and paid the price on election day when she had to run as a challenger in a competitive race. And that is the most important feature of term limits and the open seats they create: the people can have their say.

Term limits top the list of Levin's 'Liberty Amendments'

Talk show host and lawyer Mark Levin says at one time he opposed amending the U.S. Constitution via the state convention process. But now his skepticism has turned to enthusiasm and in his new book, The Liberty Amendments, he lays out 11 suggested amendments aimed at "preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of a federal Leviathan" and urges states to pursue them.

Number one on the list: Congressional term limits. Number three: Supreme Court term limits. And, number nine: A change in the way amendments are approved that avoids Congress altogether -- and would likely pave the way for Congressional term limits.

Levin starts off with background on the amendment process and addresses a fear many term limits supporters have expressed about amending the constitution via a convention called by three fourths of the states.

Levin suggests concerns about a runaway convention are unfounded: "The text of Article V makes clear there is a serious check in place. Whether the product of Congress or a convention, a proposed amendment has no effect at all unless 'ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states...' This should extinguish anxiety that the state convention process could hijack the Constitution."

"In Washington and most political capitals, TIME in office = POWER" -- Mark Levin

The current term limits bills in Congress (introduced by Rep. Matt Salmon in the House and David Vitter and Rand Paul in the Senate) take the other of two paths offered in Article V, a vote in the Congress followed by ratification by the states.

In chapter two, Levin lays out a concise and persuasive case for Congressional term limits, citing the lack of rotation, gerrymandering, power of the incumbency, special interest money and seniority. The bottom line, he says, is "in Washington and most political capitals TIME in office = POWER." He calls for a limit of 12 years maximum in the Congress which can be split between houses.

Interestingly Levin also calls for 12-year Supreme Court limits. Here he cites the unexpected longevity of modern justices and the increased power they wield. Most persuasively, he points to the simple fact that a lifetime position today can -- and does -- entrench the "mentally impaired, venal and even racist" who may have once been vigorous contributors to the court. Due to uncompetitive elections and the lack of turnover in Congress, he could have noted that is phenomenon is not uncommon there either.

Less persuasive is Levin's call -- as part of the same amendment -- to permit Congressional overrides of Supreme Court decisions, such as if the Court determines a Congressional law is unconstitutional.

In chapter 9, Levin calls for the ability for states to directly amend the Constitution. If two-thirds (not three fourths) of the states approve the exact same amendment within a six year period, it would become part of the Constitution. No convention. No Congress.

As he puts it, "there is no persuasive reason the states need to administratively organize their amendment efforts through Congress. In fact, among the reasons states may be moved to act is precisely because of conflicts or disagreements with Congress."

No kidding. How about the conflict of interest involved in the Congress shepherding -- or, more accurately, torpedoing -- an amendment to limit the terms of the Congress? This amendment would permit states to make an end run around Congress.

Other amendments offered in the book include a tax cap (15 percent of income), a balanced budget amendment, national voter ID requirements and explicit private property protections. Nearly all are thoughtful and reasonable, but many are also politically fanciful currently.

But the book is not simply indulgence in political fantasy. It is a thought experiment that provokes serious consideration of our history, foundational law and the nature of our political system. It is particularly valuable for those who are active in the effort to pass Congressional term limits via a Constitutional amendment. Read it.