Category: term limits

Categories
Common Sense insider corruption judiciary term limits

Another OK Court Decision?

Here’s another interesting court decision in Oklahoma. Oh, this time it’s not a petition with hundreds of thousands of voter signatures being tossed out. And no, it’s not quite as crazy as that ruling allowing a man to photograph up the skirts of girls at the mall.

This time Oklahoma’s highest court has ruled that former State Senator Gene Stipe is entitled to an $84,000 a year state pension.

Gene Stipe was a state legislator for 54 years, the longest in history. But in 2003, facing removal due to term limits and a federal indictment, Stipe resigned. He was then convicted on federal campaign violations and perjury.

Stipe also faces new charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, witness-tampering and illegal monetary transactions. Talk about an experienced legislator.

Oklahoma’s retirement system board ruled that Stipe’s crimes violated his oath of office. A 1981 law requires in such case the pension benefits are forfeit. But the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided otherwise, giving Stipe his full pension. The lone dissenter, Chief Justice Winchester, wrote “I would assert that tampering with an election goes to the very heart” of the oath of office.

Some wonder why Attorney General Drew Edmondson hasn’t investigated Stipe on state charges. But Stipe is a large contributor to Edmondson. When the AG was asked why he hadn’t returned Stipe’s money, Edmondson explained there was no conflict, since, after all, he wasn’t investigating Stipe.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Arnold Loses His Strudel

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger no longer likes term limits. He explained why in an interview with the LA Times.

Says Arnold: “[O]riginally I felt very strongly that it was the greatest thing ever done. Because I despised the idea of guys being so locked in and safe in their positions, staying up in Sacramento and doing their deals and all this stuff.

“Now ’ve been there for four years and I say to myself, ‘Oh my God, this is a disaster.’. . . It’s going to hurt the state, because we have to start all over again, getting acquainted with these new people coming in. . . . John Burton, whom I’d just gotten used to working with; he used to bring me delicious Austrian coffee and apfelstrudel. Now he’s gone.”

Gee, competitive elections are so inconvenient, aren’t they? With the people coming and going and all this stuff? Not to mention the strudel crisis.

U.S. Term Limits president Phil Blumel observed: “Yes, Arnold ‘learned’ the lessons most politicians learn after a while in office: that government is the solution not the problem and that staying in office is better than leaving it.’

Blumel is right on. And I’m happy to report that California citizens ignored Arnold’s recent brainstorms and his endorsement of Prop 93, a devious term limits extension measure, defeated in February by Golden State voters. If the governor is still sad, well, maybe somebody can bring him some jelly doughnuts as a consolation prize.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

The Blob

Sometimes people say that term limits are irrelevant. It’s not that they oppose term limits. It’s just that they think political process as such doesn’t matter at all. As one skeptic puts it, “the central problem is American culture, not legislative culture. The country wants to spend without paying, and will find ways to do that. Term-limits advocacy is a way to avoid tackling the larger problem.”

False alternative, folks. I agree: ideas and culture matter most. But this does not mean that institutions and process matter not at all. Ninety percent of the porkbarrel projects that get passed without public debate would go down in flaming defeat if voters could decide each one up or down. If process were irrelevant, all the same things would happen anyway.

So if the new governor of California repeals a recently tripled car tax, that was going to happen anyway. And doesn’t matter whether the previous governor had served one term plus one year, two terms, or 10 terms. But process does matter. If a corrupt politician is termed out of office, giving a chance for someone with better ideas and better character that matters.

There is no unitary, blob-like public opinion that gets automatically translated into unitary, blob-like policy. That’s a collectivist view of the world, not the individualist view such skeptics of term limits claim to have. For my part, I’d rather not turn over permanent power to the guys in office at this moment. I’d rather have term limits and have hope.

This is Common Sense.  I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall term limits

Bad for Monopolists

The political class hates term limits. It’s official. A new Cato study, “Defining Democracy Down: Explaining the Campaign to Repeal Term Limits,” shows how relentlessly career politicians and their allies have opposed legislative term limits over the years.

The career politicians hate term limits because under term limits their legislative monopolies collapse. Basham observes that “the absence of term limits severely limits the competition for legislative seats. In Idaho, for example, the 2000 election saw 66 percent of state senators and 50 percent of state house members elected without opposition.” No opponent at all. But in states that do have term limits, electoral competition happens regularly.

Basham says repeal efforts usually fail “because they have been led by those who are seemingly intent on preserving their professional advantages and institutional perks regardless of ‘common good’ considerations. Only once have such efforts passed voter inspection.” But the “voter inspection” in question, a referendum in Idaho, was clouded by a confusingly-worded ballot question.

The experience in Idaho suggests that term limits need to be passed as constitutional amendments, rather than as mere statutes. Legislators can repeal a term-limits statute unilaterally, but they must ask voters to roll back a constitutional amendment. And voters tend not to play along. And that, for the political class, is what makes term limits and robust democracy so very bad.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense term limits

The Arrogance Award

House Speaker Bruce Newcomb

One reason politicians give themselves awards is that, frankly, nobody else will.

Recently, Idaho Speaker of the House Bruce Newcomb received the William M. Bulger Excellence in State Legislative Leadership Award from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

What did Newcomb do to earn this award?

Why, he led the legislative effort to repeal Idaho’s statutory term limits law.

What a superhero!

Newcomb, who is unpopular with Idaho voters for his arrogant assault on term limits, clearly scores plenty of points with career politicians.

Marty Linsky, chair of the award’s selection committee, says, “Speaker Newcomb demonstrated extraordinary political courage and a deep commitment to the institution of the state legislature by taking on the unpopular challenge of repealing term limits.”

“Excellence” for legislators is apparently judged by how eagerly they sling mud in the public’s eye. And get this. The award is named after William M. Bulger. That’s the Massachusetts Senate President who refused to hold a vote on term limits back in 1993, even though the state’s constitution mandated that such a vote “shall” take place.

That was corrupt enough for me. But Bulger is also refusing to say where his brother is. He has invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before a congressional committee, to protect his brother Whitey. Whitey is wanted by the FBI for racketeering, extortion and involvement in nearly two dozen murders.

Hey, Mr. Career Politician. You may already have won.

This is common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Chairman Jeffords

If you’re a partisan Republican, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont is a no-good, rotten traitor. If you’re a partisan Democrat, he’s a genuine man of principle. If you’re the average American, his switch of parties is all just so much shuffling of deck chairs on the Titanic.

Jeffords can, of course, legally change parties. The dominance of the major parties and the so-called two-party system were created entirely outside the Constitution. Nothing in our Constitution recognizes the parties or gives them any standing whatsoever. But it’s a little much to switch teams just a few months after an election in which many folks and organizations voted for you at least in part because of your partisan affiliation.

Sure, under fire, Jeffords has now offered to return contributions to any Vermonters who want their money back. But this is an empty gesture. Only roughly 10 percent of his funding came from the people he represents. Most comes from PACs, Republican elected officials and party committees. Though his record in the Senate seems more in line with the Democrats, Mr. Jeffords sure took a lot of money from the Republicans he now can’t abide.

So what really prompted Jeffords to make the switch from Republican to Democrat after 26 years in Congress? One big possibility: term limits. While we don’t yet have term limits on congressmen themselves, we do have term limits on committee chairmen. After 2002, under Republican control, Jeffords would have had to give back his chairman’s gavel and all that power. By switching to the Democrats, however, he gets to stay a committee chairman . . . well, perhaps another 26 years.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.