Term limits puts career politicians and lobbyists on notice

Despite their rationale, critics who oppose term limits are siding with the status quo, which not only keeps intact all-powerful political dynasties but also preserves special-interest lobbyists’ relationships with legislators. Christopher Mooney is one such critic, as he made clear in his recent anti-term limits editorial in Crain’s Chicago Business. By opposing term limits, Mooney isn’t...

Despite their rationale, critics who oppose term limits are siding with the status quo, which not only keeps intact all-powerful political dynasties but also preserves special-interest lobbyists’ relationships with legislators.

Christopher Mooney is one such critic, as he made clear in his recent anti-term limits editorial in Crain’s Chicago Business. By opposing term limits, Mooney isn’t sticking up for the views or best interests of Illinois’ citizens; he’s standing up for the establishment powers that have failed our state time and time again.

More than any other state, Illinois is a case study in why term limits for elected officials are needed. Entrenched incumbents control campaign finance laws and gerrymander electoral districts to consolidate political power with legislative leaders and deprive Illinois citizens of the right to participate in meaningful, contested elections.

And there are a number of inaccuracies and contradictions in Mooney’s anti-term limits editorial.

First, Mooney makes the statistically impossible claim that term limits won’t affect legislator turnover rates. This contradicts his 2007 report where he noted that turnover in the Illinois House averaged 18.5 percent over the prior two decades, the seventh-lowest rate in the nation. With an eight-year term limit, the average turnover can be no lower than 25 percent per election and will likely be higher.

States with term limits for politicians have consistently had turnover rates 15 to 20 points higher than states without term limits. For example in 2010, term limit states averaged 42 percent turnover, while remaining states registered just under 25 percent turnover. At the very least, term limits will give Illinois the opportunity to rid itself of leadership that has failed us for decades. Illinois needs fresh leadership and new ideas to turn the state around.

Mooney argues term limits won’t increase competition, but points out once a term-limited legislator seat is open, there’s a “colossal scrum for the open seat,” which suggests increased competition. He further contradicts himself by arguing term limits will lead to chaotic partisanship, but also that it simultaneously weakens party leadership. If legislators know it’s eight years and out, they will be less beholden to party leadership and have more independence in their voting decisions.

Next, Mooney concurrently contends, “term-limited legislators are no different in their political experience and ambition than those who are not term-limited,” but then a few paragraphs later disputes his own claim contending, “term limits strip legislatures of experience and policy knowledge.”

As Illinois shows, experience and the policy knowledge that supposedly comes with it isn’t all that it is cracked up to be.

Illinois’ caucus leaders are some of the most experienced state politicians in the history of the country. The two Republican caucus leaders have a combined 36 years of experience. Senate President John Cullerton has been in the Illinois General Assembly for 34 years. House Speaker Mike Madigan has been in office for 42 years, and is about to become the longest-serving speaker in the history of the United States with 29 years of experience as Speaker.

You would think with record-breaking legislative experience the state wouldn’t be in such dire straits. If we had good leadership there would have been no need to pass a historic 67 percent income tax increase in 2011, when other states are reducing income taxes. Despite new income tax hike revenues of more than $18 billion, Illinois still has an unbalanced budget, the worst credit rating in the nation, more than $200 billion in unfunded liabilities, unpaid bills more than $8 billion, an incredibly hostile business climate with an unemployment rate 1.9 points higher than the national average.

While Illinois is rich in years of legislative leader experience, we are poor in actual leadership. Gerrymandered redistricting that protects incumbents against competition and special campaign finance rules written to consolidate power in party leadership, protects the status quo in Illinois from the wrath of unhappy citizens. Term limits are one of the only ways for the voters of Illinois to wrestle back our government from the leaders who have failed us is to enact term limits on those same leaders.

Given Illinois’ deep troubles, the state is a prime candidate for term limits.