Category: term limits

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption term limits

Mass Corruption

Ah, these United States — which is most corrupt?

New Jersey’s a traditional favorite. Chris Christie, the Republican candidate for governor this year, built his reputation as a federal prosecutor convicting 130 state and local politicians of corruption.

But Illinois is a contender: Think ousted Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Now, make room for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Recently, former House Speaker Sal DiMasi was indicted — along with several associates — for allegedly helping a software company obtain $20 million in state contracts in return for lots of cold, hard cash.

The previous speaker left office just before he was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. The speaker before that had been pushed out after pleading guilty to federal income tax evasion.

This rather consistent level of corruption is a sign of too much power and not enough accountability. Frank Hynes, a Democrat who served in the legislature for 26 years, agrees. He says, “The speaker controls, basically, everything — where you sit, where you stand, how many aides you get, whether you get a good parking space.”

Obviously the Bay State needs term limits — DiMasi had been in office for 30 years. But years ago legislators blocked a term limits amendment just as they’ve blocked all but three citizen petitions for constitutional amendments during the last 90 years.

Massachusetts needs a new revolution, one that puts citizens in charge with an initiative process that politicians cannot ignore.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
individual achievement term limits

Minnesota Common Sense

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is a stepping down after two terms.

At a news conference to announce his decision, Pawlenty said, “I still have a lot of ideas and energy left, but being governor should not be a permanent position for anyone. . . . It’s time to give someone else a chance.”

Partisan Democrats are quick to charge that Pawlenty doesn’t think he can win a third term. They point to a poll wherein 57 percent of Minnesota respondents think the governor should not run for a third term.

But hey: That poll may show more about the public’s thinking on term limits than on Pawlenty. A Rasmussen Reports poll shows the governor with a 53 percent approval rating.

Pawlenty told

Sean Hannity on Fox News: “In Minnesota, we don’t have term limits, but we do have common sense and good judgment and we’re also good about taking turns. . . . [L]ike with everything else, there’s a season in life and eight years is enough. . . . I think we’ve got a lot done and now it’s time to pass the baton to someone else.”

Pawlenty was on John McCain’s short-list for Vice President and is now being talked about as a likely GOP presidential contender come 2012.

Asked to speculate on his next position,

Pawlenty offered, “My dream job is to be an NHL defenseman, but at 48 and having no skill, it’s tough.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits U.S. Constitution

Replacing Souter

Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring. Apparently, Washington life doesn’t suit Souter, and, frankly, that’s the best thing I’ve heard in his favor.

A lot of people now speculate on whom our president will nominate, and how it will impact our country’s future. What will Congress do with the candidate? Will the ugly maw of politics sully the whole process . . . again?

One insight to glean from the second-guessing, speculation, and rumination is how sad it is that so much power rests on one selection.

When our leaders select a Supreme Court justice, they are selecting someone for life, really. Very few justices do as Souter has done, retire early, before their grasp on law and philosophy and politics might have dimmed a bit.

And that means that the job — already strategically important — becomes the Pearl of Great Price around which a lot of ugly politics scrambles.

How much better it would be were the Constitution amended to set terms for the justices, and limits to those terms!

Why not set terms to something like, say, eight years, and limit them to two? Sixteen years is plenty enough time in this office, way too much in most others.

Such a limit would make the position a little less crucial, and the turnover in the Court more evenly rotating.

And, thus, the appointment process a little less hysterical and ugly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Unexpected Analogy

Senator Arlen Specter has been around a long time. When he changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat last week, he referenced his early public service on the Warren Commission. Mobbed by enthusiasts, he said, “I don’t think Lee Harvey Oswald had this big a crowd trailing him.”

That wasn’t a parting shot — Specter aims to stay in office. He only switched after polls showed that challenger Pat Toomey — about whose candidacy I reported the week before — would best him in the Republican primary.

Yup. Arlen Specter wants to stay in office so badly that he’s willing to carry on even after he has been effectively repudiated by his party of over 40 years.

Most of the commentary has been about how small a tent the GOP has become. Most pundits say this is bad for Republicans.

I’m not so sure. If the Democrats fail to usher in Nirvana in the next two years — if things, say, get even worse — a narrowed oppositional GOP could turn the electoral climate around pretty fast.

What most interests me, now, is that Specter’s affiliation-change shows how difficult it is to change currents in government. The old guard can flip, stay in power, and the power brokers switch chairs from friend to foe and vice versa.

If senators served under term limits, this whole issue — and the problem it reveals — would not even come up.

With term limits, a metaphorical Jack Ruby isn’t even necessary.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

The Untold Story of the Oklahoma Three

Receiving an award is a lot nicer than ten years in prison.

As regular listeners know, Rick Carpenter, Susan Johnson, and I were indicted by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson on trumped-up, politically-motivated charges stemming from a petition drive to cap state government spending.

For almost two years this indictment hung over our heads. In all that time, the AG never even completed our preliminary hearing. Finally, all charges were dropped.

That vindication came in January. The next month, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, I received the Charlton Heston “Courage Under Fire” Award. And just weeks ago, I was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Sam Adams Alliance for my Oklahoma fight as well as decades of work for term limits and citizen initiative rights.

The recognition is nice . . . for my whole family, who suffered alongside me these past two years. But let’s also remember my co-defendants, Rick and Susan.

At one point Edmondson offered Susan Johnson a deal. If she would only plead guilty — saving face for the Attorney General — she would be charged with a misdemeanor, and her record would quickly be expunged.

With her legal bills mounting and her business hammered by the prosecution, she didn’t blink. Instead, she told the AG: “No way.”

Her commitment to doing the right thing led to an important legal victory. She gets my Award for Quiet Courage.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits too much government

Checking Specter

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter is an important man. How do I know this?

A congressman told me.

While Specter is a Republican, his congressional booster happens to be a Democrat. Pennsylvania Congressman Robert Brady credits Specter with passage of Obama’s stimulus bill.

“[T]his bill would not have passed,” says Brady, “if not for Arlen Specter,” who was one of three Republican senators to break ranks for the presidents’ bailout extravaganza. In case you were wondering, Brady clarified his enthusiasm for the so-called “stimulus” package. “[E]very congressman is passing out checks, all over the country . . . because of a man named Arlen Specter.”

Clearly, Brady likes to pass out checks . . . as do most other congressmen.

But one former congressman doesn’t seem so fond of the program. Pat Toomey ran for Congress back in 1998 pledging to serve just three terms. He won, spent six years fighting wasteful, overbearing government, and then stepped down as promised.

Toomey, until very recently the president of the Club for Growth — a group dedicated to market growth, not growth of government — is likely to challenge Specter next year for his Senate seat.

The difference between Toomey and Specter? Toomey, being the challenger, may ask you to write a check to his campaign, while Specter, being the incumbent, will offer to give you a check . . . drawn on your account.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

Veteran Politicians vs. Veterans

Back in 2005 I testified in the Florida legislature against an attempt to weaken the state’s term limits. Ignoring my testimony, legislators put their anti-limits amendment on the ballot. But as the election approached, they got scared. So scared, in fact, that they went so far as to pull their anti-term limits amendment off the ballot.

Now, four years later, there’s a proposed constitutional amendment to extend the state’s property tax discount for disabled veterans to those veterans who live in Florida now, but were not Florida residents when they entered the military. This popular idea is likely to win legislative approval to be on the ballot.

Well, at least, it was likely . . . until Senator Mike Bennett tacked on an amendment. Bennett wants to weaken Florida’s “eight is enough” term limits law by giving legislators twelves years. He sees latching it to the popular veterans’ measure as the best way to do that.

Notice that when Florida citizens propose constitutional amendments they can only address one subject, no pairing a popular issue with an unrelated unpopular one.

House Majority Leader Adam Hasner called the measure “disrespectful to those men and women who have served our country and are disabled veterans.”

It is also disrespectful to the 77 percent of Floridians who voted for eight-year term limits and want to keep them.

Floridians cherish military veterans.

Veteran politicians? Not so much.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

Quinn Is In

Blagojevich is out! Quinn is in! There is gubernatorial hope for corruption-riddled Illinois.

Now, admittedly, I don’t agree with Governor Pat Quinn on every issue. But few governors can boast Quinn’s long record as an anti-establishmentarian reformer.

In April of last year, Pat Quinn, then Illinois’s lieutenant governor, was pushing hard for a ballot measure to give voters the power to recall elected officials. This was after the sitting governor, Blago, got in hot water for various corruption, but long before he was caught scheming to sell president-elect Obama’s vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Certainly, the first target of a new recall power would have been Blagojevich. The bill passed the Illinois house but unfortunately failed in the senate.

Of course, Quinn’s track record goes way beyond the political battles of 2008. In addition to being pro-recall, he is also pro-initiative rights and pro-term limits. In 1994, Quinn did the heavy lifting to put a term limits measure on the ballot. It would have capped state legislative tenure at eight years had not the Illinois Supreme Court outrageously removed the ballot measure, blocking the vote.

Quinn is in. Illinois reformers should beat a path to his door and urge him to push for these necessary changes harder than ever.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies term limits too much government

Ears Burning

At the recent World Economic Forum, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned of our government’s flirtations with socialism, that is, a state-run economy.

Trying not to “gloat,” Putin told the U.S. that “Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence” is a “mistake.” He reminded listeners that state control of the old Soviet economy made the nation “totally uncompetitive.”

Putin then lectured us not to “turn a blind eye to the spirit of free enterprise.”

But why isn’t Putin lecturing Venezuela? That Latin American state’s president, Hugo Chavez, is a classic strong-arm socialist, marshaling the power of the state, as well as gangs of supporters, to threaten and intimidate his political opponents.

As with any wannabe dictator, Chavez has sought to dismantle term limits. Just 14 months ago, voters rejected his first attempt. But Chavez, having consolidated his hold on the media and other institutions, came right back with another vote to end the limits. This time he won. He can now serve for life.

Only in South America? No. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently voided his own term limits. And he didn’t even bother to allow a public vote on the issue. So, who’s the more anti-democratic, Chavez or Bloomberg?

When foreign tin-horn dictators start making as much or more sense than our own politicians, well . . . it’s long past time for us citizens to make serious changes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Will There Be Limits?

I’m usually pessimistic when political leaders propose term limits that must be approved by other office holders in order to be enacted, especially when those term limits are state legislative limits.

First, although there are often a few lawmakers who do genuinely support mandatory term limits on their own office, they can rarely persuade a majority to agree. The exceptions tend to be small town councils and the like, not large state legislatures.

Second, the term limits that politicians like tend to be the lax, elastic, super-generous kind. Twelve years or more. And even then, other lawmakers don’t fall all over themselves rushing to sign up.

Any chance in South Carolina? There Representative Jim Merrill is an advocate of term limits on leadership positions in the legislature. He even advocated a four-year limit on the majority leader while he was in that position, then stepped down in obedience to that limit. I’m impressed.

Merrill also thinks there should be a limit on all members’ terms, but he sees that as too hard a sell. He says he will first push for term limits on committee chairmen.

Meanwhile, Nathan Ballentine in the house and Ray Cleary in the senate are filing companion bills to limit tenure to 12 years in the House, 16 years in the Senate.

I guess I’ll put my money on Merrill.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.