Term limits? How will we punish misbehaving legislators?

In Monday's Oregonian, Judy Dresser of Tualatin has an unconventional view on term limits:

Thank you for your revealing series on legislators failing to report trips given to them by lobbyists. It makes me angry. It also makes voters lose faith in their elected officials.

However, it provides another good reason to vote against term limits (Ballot Measure 45): I want to be able to show my displeasure with these legislators by voting them out. Term limits would keep me from being able to do that.

Whether they're making me proud or making me furious, I want to be able to decide who I can or can't vote for. Term limits take my vote away. Vote no on Measure 45.

JUDY DRESSER, Tualatin

Discuss.

  • John Locke (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It is a great point...with out the fear of losing one's Job what is going to stop these Lame Ducks from milking the system for all it is worth?

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't support term limits, but I also don't see how they keep someone from voting a person out of office. What am I missing here?

  • Anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Frankly, I think that this is a moral choice.

    The positive of getting rid of people like Minnis far outweighs the negative of losing a good legislator.

    I'll probably vote in favor of this.

  • (Show?)

    Becky--if someone comes up on a term limit, they don't run, and thus you cannot vote them out. In other words, the voter does not get the satisfaction of saying "we want a different choice;" a different choice is already a fait accompli. The voter can no longer say "Go home"--they are left with a more unsatisfying "good riddance."

    It's an interesting take. It expresses the desire of voters to be heard as they make their choices, to make a statement.

    I think there's also an interesting accountability concept at work: if the legislator knows they are term-limited, then pretty much everything that happens after their last election is accountability-free. Short of doing something that would get you expelled, you can behave in any way you like, because you have nothing to lose. With the threat of losing the election, the legislator is forced to make the term previous to that election a selling point for his or her re-election.

    Anyway, the history of term limits in this country is that they don't accomplish much. Vote No.

  • (Show?)

    John Locke: what is going to stop these Lame Ducks from milking the system for all it is worth?

    While I'm also voting against term limits, I think you need to be seriously disabused of the notion that Legislators get to milk much of anything. With a salary of $17,000 to $20,000 per year, they're literally working at the poverty line.

    Compare that to the average salary of their previous jobs - Corporate VPs, Lawyers, Doctors, etc - and you can see a 60 to 100 grand difference.

    That'll buy a lot of trips to Hawaii.

  • John Locke (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Anon,

    Two things:

    First, Term Limits would remove 5 times as many good legislators as bad ones.

    Second, What makes you think that if a district elected a bad legislator then will elect a good one two years later. If they have already drank the kool-aid then what makes you think they will stop just because the flavor has changed?

  • (Show?)

    I don't support term limits, but I also don't see how they keep someone from voting a person out of office. What am I missing here?

    TJ makes the case on the last term, but there's something else at work. In a term-limits world, plausible challengers don't run until the term limit is up - essentially guaranteeing a legislator a full run (and thus less interest in making tough choices and being accountable). In a no-term-limits world, you could draw a tough challenger anytime - and thus you have be on good behavior.

    Take, for example, Brian Clem and Billy Dalto. It's going to wind up being a very expensive race and hard fought on both sides. If Brian had known that Billy would be leaving due to term limits in 2008, would he run against him in 2006? Or simply bide his time?

    If I were advising him, I'd tell him to wait. And lots of people will do exactly that.

  • John Mulvey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Will people PLEASE stop using the "kool-aid" metaphor? I'm about to go insane.

  • Righty (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I will vote in favor of term limits, although I agree that with the pros and cons of the measure. This may sound terrible to those of you who see government as the ultimate solution to our problems, but I believe with more turnover less will get done.

    One thing I disagree with Locke's statement that "Term Limits would remove 5 times as many good legislators as bad ones." It is closer to 50/50.

  • John Napolitano (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In a term-limits world, plausible challengers don't run until the term limit is up - essentially guaranteeing a legislator a full run (and thus less interest in making tough choices and being accountable). In a no-term-limits world, you could draw a tough challenger anytime - and thus you have be on good behavior.

    Too many state legislator start their re-election campaign the day after the election. They immediately start looking for contributions to their re-election campaign funds, and provide favorable treatment to legislation supported by wealthy special interests and oppose the rest. "We the People" are not significant players.

    In a term limit world, half of the senate (and a third of the house) would not be up for re-election, and there would be no reason for at least those legislators to be blatantly in favor of special interests and opposed to the needs of their constituents. Maybe that would be a good thing.

    Term Limits would remove 5 times as many good legislators as bad ones.

    I don't know every current legislator and everyone's voting record, but I can count the ones I would consider "good" (principled, hard working, visionary) on the fingers of one hand. But maybe the Nike vote and a few other issues in the last session have made me cynical.

  • perpetualstudent (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I recently moved from California, a state with term limits. My perception is that term limits results in a much less successful legislature. The members are political novices you spend most of their time just trying to figure out how the process works.

  • (Show?)

    In a term limit world, half of the senate (and a third of the house) would not be up for re-election, and there would be no reason for at least those legislators to be blatantly in favor of special interests and opposed to the needs of their constituents.

    John, I disagree. I think you've got it backwards. With term limits, they know from day one that they've got to find something to do after they leave office. It becomes entirely about jockeying for jobs with the special interests - lobbying or otherwise. Not only that, but the enforced "climb the ladder" effect in which they immediately start planning their run for statewide or local office means that they have to cater to those special interests.

    And with term limits, there's not even the brake of "what will the voters think of this?" because the voters no longer matter.

    Don't spend your time thinking about the effects on the final term in a particular office, but rather what it does to the matrix of costs and incentives for someone's entire "career" in public service.

    (Not that you can call it a career when you're making bupkis.)

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If you support term limits, you are essentialy saying, "I'm too stupid to make informed and intelligent decisions about candidates." Actually, you probably believe you are informed and intelligent enough to make those decisions--it's just all those other voters who are stupid and ignorant.

    But if all these people are too stupid to vote wisely on candidates in their own districts, how can we trust them to vote wisely on this ballot measure? Doesn't make sense. Let the people decide whether they want to keep a Peter Courtney around for 20 years or so.

  • Kathleen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What term limits tries to address is the power of incumbency. It is not so much getting rid of the really bad legislators. After all we could recall them (not likely, but theoretically possible). Term limits is a way to deal with the mediocre, the do-nothings. The people with no vision; the party hacks. An incumbent starts any election cycle with name recognition and money. If the legislator has done nothing to upset their own party, no one will run against them in the primary. And if they are in one of the large number of "safe districts", a candidate from the other party doesn't stand much of a chance, and a third party or independent candidate even less. So we don't have much of an opportunity to vote them out. We have to wait for them to die, retire or run for another office.

  • (Show?)

    I disagree with Locke's statement that "Term Limits would remove 5 times as many good legislators as bad ones." It is closer to 50/50.

    C'mon...its even worse than that. I mean, I know this is all Blue Oregon and all --and I'm a democrat-- but sheesh, even Kate Brown showed high up on the Beer & Wine Distributors campaign contributors list? She's my district's Senator, I have a lot of respect for her...but let's save the three-tiered-distribution system for God and Country? Meanwhile we'll be passing (hopefully) yet another scheme in Portland to fund our local schools, a task the legislature can do about as well as finding their ass in the dark?

    If the legislature completely turned over tomorrow, you think they'd do a worse job then what we've been seeing? Oh, I know, the creepy lobbyists will then be running the show. Well why not just throw their asses out of the temple as well...or is that just going a little too darn far?

  • (Show?)

    Folks, I am the Political Director for one of four caucuses in Oregon. If you want to see me and the three other individuals who have the equivalant positions have far more influence than we already have, vote yes on 45.

    In 2005, the House Republicans voted as a block 97% of the time on the House floor. If you want that to become standard operating procedure session after session, vote yes on 45.

    Recently, several legislators were exposed for having been flown to Hawaii by a lobbyist to collect campaign contributions. If you want to see that sort of thing happen more frequently then vote yes on 45.

    If all of these things sound like they really suck then vote no on 45.

    It really isn't hard to realize that term limits will give more power to the permanent institutions that are part of government. Political campaign professionals, lobbyists and bureaucracies will all gain far more influence then they already have while those who are accountable to the public via elections will be the least experienced, the least knowledgable and therefore, the least powerful.

  • (Show?)

    Meanwhile we'll be passing (hopefully) yet another scheme in Portland to fund our local schools

    Actually, this isn't another stop-gap "scheme". It's just the regular levy, up for the regular renewal.

    But that's off-topic. Back to term limits now, please.

  • (Show?)

    But that's off-topic. Back to term limits now, please.

    It's the legislature's job to fund schools now. Local option levies aren't "regular" they are extraordinary responses to the failure of the legislature to do its job...year after year. It was sorta nice, in fact, to have my property taxes go down a bit when the last levy expired (replaced, of course, by the Multnomah County personal income tax).

    I don't really think term limits are the answer. But, then, what's the question we're asking? I think it's how to figure out --and stop-- the corrupting influence of lobbyist money. And that ain't just an "R" issue.

    Tell me how we stop this, and I'm all ears. How do we get this back to being a government "of the people?"

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Frank, inasmuch as your plan seems to lead to an empty Capitol, it goes a little far...

    Once again we get the misdirected solution of deconstructing the governmental institution not giving us the representation we require. As 'perpetualstudent' points out, term limits ensures us House-fuls of ineffectual novices. A swing-and-a miss! [Crowd boos]

    Judy Dresser at least asks the right question: "How will we punish misbehaving legislators?" Waiting until their re-election is obviously inadequate, but cynically maintaining that there is just no hope of holding experiened representatives accountable for their performance is worse. If we really believe that democracy is our best hope for a just society, we must believe that there is a way to make the representational democracy which we've been bequeathed work for us! If we can't enlist a broad constituency that demands professional representation we will never get out from under Fascist exploitation.

    I find that same rank attitude behind Measure 46, the State Constitutional Amendment intended to authorize campaign finance limitations. The same cynical despair of holding legislators accountable for opposing effective campaign finance reform led them to institute the three-quarters assent "superdupermajority" requirement to pass a CFR bill. That's a mistargeted attack on the representational institution designed to take away the power of the Legislature to do their job rather than promting a means of ensuring that they do their job honestly.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The plan of Frank's to which my last comment referred was the one to "throw [all] their asses out of the temple".

  • (Show?)

    Term limits bad. Limits on political contributions good. See Fair Elections Oregon

  • Paul Farago (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If you want a stagnant good-old boy club in Salem - you've got it - a dysfunctional, anti-competitive elections system with a 98.1% November reelection rate. Only one legislative incumbent has been removed in each of the last two general elections. More were removed due to criminal convictions.

    If you want to allow experienced legislators to go back into the real world, or other political jobs ... if you want to allow new people with a fresh outlook to serve in our Legislature -- then vote YES on 45.

    Note :The Maui lobbyist is the single largest cash donor to the No on 45 campaign. He does not invite challengers -- only incumbents. If you want do not want to curb the corrupting influence of lobbyists on our Legislature, if you liked Maui-gate, vote No.

    Here's why term limits for legislators = term limits for lobbyists -- because every termed-out lawmaker means a terminated relationship with a lobbyist.

    Paul Farago, spokesperson, Restore Oregon's Term Limits Committee See the M45 blog or website

  • Buckman Res (unverified)
    (Show?)

    “Actually, you probably believe you are informed and intelligent enough to make those decisions--it's just all those other voters who are stupid and ignorant.”

    You got that right!

    I used to be leery of term limits but will give them a chance with this ballot measure.

    After seeing pols like Erik Sten (just an example, this measure does not apply to PDX city council) elected time after time it becomes evident too many voters base decisions on name familiarity and a perceived political philosophy they think they agree with. The incumbent's track record seems hardly to be taken into account.

    Public service wasn't ment to become a career. Getting new people in on a regular is good for the body politic.

    Term limits can’t be all bad. After all, how would you feel if it didn’t apply to the presidency?

  • (Show?)

    I'm pursuaded that this term limits proposal is actually a defacto incumbancy protection act, by virtually guaranteeing that incumbants won't draw serious challengers in any election until their term is up and there is an open seat race.

    I would support term limits only to guard against the extreme cases, where you have a legislator who has been in office for 20 years or so and dominates one or two committees to the extent that no legislation on that topic can be heard unless this one individual who has been there 20 years agrees.

    So if the term limit proposal was for, say, double the limits of this proposal, I would consider it. 12 years for a Representative, and 16 years for a Senator.

    This would prevent cases of over accumulation of power, while still providing for a fair amount of institutional memory, while not in effect guaranteeing reps 6 years terms and senators 8 year terms.

  • (Show?)

    I don't know whether to laugh or get angry at Paul Farago, and his out of state supporters, when they talk about the effects of term limits. We don't have to guess here in Oregon- we can look at our own history. I have been in the Capitol since 1973, and and I've never seen,let alone met, Mr. Farago. Where do he and his NY pals get the idea that they know anything about how the legisalture worked before term lmits, with term limits, and then afterwards when the measure was declared unconstitutional. I know, and others who were there know. It was a disaster, and that statement is the unanimous opinion of everyone who ever followed the legislature- reporters, legislators, staff, lobbyists, etc. This is the view of conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, advocates for unions, corporations, public interest group- EVERYONE, including many who had previously been supporive of term limits. It's not just bad public policy in a political science sense (taking away the people's right to vote in a democracy), but it had real world, pragmatic problems, including unforeseen consequences, such as an increase in partisanship. Because legislators could not take several sessions to climb the leadership ladder, they had to "toe the mark" from the outset in order not be taken seriously as good party members. I saw the problems first hand, and am terrified that folks will vote in favor of this measure out of ignorance of history. I love the institution of the Oregon Legislature, despite teh failings of individual memebers, and don't want to see it harmed.

  • Margalo Ashley-Farrand (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What looks like a good idea can turn out to be a nightmare.

    In California, where I recently moved from, term limits were enacted over 10 years ago.

    Initially, long term legislators, like Willie Brown (against whom the Republicans designed the Proposition), Sen. Burton (the great legislative memory bank) and others were termed out. At first, there were more women in office in the Assembly and Senate, but now there are fewer in total than before the legislation passed.

    The worst outcome is that institutional memory in the form of long term legislators is completely gone. Most legislators take a term or two to really learn the job, but Assembly members get only 3 terms (6 years.) A member has to run for Speaker before gaining this knowledge. Senators get only 2 terms (8 years).

    Consequently, the majority of bills are now being written by lobbyists not legislators. Bills are getting passed before the legislators realize the harm they may cause, or good bills are written badly and are ineffective.

    For Californians, really good legislators are being lost, such as Sen. Sheila Kuehl. She got a really great health insurance bill passed after 8 years of work (vetoed by Gov. Schwartzenegger), but she is termed out and cannot bring it up again. While only the bad legislators could have been turned out by the voters and the good ones kept. Term limits are enacted as a substitute for good campaign finance reform. The true incumbents' advantage is that only they get the large contributions from lobbyists.

    Let us not duplicate the foolishness that California is suffering. Oregonians are mature enough to not re-elect the bad legislators and to vote for campaign finance reform. Vote No on Measure 45.

  • (Show?)

    terrified that folks will vote in favor of this measure out of ignorance of history. I love the institution of the Oregon Legislature, despite teh failings of individual memebers

    Stephen...please let let you in on something. Most folks don't love the "institution of the Oregon Legislature." The institution has failed us. Failing to recognize that represents an ignorance of history.

    What I don't get, frankly, is all this gnashing of teeth over these oh-so-awful limits...they total up to how many years? How many years to get it right, and make a difference, as a citizen-legislator?

    Our legislators can't handle that? Oh, they'll still be on intermediate math when the final gong tolls. Geez...if that's who we're sending down there, maybe we do need more new blood, and a lot of it.

    "Would you want to automatically change your doctor every few years," the League of Women Voters asks me in a letter I got today. What a load. "...freshman legislators who quickly dug themselves into partisan ditches..." Uh, aren't we democrats sorta...partisan? Isn't more the problem we've rolled over for thug republicans, and settled for tearful hugs when nothing gets accomplished beyond the final gavel? (Well, except for trips to Maui, and the continuing patter of lobbyist feet?)

    I respect Dan Meek enough, a guy who's made a difference, that I'll vote against this. But I think it's gonna pass, and we need to grasp the anger and frustration behind that.

    And, y'know...term limits does help the Bush imperial presidency from going permanent on us. That's worth a lot to me. And, I suspect, no one here thinks that a bad outcome of term limits.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Frank, it is you who displays an ignorance of history: the institution of the Oregon Legislature is worthy of your respect because it is a government of the people. If you are looking to place blame for its failure to serve your best interests, just take a look in the mirror citizen!

    All that payola you so rightly despise isn't going to a dictatorial or aristocratic elite that forces you to go along with their nefarious schemes; it is all pointed in the end at you. They are schmoozing your representative and if you don't hold him responsible for his actions, and if you don't watch what he is doing in your name, the failure is yours, not that of the institution of democracy in our state.

    In truth, attacks on the institution of the Legislature such as term limits, which at worst prevents dedicated servants of the people of this great state from forming a network of concerned citizens guarding their freedom, do help the imperial presidency to gain traction. The institutions of democracy are our only bulwark against despotism. Do not allow your cynicism to subvert your self-interest.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Term limits bad. Limits on political contributions good."

    Frank, is that the sort of demagogue you would follow?

  • Paul Farago (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Diplomacy means listening to people with whom you disagree. Obviously, not everyone is willing to do that.

    I've probably been to Salem a little more than the average voter - but like most folks, I am not a political insider.

    Citizens want greater control over our state government - not by becoming insiders, but by applying reasonable limits to what is now mostly unlimited, undisciplined and unaccountable government in our state.

    Term limits elevate our experienced legislators to new challenges. After all, issues in Salem do not take place only within the building. Programs involve local and county officials, too. Is it good for Oregon that some of the local officials have experience in the state Legislature as a result of term limits? Yes. And term limits open service in the Legislature to people who have political experience at the local level. Is it good for Oregon that some of legislators who ran and won only due to open-seats / term limits, have experience at the local level. Yes. Programs also involve the private sector. Is it good that some of our local and state officials have recent private sector experience? Yes. Is it good to allow in "citizen-legislators", who only expect to serve a term or two and return to non-government life? Yes. But they won't even apply for the job when there's no real chance of winning, and when there's no chance of having influence, under the strict seniority system, until you've won a series of reelections.

    Under M45, all these folks will have a seat at the table. In the current system, the cardinals work it all out in back rooms. The rank-and-filers do crosswords and sudoku puzzles, sing songs, recite poetry, etc. waiting to see the color of the smoke rising, waiting for the cardinals and lobbyists to emerge telling them how to vote (and telling them what gifts to disclose/not disclose to the Ethics Commission.)

    This means most likely - your representative doesn't really have seat at the table at all.

    Without term limits, the alternative is stagnation: from a 98.1% incumbency retention in general elections and a dwindling number of open seats (only 10 of 75, this year). That makes for less representative, less accountable state government. We can do better.

    Paul Farago spokesperson, Restore Oregon's Term Limits Committee www.oregontermlimits.blogspot.com

  • (Show?)

    They are schmoozing your representative and if you don't hold him responsible for his actions, and if you don't watch what he is doing in your name, the failure is yours, not that of the institution of democracy in our state.

    "Schmoozing", Ed? What's that? Lobbyists hire folks like Rick Metzger to run their training in Maui, for their fellow legislators, and, well, that's fine...the guy's gotta make a living. As we all do.

    Kate Brown, my representative --a she, not he-- has come to our neighborhood association meetings, and I think she's terrific in a lot of ways. But I don't recall the three-tier wine and beer distribution system coming up as an issue. But watch that lobbyist money flow like, well, wine.

    I don't blame the legislators, I blame the system. You need a systemic answer. Term limits isn't it, I don't think, but there's more Wayne Scotts and Karen Minnis'
    where they came from...we can demonize individuals, and we can spend a lifetime doing that, but nothing's going to change. Just the names on the lobbyists' checks.

    I disrespect the "institution of the Legislature" because it's failed at a fundamental responsibility it has, funding education. How many more sessions do we gavel to a close without an answer to this?

    I'll take full responsibility for whatever failings I may have as a "citizen," but I don't know, Ed, that yelling at the citizens, --from the shores of Hawaii, ot the bar at El Gaucho-- that the corruption in the system is "their fault" is gonna get you much traction with them.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dear Frank, Should my one of my friends fall into self-indulgent delusion, and rationalizing his (or her) failing to take action to remedy their situation as the "system" being broke "so there is nothing they can do", you can bet I will talk to them as loudly as it takes to get their attention and let them know that they need to get off their stool, dump that teary beer, and get crackin'! Should they persist in delusion and start muttering about blowing up buildings, I'm surely going to intervene. You need someone to intervene before you do damage to democracy.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Paul, in the district next to mine, there was an excellent state rep. named Larry Wells. A rural resident representing rural residents, someone with an excellent record on water quality. And, just as important, a legislative office welcoming to all from the area--from high school students to anyone who had a question.

    Term limits threw him out and we got Dan Doyle in that district (until his legal troubles removed him from that seat and sent him to jail). An urban person representing a rural district, very arrogant, his office snippy to people who asked questions because after all, he knew everything--or so he and his office wanted us to believe.

    That isn't term limits theory. That is what actually happened. No one on your campaign that I know of has addressed the actual result of the previous term limits--regardless of your theory, not every person removed was an awful person replaced with an excellent representative.

    Not to mention Speaker Simmons, who became a nursery lobbyist before his term as Speaker ended. Did he do that because he was term limited so it didn't matter what voters thought of him?

    No one from the term limits campaign seems to want to address those issues. They want us to believe that experience only counts in other areas of life and legislators are like widgets or like food with a "sell by " date. That if you replace person X with person Y you will get equal quality (or maybe you want lobbyists and staff to have more power than members?). What is it about institutional memory which bothers you so much? Without term limits, the control of the House was decided by 7 state rep. election margins of less than 1000. Sounds to me like an engaged electorate.

    Having worked on campaigns where we "gave term limits the old fashioned way" and elected a challenger, deposing an incumbent, I don't support term limits.

    And exactly how much of the money for your campaign was collected from Oregonians? I mean both the signature collection campaign and the ballot measure campaign. Paul, how long have you lived in Oregon and have you ever worked on a challenger's campaign?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    From today's Oregonian:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1160717224292170.xml&coll=7 Meet the money behind the measures New Yorker Howard Rich hates big government and the spotlight Friday, October 13, 2006

    LAURA OPPENHEIMER ..................... Rich operates most visibly through Americans for Limited Government and U.S. Term Limits, groups he has started with like-minded friends. He also doles out money and advice through several other organizations. Combined, they have spent at least $10 million this year, including $2.8 million in Oregon.

  • (Show?)

    Paul- It seem you are the one who doesn't listen to his opponents. Let me repeat my main statement, and I'd like you and your friends fromm Back East to respond: Your arguements about term limits are all about how you think it MIGHT change the legislature. We don't have to guess. We can look at Oregon's history. All the good things you thought MIGHT happen didn't, and many bad things did. This is not my conclusion- it is the obervation of everyone who operates in and around the legislature, including reporters (who have no stake) and people from all political philosophies. The guesses of how the legislature MIGHT HAVE benefited were flat wrong.

  • PanchoPdx (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Frank,

    Don't give Meek's opinion on this too much credit. His proposals will actually create more barriers to electing citizen legislators.

    Anyone who has ever had the pleasure of trying to get their head around the 185-page state campaign finance reporting manual must realize that M47 will just add another 50 pages to it.

    Green Party candidates don't have to worry about that monstrosity because they never raise more than $2000.

    Adding new rules to an overlycomplicated system will require every legitimate candidate to rely upon paid consultants to navigate the process.

    This system would ultimately undermine its own purpose.

  • activist kaza (unverified)
    (Show?)

    oh Pancho, puh-leez! Opponents of 46/47 need to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they criticise the measures as "too complicated" but then they also say, "they won't go far enough" to stop money getting into the system. Huh?

    M47 adds a dozen pages to the existing 300+ pages of election code. Its onus is entirely on the candidates, and frankly, if they can't handle this, do we really want them as our legislators?

    I have personal experience with campaign finance reporting. Federal reporting standards are stringent (the limits aren't, but that's another story) and far more onerous than this. Hasn't stopped any of our Congressional or Senate candidates that I know of.

    This is such a stupidly specious argument I sometimes have to wonder about the intelligence of the people making it...which depresses me, because generally we are supposed to be on the same side!

    When will progs wake up this election cycle and realize the true battles should be AGAINST 39, 41, 43 & 48? If you believe in reform, stop paying lip service to the notion. The legislature isn't going to do anything (they haven't for the past 10 years)...this is your option for 2006 - do nothing and live with the spreading cancer of money in Oregon politics, or apply some chemo in the form of 46/47.

    As to term limits, I'd say on balance: bad idea. But if we have term limits and NO campaign limits...well, that's your disaster scenario for Oregon, folks!

  • Paul Farago (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Funny how the most vocal complainers about TL are self-proclaimed experts who work in and around state government. Here's what ex-Rep. Carl Wilson said, before casting his vote that tipped off the get-rid-of-TL scheme:

    "There comes a time when you decide you'll try all methods and all means available to do something. We need to take every approach possible. I don't expect voters to understand. But as you know, we are privy to things they are not. This hallowed place is where we are, and we know it best." – Rep. Carl Wilson (R-Grants Pass)

    Self-important, "ends-justifies-the-means" thinkers seem incapable of understanding that citizens are fed up with dysfunctional and self-serving "expert government" that has grossly overpromised and sadly underdelivered. Contrast Carl Wilson's comment with Benjamin Franklin's explanation of Revolution-era American government's lively experiment:

    "In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter [is] not to degrade but to promote them." – Benjamin Franklin

    We asked this question recently in a survey: Does gov't work for you, or do you work for gov't? By 47-40, people now regard our public servants as masters. Thanks to folks like Carl Wilson, we no longer have "free governments" as described by Franklin. The relationship between the people and our governments has largely been inverted. Is the Oregon Legislature "free" or is it serving special interests, as the Paul Romain / Maui-gate saga so clearly demonstrates? You decide.

    By most people's measure, unlimited state gov't has had a long run. It is simply out-of-control, and M45 is something voters can do about correcting it.

    P.S. To B.O. critics who would rather discuss personalities than the issue: I have lived in Oregon for almost 15 years, raised family here, and am an actively-practicing acupuncturist in Portland. I volunteer for M45 and have always been a donor/volunteer to the TL cause.

  • (Show?)

    Paul, how long have you lived in Oregon and have you ever worked on a challenger's campaign?

    Oooh, oooh...can I answer that?

    I can't speak for Paul, but I moved to Oregon in 1972 at age 21. Have lived here ever since. I guess you can say I've spent my adult life here, though its true I also come from (gasp) "Back East" and you could even say I grew up having (gasp)"NY friends," having grown up on Long Island.

    Y'know, Long Island? One party domination...and not very Blue at all? Worked for a "challenger?" I ran Kings Park McCarthy for President out of my bedroom in high school.

    I worked for Amanda Fritz for City Council. That didn't go as good as we hoped. Then again, I was at Bud Clark's election eve party, when he won in the primary against the unstoppable, unbeatable, invinceable Frank Ivancie.

    The power of incumbency is awesome. Awesome. Yeah, sometimes you throw the bums out, but mostly...they seem to stick around. Without speaking to the merits of their regimes, the last three elected Portland City Auditors --all of whom I've worked for-- have never had a competitive race. Never faced a challenger. What does it speak to the power of incumbency when elected officials run unopposed, year after year, for nearly a quarter of a century? Where's the debate that informs --that's supposed to inform-- our democracy?

    I like Earl Blumenauer. But is this an election, or a crowning? How many offices are now being passed down, father to son (or daughter); husband to wife? When did politics become a family business? Hillary, Al...George? Which Mayor Daley are we talking about in Chicago?

    On balance, I think term limits are probably not a good idea. But, the other thing is, I think the system's broken, it just seems to be a lot of the same old same old. Legislative session as class reunion. And, frankly, I'm sick of Portland taxpayers picking up the slack for the state legislature's continuing dismal failure to do its job funding schools.

    I'm not sure what the answer is. I just know it's not business as usual. And we can continually be reactive, fighting this and that ballot measure, combating this or that "taxpayer revolt." Or we can step to the plate, assume responsibility for the mess we've got, and come up witn something different, that really makes a difference.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "B.O. critics who would rather discuss personalities than the issue" The issue of commenter anonymity (an unknown name being much the same) deserves some comment itself: while I respect that some commenters need to remain anonymous to shield themselves from undue repercussions from exercising free speech rights, they must reconcile themselves to a certain lack of credibility in an arena where important local issues are under attack from people with a wider agenda within which Oregon issues are used as pawns in their game plan. It goes beyond mere diversion to discussion of personalities.

    In light of that, you may want to know something of my experience of local culture. I am a bit younger than Frank Dufay, was born in and have lived almost all my life in Oregon, the most notable exception being my active duty stint (only one!) in the Navy whereby I missed the entire reign of Frank Ivancie. Having lived in the Portland area it was a good time to miss, epitomized by the erection of the ghastly Portland Building. Nuff said! I spent a few years recently in Washington State during which time 'resident Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war jolted me out of political passivity. I cannot tell you how profoundly his re-election depressed me, but I cannot relapse to passivity.

    "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Winston Churchill, from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

    Churchill certainly understood the frustration of working in a democracy, having been given "The Order of the Boot" as he called it, being voted out of leadership as soon as he led Britain through to victory in WWII. We must display similar patience with the institutions of Democracy here.

    I maintain that it is the institution of the electorate that needs change most desperately. The electorate has changed much since the framers of the Constitution implemented it. It was their prosperous middle class who fought the Revolution and ratified the Constitution to make themselves secure in their own homes. Without them no democracy can survive, for without a broad class of people who have the time and ability to be informed and engaged partners in their own governance democracy cannot function. Since the time of Churchill, the corporate special interests have been working to whittle down the middle class whom they see as rivals for power to be ruthlessly taken out. When people like Grover Norquist talk about whittling down government to where it can be drowned in the bathtub, he's really talking about you and me as effective partners in that government. You'll note that he and his co-conspirators like Abramoff and Reed have not been loath to use the power of government to achieve their nefarious ends.

    We have arrived very close to their dream of an impoverished middle-class electorate unable to promote their own interest. The corporations and their wealthy elite have sucked ever-mounting portions of the resources of our society to their own coffers and have demanded that their "tax burden" become ever lighter. So guess who is left with an ever-mounting tax liability? It is no accident that most families must have two wage earners to avoid bankruptcy these days. Or that bankruptcy has been made so much more draconian. It is a fact of political life we have to work around to avoid losing the institution of democracy in all but the name. We must not surrender to cynicism and declare that we have no power in the political system, so we must cut back the power of its institutions to avoid having their power used against us. That is the definition of self-defeat!

  • Scott (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm for term limits. As a separate issue, voters in the districts of those legislators that didn't list their trips paid by lobbyists should be voted out of the Oregon Legislature.

    My advice is: don't just vote for the name you know and don't buy their claim of having more experience. Who cares? I say subtract negative from postive experience. Some legislators won't look so wonderful doing this kind of math. If they are in the pocket of lobbyists, they are not putting the people in their districts first.

  • Scott McLean (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm for term limits. As a separate issue, voters in the districts of those legislators that didn't list their trips paid by lobbyists should be voted out of the Oregon Legislature.

    My advice is: don't just vote for the name you know and don't buy their claim of having more experience. Who cares? I say subtract negative from postive experience. Some legislators won't look so wonderful doing this kind of math. If they are in the pocket of lobbyists, they are not putting the people in their districts first.

  • Scott McLean (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The last comment should have read: legislators that didn't list their trips paid by lobbyists should be voted out of the Oregon Legislature.

    Thank you.

    <hr/>
letter to the editor

connect with blueoregon