February 19, 2005
Term limits: an idea whose time has come -- and gone
"All generalizations are dangerous, even this one." --Alexandre Dumas
In yesterday's blog, I suggested some ideas for Constitutional amendments at the federal level. Dan Emch's comment reminded me of the situation in Ohio as being a possible objection to repealing the 17th Amendment.
The situation in Ohio is caused by an idea that seemed good at the time, but doesn't work - term limits. The idea was, that we could make a more level playing field for campaigns and refresh our courthouses and statehouse by a regular infusion of new blood, by ensuring that no one could remain in the same office too long.
The reality is, we have a game of musical chairs where state representatives and state senators routinely trade jobs. Most people are confused between who is a state rep and who is a state senator anyway, so name recognition still works as though term limits had never been instituted. An even worse side effect is that the legislature has been robbed of its institutional memory, which is invaluable to the development of wise legislation, and tends to moderate the more extreme sentiments of some of the legislature. Thus, in the past biennium, we saw an Ohio Legislature that was afraid to tackle any difficult issues (and we have many to tackle: tax reform and school funding to name two), concentrated on trivial (from a public policy perspective) matters. The Republican ultra-conservatives in that Legislature tried to drive it by ideology, not practicality. As our current economic situation shows, we are not better off for it.
At the state level, we have seen the state treasurer switch to secretary of state and the state auditor and attorney general trade jobs. For these reasons term limits should be repealed. A good officeholder should not be artificially limited in tenure. A bad officeholder can be removed at election time.
So how do we level the playing field, considering the number of attempted campaign finance reforms that have failed constitutional muster. The answer is actually fairly simple:
Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided both conditions are met: (1) Credit is given to the author, and (2) the use is not for profit.
In yesterday's blog, I suggested some ideas for Constitutional amendments at the federal level. Dan Emch's comment reminded me of the situation in Ohio as being a possible objection to repealing the 17th Amendment.
The situation in Ohio is caused by an idea that seemed good at the time, but doesn't work - term limits. The idea was, that we could make a more level playing field for campaigns and refresh our courthouses and statehouse by a regular infusion of new blood, by ensuring that no one could remain in the same office too long.
The reality is, we have a game of musical chairs where state representatives and state senators routinely trade jobs. Most people are confused between who is a state rep and who is a state senator anyway, so name recognition still works as though term limits had never been instituted. An even worse side effect is that the legislature has been robbed of its institutional memory, which is invaluable to the development of wise legislation, and tends to moderate the more extreme sentiments of some of the legislature. Thus, in the past biennium, we saw an Ohio Legislature that was afraid to tackle any difficult issues (and we have many to tackle: tax reform and school funding to name two), concentrated on trivial (from a public policy perspective) matters. The Republican ultra-conservatives in that Legislature tried to drive it by ideology, not practicality. As our current economic situation shows, we are not better off for it.
At the state level, we have seen the state treasurer switch to secretary of state and the state auditor and attorney general trade jobs. For these reasons term limits should be repealed. A good officeholder should not be artificially limited in tenure. A bad officeholder can be removed at election time.
So how do we level the playing field, considering the number of attempted campaign finance reforms that have failed constitutional muster. The answer is actually fairly simple:
- Insist on full disclosure of all contributors to any campaign or political organization over a nominal amount (currently on some finance reports, $25.00).
- Reconsider the laws that have hamstrung the operation of political parties. For all the stereotypes about smoke-filled rooms, the party organizations served a valuable function in keeping candidates and elected officials near the political center.
- Provide some free form of communication at state expense, whether it is air time on radio or TV, or a mass mailing to all electors, which the candidate can use as he pleases to communicate their message. This would mitigate the problem of an opposition candidate who has good ideas and little money being locked out by the bigger-money candidate. In general, I dislike the idea of government-funded campaigns, but the ways I thought were better either failed constitutionally or failed practically.
- This is not a problem for Democrats, but the Republican Party has to get over its institutional phobia of contested primaries. Primaries are mechanism by which the party purifies itself from renegade candidates, and provide a reality check on the campaignplatform.
Copyright © 2005, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided both conditions are met: (1) Credit is given to the author, and (2) the use is not for profit.
Copyright © 2005-2006, Harold D. Thomas. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use the material in this blog provided this copyright notice is shown and the use is not for profit.
The Middle Way posted by Harold Thomas @ 12:24 PM 
