Swordsmyth
09-26-2018, 02:32 AM
“Elected office in Missouri is no longer about serving the people of Missouri so that your constituents will re-elect you. It is about pleasing the consultants and lobbyists so that they pay for your re-elections, and reward you when your terms are over.”
Thus wrote Gina Loudin for World Net Daily (WND) back in 2015 (https://www.wnd.com/2015/01/the-case-against-term-limits/), summarizing the negative effects that legislative term limits have had in the Show-Me State. What makes Loudin’s present rejection of term limits as a positive reform so startling is that she was a leader fighting for term limits back in 1992.
She recalls her earlier belief in favor of term limits: “I wanted to pass term limits to clean out the 30-year establishment incumbents that held all the power (and corruption).”
It now appears that many Missourians regret the passage of term limits, according to the Kansas City Star (https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/influencers/article218682105.html). “On the question of whether term limits have been a success in Missouri, the vast majority responded with a resounding no.”
This opinion — that term limits have made the Missouri Legislature worse — is bipartisan. Gregg Keller, a Republican political consultant, told the Star that term limits have produced many problems: “It’s ensured that the people in the Capitol who know the most about legislation and the legislative process are the lobbyists who have been there longer than the term-limited representatives of the people.”
A former Democrat legislator from Kansas City, Mike Talboy, agreed, arguing that term limits “are terrible and have produced nothing beneficial to policy and governing since being enacted.”
Another Democrat, Jane Dueker, pinpointed one glaring problem of term limits: “People ascend to leadership before they are ready. There is a lack of proper mentoring from long-time legislators.” This, of course, is because under term limits, there aren’t any long-term legislators.
Unfortunately, many conservatives have bought the myth that term limits are a solution to the problem of expanding government. But as Loudin expertly explained, “What happens when you institute term limits is that it transfers [power] not to the young, fresh-faced legislators (as I had fantasized), but rather to those who are not elected: The consultants, the staff and the lobbyists.”
It is easy to understand why. New legislators often come to the Capitol as successful in their business or other line of work, but with little understanding of the legislative process or of the proper role of government. And since they know so little, they are open to mentorship. This mentorship comes from the leadership, the consultants, and the lobbyists, who are all too willing to tell him or her what to think.
Grassroots activists, who at one time were usually instrumental in the legislator’s electoral success, now no longer matter as much to the legislator. In fact, the longer term limits are in effect (as in my state of Oklahoma, which passed them in 1992, with them going into full effect in 2004), the less regard legislators hold for the grassroots activists. To be blunt, they often even hold them in contempt.
Their success now depends on political consultants, who helped get them elected in the first place, by directing them to the high-dollar corporate interests who tend to be less conservative than the grassroots. It has gotten so bad that I actually heard an Oklahoma legislator tell a TV reporter that he was waiting to hear from the state Chamber of Commerce as to what position he needed to take on the issue he was being asked about.
More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/30172-missouri-experience-illustrates-problems-with-term-limits
Thus wrote Gina Loudin for World Net Daily (WND) back in 2015 (https://www.wnd.com/2015/01/the-case-against-term-limits/), summarizing the negative effects that legislative term limits have had in the Show-Me State. What makes Loudin’s present rejection of term limits as a positive reform so startling is that she was a leader fighting for term limits back in 1992.
She recalls her earlier belief in favor of term limits: “I wanted to pass term limits to clean out the 30-year establishment incumbents that held all the power (and corruption).”
It now appears that many Missourians regret the passage of term limits, according to the Kansas City Star (https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/influencers/article218682105.html). “On the question of whether term limits have been a success in Missouri, the vast majority responded with a resounding no.”
This opinion — that term limits have made the Missouri Legislature worse — is bipartisan. Gregg Keller, a Republican political consultant, told the Star that term limits have produced many problems: “It’s ensured that the people in the Capitol who know the most about legislation and the legislative process are the lobbyists who have been there longer than the term-limited representatives of the people.”
A former Democrat legislator from Kansas City, Mike Talboy, agreed, arguing that term limits “are terrible and have produced nothing beneficial to policy and governing since being enacted.”
Another Democrat, Jane Dueker, pinpointed one glaring problem of term limits: “People ascend to leadership before they are ready. There is a lack of proper mentoring from long-time legislators.” This, of course, is because under term limits, there aren’t any long-term legislators.
Unfortunately, many conservatives have bought the myth that term limits are a solution to the problem of expanding government. But as Loudin expertly explained, “What happens when you institute term limits is that it transfers [power] not to the young, fresh-faced legislators (as I had fantasized), but rather to those who are not elected: The consultants, the staff and the lobbyists.”
It is easy to understand why. New legislators often come to the Capitol as successful in their business or other line of work, but with little understanding of the legislative process or of the proper role of government. And since they know so little, they are open to mentorship. This mentorship comes from the leadership, the consultants, and the lobbyists, who are all too willing to tell him or her what to think.
Grassroots activists, who at one time were usually instrumental in the legislator’s electoral success, now no longer matter as much to the legislator. In fact, the longer term limits are in effect (as in my state of Oklahoma, which passed them in 1992, with them going into full effect in 2004), the less regard legislators hold for the grassroots activists. To be blunt, they often even hold them in contempt.
Their success now depends on political consultants, who helped get them elected in the first place, by directing them to the high-dollar corporate interests who tend to be less conservative than the grassroots. It has gotten so bad that I actually heard an Oklahoma legislator tell a TV reporter that he was waiting to hear from the state Chamber of Commerce as to what position he needed to take on the issue he was being asked about.
More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/30172-missouri-experience-illustrates-problems-with-term-limits