(00:00:00) Well in the legislative session began last month, it looked like term limits was a shoo-in Republicans were proposing that voters be allowed to decide in November, whether they support term limits for legislators and constitutional officers and even dfl legislative leaders who have traditionally opposed term limits were saying that some form of a term limits amendment was likely to pass but yesterday that effort ran into a major roadblock when the Senate Ethics Committee rejected a bill that would limit the governor and other constitutional officers to two consecutive terms or eight years and legislators to 10 consecutive years joining us today to discuss the vote and the need for such limits is been Whitney who is co-chair of the group minnesotans for term limits. Also joining us is Joan Higginbotham the executive director of common cause common cause opposes term limits. Mr. Whitney what happened yesterday? Well, there's a pundit who said the trying to get a term limit Bill through a legislators like trying to get the chickens to vote for colonel. Anders, I think there's some truth in that I think that there are some incumbent career legislators who are afraid to put this issue before the people where I believe it belongs. And so we lost a vote we certainly haven't lost the war and and I believe we're alive both in the Senate where I'm sure they'll be an attempt to amend the bill and also in the house where hearings have some hearings of hell, but there has been no Committee Action yet in a nutshell. Why do you think this is so important to Minnesota? It's hard to do in a nutshell. I'll do my I'll do my best for it. I think the fundamental philosophical grounding for term limitations is the idea that we need to return to a more citizen government to more self-government and less Reliance on professional and career politicians that is a founding principle of our government originally or founding fathers and something that we believe would address some of the problems that are plaguing our government today and it's in effect. This and some of the alienation that the people of our nation our state feel about their government Joan Higginbotham all sounds pretty good. And in fact when voters are on the country of had a chance to vote on term limits, I think they've always a hundred percent approval. So what's wrong with it? (00:02:15) Well, not quite a hundred percent approval but there have been a lot of people who voted for term limits or so, they thought it would be a good idea and I think the problem really is that people say there's something wrong with government. They know there's a problem out there and term limits is come along and it's an attractive solution. It sounds on the surface like might not be a bad idea. It's easy to understand and so people say yeah. Yeah, maybe term limits is the idea that we can do use to solve the problems of government. But I think if people look at it a little more carefully little more deeply they'll see that term limits is somebody said as a bad idea whose time shouldn't come and that's really the way common cause feels about it. I think that we see there are certain advantages to having legislators who have some experience as well as having some new blood and I think that senator Rice got young and during the debate yesterday put it pretty well when she Said it was great to have young mr. Knobloch as a new rookie. He was a great addition to the team. But we also needed her Beckham Kirby Puckett to win the World Series and I think that's kind of the way the legislature works. So we look at it that way and we also really don't see anything inherently bad and somebody who chooses a life of Public Service as their Courier. (00:03:20) But what about the idea of just putting it on the ballot in November have a nice vigorous debate from now until November on this and let the voters make up their (00:03:27) mind. Well, there are certain things that we think really are the responsibility of the people that we've elected as our representatives and one of those things is to make tough choices and I was really pleased yesterday to see that in the senate committee. The Senators did take did take a tough decision and decide that it isn't something that should go to the people and I think the reason for this is It's a representative democracy if people we elect these people to make these kinds of decisions for us and that's what they're there for not everything goes to the people. I mean, I think if we want to do that we could vote on taxes. Citizens should certainly have a stake in that maybe we should just subject that to a vote. Do you want to raise taxes? Everybody can vote there are lots of issues like that. And I think especially these kinds of constitutional rights issues are not necessarily the ones that should go directly to the people. (00:04:15) Well, there are a lot of people we have a full Bank of phones all filled up already people who have their thoughts on this issue. So I don't we get to the fire guest today and Whitney who is with minnesotans for term limits and Joan Higginbotham was with common cause we're talking about term limits for Minnesota elected officials and let's get to the phones right away and here what what the listeners think about this High. (00:04:37) Hello Steve whitehill calling from Chanhassen measure. They I'm against term limits because They prevent, you know, a popular candidate from being an office for an extended time. If the voters want to have someone in office for numerous terms. That's their right and if they want to remove that person from office, they do it at the voting booth and I think that you know term limitations will not work because they're unconstitutional. (00:05:13) Mr. Whitney. What about that? First of all our constitutional issue? Well, I there's no question that the ability of a state to limit its own State Legislature that's been fully resolved. There's no question of the Constitution of that. The only open question on the Constitutional side is whether a state can limit its own Congressional Delegation that's in the federal courts. Now, they've been two rulings saying that well should be one state supreme court in Arkansas and one federal court in Washington saying it is not possible to limit your own Congressional Delegation, but that is an open question will go to the Supreme Court and I suspect the next year. We'll have a ruling on that. Now what about people's ability? Why can't people why shouldn't people have the right to vote for Kirby Pucket over and over again? Well, it's list, you know carve this up in a couple pieces. First of all, nothing in term limits prevent somebody for running for another office. In fact, I think one of the benefits of term limitations would be to get people who are You know the true Winston Churchill's of our system ought to be moving up in the system and nothing prohibits people for having a life of Public Services as Joan mentioned is just that we don't want them sitting in the same place doing the same thing and just accumulating power that there ought to me movement in the system. So on the one hand, I think that clearly if they have a great representative or state senator, they ought to be running for congress and our they ought to be running for governor or state auditor or something like that and but as far as someone's ability to vote for whoever they want to I you know, the listeners absolutely right that that people can vote out their legislature legislator anytime they want but also remember that they can also impose limitations on their legislator anytime they want if the people are afforded an opportunity to do that. It really is. Uh, let me let me read for a second out of our constitution the article one Bill of Rights. The first section says the government has instituted for the security. If it in protection of the people in whom Hall in whom all political power is inherent together with the right to alter modify or reform government whenever required by the public good the simple concept there is that issues pertaining to the structure of government the rules of the game belong uniquely to the people. This is not a subject about taxes is not a subject of the death penalty or abortion or anything else. This is the rules of the game and there is an obvious and irreconcilable conflict of interest in having the seven legislators stand up say well, no, we're against term limits so we won't let anyone else in the state of Minnesota vote on it. I think that's highly undemocratic Joan again, (00:07:46) but I think they're a couple of things here. First of all, the idea of changing office is in the interesting one. But again, I think you can go back to the old baseball analogy. I really don't want Kent Hrbek to to move up to pitcher. I think he's good where he is and we should let him stay there. He knows the position and he's doing a great job and I think there are some legislators who feel the same way. They have no Fire to be a u.s. Senator or even a state senator, they know their district and they feel they're doing a great job the Constitutional issue one eye is a definitely a big one. I think I think that people have the right to vote for whom they wish to have represent them. And I think if I lived in say Lanesboro and somebody up in Erskine decided that we needed term limits and I could no longer vote for Senator Benson. I might be a little peeved. I'd feel it my constitutional right to vote for whomever. I wish had been denied me by somebody in another part of the state that said we were going to have term limits and I would like that wouldn't it fall under (00:08:40) the same category though is requirements that you have to be a certain age to hold office things like (00:08:45) that. I don't think it's the same thing really because I think that this that those are barriers that everybody faces equally but the idea that somebody is out of office for an arbitrary reason that they have served a number of years as I think a different thing the the other kinds of residency and and age requirements. I think our Different kind of requirement. (00:09:07) Let's take another caller with some thoughts or questions on term limits. Hi. (00:09:11) Hi. Thanks for taking my call. First of all, I've started out thinking term limits was a real good idea in the more. I read in the more I talk to other people about it. This is a lousy idea. We have term limits by our voting booth and it seems to me that that we all have Representatives that we wish would retire or would just fade away someplace. But obviously that representative has been voted in by the majority people in his district and that is probably the most democratic way to do it. (00:09:48) Also, you think excuse me ma'am. Do you think that the way the the election system is set up right now that that in fact well-entrenched incumbent can be legitimately (00:09:59) challenged I think so, obviously the representative it's There is representing his constituents. Now if the art minority party or the opposition want to talk about things that people out there are really interested in. I don't know why you can't have a real good debate going but I also feel that with term limits perhaps that representative would be more tempted to go along with lobbyists or in special interest groups. I just feel that way. But anyway, the discussion is really good and thanks for taking my (00:10:39) call. Well, thank you for your call. How do you think go ahead? Well, I guess what comes to mind. I find it really inconsistent for someone to say in the one breath. It's it's the term limits are under undemocratic and then say on the other hand in the same sense. We don't want to let people vote on it. I mean that's like saying we want our democracy only when it serves the ends that we that we desire. I mean the reason that the the opponents of terminal is don't want On the ballot is because they're afraid it's going to win. I mean, that's the the for the most part that's the problem. And so I this idea of saying it's undemocratic don't put it on the ballot to me is an argument that that falls falls apart on itself. I mean the fact is we can collectively decide in our democracy to set the rules of our democracy the way we want them. That's our Prague itive. And that's the way our constitution it's not easy to amend the Constitution and I don't do it lightly. But when you look at it at the kinds of problems that people perceive about our government we have to do something and I think that this is the kind of fundamental change it takes and it is it's highly Democratic if we as a democracy decide that's what we want to do. (00:11:46) Well, I think there's the fallacy right there. There's something wrong with our government and we should put term limits on the ballot and then we would solve the things that are wrong with the government and that really is where that you've got. I think very Twisted logic that people are buying into because they are frustrated and that's one of our concerns about putting it on the ballot. We think that a lot of People might go on might say hey term limits will solve it all and then if it does pass and they'll be lulled into a false feeling of security and say I don't really need to worry about this anymore. I don't need to worry about my candidates because they're only going to be an office for 10 years and we can deal with that they'll be out and then we can get a new person. It takes away the responsibility that a citizen should have to implement term limits of themselves by going to the polls and by being an informed voter. I'm afraid that a lot of the folks who say that term limits is a great idea and they want to vote Yes are the same people that went to ask don't even know the name of their own legislator and aren't informed enough to cast a good ballot. But but think that this is an idea which would really solve all the problems of bad government and I don't think that this is a way we want to go (00:12:50) supporters say generally ill-informed. I think that's a wholly unsubstantiated comment. I don't know where it comes from being 80% of I mean two poles in the past month have said that 80% of minnesotans are in favor of term limitation. So since you're saying that 80% Bunch of ignorant fools who can't don't know what don't know don't know what's going on their garment. I think that's fair. I mean, I think there's no reason to believe that that's the case. I think they know what they want and they want term limits when they're asked and they should be afforded that opportunity. Let's let's get another listener on the line here find out what what they think about this (00:13:23) High. Hi. I'd like to know if common cos supports term limits for committee chairman like Senator Byrd and Congress or should he be in there forever? (00:13:30) Well, we have not taken the position as a state organization and what should happen in Congress, but we support actually rotating chairs and some sorts of internal reforms that might make the playing playing field More Level. And so we have suggested that we do have a position in favor of some kind of term limits and that would be term limits on committee chairs. (00:13:51) Now interestingly enough at the federal level. I don't want to get off in a discussion of federal the federal situation here focus on the state, but we do have an instructive situation out in Washington. There are term limits imposed on the president. No term limits imposed on the Congress. Is there any lesson we can learn from the performance of either of those two groups as to how term limits affects the performance of people in (00:14:17) office? Well interestingly. We do have term limits on the president. But some of those term limits have been instituted against the will of the of the president because I think both President Bush and President Carter could talk to you about the kind of term limits that they ran up against. So I think that that we do have people coming to the polls and making up their minds even though in the case of the president we do have we do have term limits. I think the situation is somewhat different at the federal level than at the state level and that's why we are looking only at what would happen here in the state of Minnesota and I don't think that Minnesota is really a microcosm of the nation so that something that might or might not work well on a national level can't necessarily be transposed to Minnesota and say well it's a good idea. It should happen in Washington. Therefore we should do it in st. Paul (00:15:03) but no lessons to be learned from I just two institutions respond to to the term limits issue. Well, I don't I don't think we can conclude that. There's been the kind of I mean some of the problems that the opponents of tournaments a in the presidency because the president's been limited. I think it's important to point out that you know, there have been term limits on Governor's about 35 States the United States limit their Governors and now sixteen or Seventeen States limit their state legislators. So it is is it's quite a pervasive situation now take another caller. Hi. (00:15:41) I've got a two questions actually refer directly to the federal level, but I think in directly to the state level and one of these has to do with exactly the committee chairs that have been talked about when we look at Senator or representative Gonzalez from Texas or Senator Leahy from from Vermont. We're looking at the people who are experts in their fields namely banking or Foreign Affairs and the fact that these people can Your to serve their country reflects very positively and what happens in the banking sector or what happens in foreign affairs sector because of these people's expertise. I mentioned something similar goes on at the state level. And for that reason, I would oppose tournaments because we would be in essence dislodging an expert that could really serve the state. Well, I wonder if you could comment on this. Thank you. (00:16:24) Okay. What about that? Would we lose a lot of expertise up at the (00:16:27) legislature? I definitely think we would and I think that that's that's one of the reasons that we need a combination of people. I think one thing to remember is that there is turnover in the Minnesota state legislature. There is not entrenched leadership all the way around people come and go and I think that the combination of people who know their subject very well and people who are new is a good one for a couple of reasons. First of all, the young people new people not necessarily young can learn from those who are there and secondly I worry about the fact that there would be in the people that would be entrenched if we had terms would be the staff people in the lobbyists and then we would have totally unelected people making decisions. Have the lobbyists and the and the staff people telling the new legislators what to do and I think that this is a this is a real danger that could result if we impose term limits because we have some folks there who really know what they've been doing in the areas of education and Justice and Taxation and we need that expertise. Can we afford to lose that expertise? Mr. Witter? (00:17:26) Well, let's let's look at this. I mean Gary if I came in to you first of all, our turn one is that we're proposing or not two years or three years or four years or 10 years. So that's basically what you're saying. Is that everybody under 10 years in the Minnesota state legislature to now is incompetent to really weigh in effectively on an issue and I think they might Maybe Might disagree with you on that. I think that 10 years offers plenty of opportunity to develop experience, but as far as you know this idea of experts and you know, I mean one way of saying well Henry Gonzales had a great job the S&L crisis was it was a great experience. We need more of that kind of leadership. I mean, you know under these peoples watch of this tremendous growth of Supposed expertise. I haven't seen our level of confidence in government rising to any sort of meteoric heights here. But but but but more than that, I think that you know, the said about term limits some of the arguments it's like, well you wouldn't you wouldn't fire your doctor after they were after they had 10 years of experience. So why your legislature and I think the reason is this it's a question of power and I think the best analogy is really to our jury system. We could put on all juries we could put all lawyers are all experts and maybe you could say well they'll come to a better decision because they know more but we've decided that when you bestow that kind of power over someone else you want to make sure it is it is the peers of the person that making the decision a citizen and I think the same thing goes for government that we do not want a government of experts. We want a government of citizens who set overall policies that they should not be they should be focusing on the forest and not On the pine needles. What about the common Clause argument though that if you've got legislator let you increase the legislative turnover that in fact the people that are going to end up with the powers are the bureaucrats. Well, this is the are over forever. You know, this is also an argument I that again sounds sort of good on the front end, but if you think if we have a problem with our bureaucracy now or a lobbyist under whose watch has this occurred it's kind of like saying we create this monster and then we need the people who create it to save us from it. I mean, I don't understand that. I mean if they have a problem with our bureaucracy, I frankly think it's the people who have the longest term sort of entrenched relationships with them that pose the most danger rather than the new people who were less in trenched in those relationship more questioning and more challenging of the system. So my belief is I mean and let's also the Practical matter, I mean term limits across the country have been opposed by lobbyists. It is Ben. Innovations like The Trial Lawyers Association Philip Morris a lot of the major unions. Those are the ones who've been opposing terms across the country. So at least as far as I can tell they don't think the term limits is going to be a great Boon to them because they're they're fighting against it as hard as they can make a pretty good argument. (00:20:23) Well interestingly though. If you look at who's Finance the term limits tough, it hasn't been the average citizen who's out there looking for a change. It's been it's been wealthy individuals for the most part who have funded the the campaign for term limits. And so I think to say well it's lobbyists who are opposed. We could look at the people who support it and say yes, it's interesting that it's a small group of very wealthy folks who have been enforced in favor of term limits to so I think the argument of the fact that a lobbyist don't favor it is probably not the best way to go but looking back at the idea of well, we don't want these people who are experts are not citizens. Well, I guess I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I think that a lot of Laters take their their responsibility to represent their citizens. Very serious. Very seriously go back and find out what they want and then they're able to craft the kind of legislation that they can craft because they have the experience and they know the system and I think that that is really important. And so I think that to write them off as not being citizens once they become experts is is unfair to Citizens and to experts (00:21:29) or discussing term limits the term limits amendment that said before the Minnesota Legislature right now on our guests today been Whitney was co-chair of the group minnesotans for term limits and Joan Higginbotham is executive director of common cause let's go back to the phones and the callers on the line. Hi. (00:21:44) Hi. I'm calling from Rochester. Yes, sir. I think the legislature will make a great mistake and not allowing voters to have an opportunity to have this on the ballot next fall because there's a tremendous Groundswell out there for term limits because most people are getting sick and tired of professional politicians now, Governor has said that ostensibly the Republicans and he is for term limits but yet when you talk to local legislators like Dave Bishop here in Rochester. He is absolutely opposed to it. He may complain a lot about driving Highway 52 when it comes right down to it. He's found a new home in st. Paul and apparently these people find Serena legislature is much to their advantage. The incumbent has a tremendous advantage over the years in retaining his seat. We don't have initiative and referendum in this state. We can't we don't have any other way of doing it other than putting it on the ballot and according to our state constitution were supposed to have a citizen legislatures. In other words. They take time for their normal occupation go and serve in the legislature and then go home. Well, a lot of these people are in legislator would like to turn into a full-time job and with a per diem thing. I think it is almost possible for them to do that. Hmm. (00:23:07) Let me add one thing. I just one of the things that originally got me it should in turn was an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal and it's an article by George McGovern. I think it gets at the citizen legislature issue. He talks about, you know, having spent 24 years in the Senate and high public office and then he laughed and he ran a hotel and he had problems with the hotel. He eventually went bankrupt and he wrote an article about his experience and he basically says he wishes he basically talks about well, I'll just read it quickly as one sentence. I also wish that during the years. I was in public office. I'd had this first hand experience about the difficulties business people face every day that knowledge would have made me a better u.s. Senator and I think that's what we're getting at which is George McGovern realize it once he got out in the world and was operating full-time in the world that maybe he would have learned some lessons. It would have served him well in public service and and that's one of the things that got me originally interested in the idea of term rotation right now, you know yesterday I was going through the little list of Laters and what is it? There's if the ledges if the term limits amendments were adopted right now and my numbers may be off by one or two, but basically 25 of the 67 state senators would be affected about 37% and 27% of the house members would be affected. Now. How do you to interpret those figures? Is that is that an argument that well? There's there's already quite a good turnover up there or that there's still a body of entrenched (00:24:41) professionals. Well, I think we do interpreted as saying if there is movement that people come and go they do what they feel they need to do and then they leave and move on to something else some stay longer because either they feel that they haven't gotten their work done yet or they find that this is an area where they're they're successful. They're doing a good job for their constituents. If you look at the people who leave I think they leave for a variety of reasons some say they leave because they want to spend more time with their family because it's a very busy job others say they've done what they came to do and they go home and I think that's the beauty of it people come and go at the wish their own wish and that the wish of the voters. (00:25:19) Well, they don't go very often of the wish of the voters and the incumbent re-election rate including the last election was well over ninety percent so they may go on their own on their own their own wishes and I would say as far as the turnover issue that I've never believed that the purpose of term rotation is just to keep turning the legislature and changing the bodies. I don't think that's the point. I think that it you know, one of the things terminal would do for example is it's not Much the 80% the turns over every 10 years. It's a twenty percent. That doesn't I mean that's where we're all the power is and I think that keeps a lot of good people out of public office who might otherwise be interested in serving for example, if if I was in a district and I looked out and saw an incumbent and said well gee I've got about a 5% chance of winning if I run and even if I win I go down to St. Paul and I end up on the you know, the, you know, some some Oddball committee that has no power over everything or no relation to what I know about so, why would I enter the process and I think that, you know defeating the seniority system and allowing the legislature to operate more on the basis of Merit and knowledge and less on the basis of how long some was mad at managed to breathe as a legislator is is would be a really positive development (00:26:31) and I think that's something that we're looking at we're looking at reforms internally so that we wouldn't have have those kinds of problems and I saw I see that I think the idea that 90% of the people who run our re-elected means two things first of all, Most people really are satisfied with their representation. They think that the people that they have elected are doing a good job. That's one reason they get elected. I think we've got some sparkling examples in Minnesota of places where people didn't think that their incumbent was doing such a good job in Senator boschwitz leaps to mind. It's very difficult to to unseat an entrenched as we say u.s. Senator and yet the people in Minnesota did that so I think that we can make those kinds of changes. I think another thing that we haven't talked about is the fact that since the last election we have had some campaign Finance reform and one of the arguments it's always been made is that it's impossible for a qualified Challenger to win and common cause is very instrumental in getting that legislation passed and we believe very strongly that the kinds of changes that have been made in that law are going to going to make it much more possible for Challengers to run and win under term limits. It would be very likely for a person to say gee I'm not going to run now because I've got to run against somebody who's in been in office for eight years. If I wait two years, then I can run for a know. And seat, so I don't think that it would make people more likely to challenge the system. I think it would be much more likely that a person would say. Hey I can wait for years because that guy's going to be out and it's going to be much easier for me to run for an open seat than it is for somebody who's been in for in the case of we have term limits of six or eight years. So I don't see that as really helping a challenger to get into The Fray actually, I think would make just make them delay their entry into The (00:28:06) Fray. That's so let's hear from another listener. Hi. (00:28:10) Hello there. Yeah. I've been following the trim limbs debate for more than a year now and I think I could probably argue the side of it equally well, but I'm reluctant convert to a person who would be for term limits and that's based on the observation. I've made that it's the incumbents that don't want to let the people decide on an established political organizations don't want to let the people decide on it and that demonstrates to me that the incumbents in the established organizations are disconnected from the people because this is a situation where we can distinguish this potential constitutional member from others because of all the people who signed petitions to put it on a ballot ask for the right to vote on it and I don't know just how many how many people signed petitions but I know that any survey you take it doesn't matter how you ask question always comes up 75 to 80% One term limits on the ballot and that even applies to the state fair Booth the legislature had where 75% of the people to stop by the state. Legislative State Fair Booth because they're interested in the government said they want to term limits on the balance. So to me it's a case where the the incumbents have demonstrated their disconnect my not put it on the (00:29:19) ballot. Now that reminds me because the state fair Booth was an interesting experience that one of the representatives evidence that have Garcia said that she was at the booth and where they were doing the pole and so she talked to the folks and they came up and they said Gee, you know, I'm really for term limits and she said oh by the way who is your state legislator and she said of the people that she met that day she thought about three of them knew the name of their legislator. So that indicates to me that people may want term limits in the one hand, but they don't know who they're limiting on the other hand and that's a source of concern to me. (00:29:50) Would you agree? Mr. Whitney that the the proof that the ultimate proof that term limits is a good idea is that there's a kind of a gap between the entrenched Powers if you will and yeah, I think it certainly is revealed. That of the 25 or so states that have initiative and referendum that after the 1994 elections pretty much every one of them will have put terminals on the ballot and it will pass and of the 25 or so states that don't have initiative. Maybe not one of them will have it on the ballot and that tells you something about the disconnection between what the people want and what the what the the incumbent politicians are willing to allow them. I mean this isn't a poll game. I mean sure it's you know, I don't think you ought to put terminals on the ballot because 80% of the people are for it you put on the ballot because because it's not the business of the state legislature to make that decision. It's the business of the people and I think yes, it is proof of and they're willing to basically snub their nose at the people and say no we don't care what you want. We're not going to let you we're not going to let you vote because you might vote. Start if Paul's don't matter then doesn't the legislative process require that these people sift through what they think is a good and bad idea and decide on that basis irrespective of what the poll shh, no, I don't think it's just a question of I'm not saying the polls aren't important I'm saying that polls aren't the reason you put it you put it on the ballot. (00:31:26) That's what you've been arguing all along. That was it all these people in the polls say we want it. So we've got to have it and I'm arguing on the other hand that it's the job of the legislator to say this is good public policy or bad public policy and in the case of the members of the Senate yesterday members of that committee said we think this is bad public policy and it shouldn't go on the ballot and they were making a decision based on what they thought was right and they were ignoring the polls but you've said that the poles really aren't the be-all and the (00:31:51) end-all I didn't say they weren't important. I say they aren't the only reason you put it on the ballot. I mean the fact is that on this ballot. It's possible. We're going to have questions about video gaming or about paramutual betting and if legislators willing to put those issues on the ballot and explain to me why they won't put a an issue. On that then that those issues don't have near the type of support this does and it doesn't have the type of conflict of interest that exists with turmoils. How can those go on the ballot and terminals wouldn't the only answer is that they're scared about what it means for their careers and and I think that's very unfortunate and it's going to increase the kind of alienation that people feel about their government today. And I think that's very sad. Let's take another caller. Hi. (00:32:33) Hi. Yes. I just have a couple of comments and I would say to people beware of quick fixes. I believe in participatory democracy not just marking a ballot every two or four years like the healthcare rally at the Capitol but people in California thought that cutting taxes would be a quick fix for their problems and they ended up having to pay their state employees and script list. Your property tax cutting was supposed to be a great way to fix the government. So I would say beware of quick fixes on on term limits the Not with the chief executive but with the bureaucrats in in office who write the regulations and actually carry out the laws their permanent civil servants term limits would change would alter the balance of power the checks and balances by putting temporary elected legislators against permanent career civil servants who are often controlled by the industry, they regulate and I will alter the checks and balances that would reduce democracy Now created. The second point is is your guest from common cause point out the real problem. The real barrier to democracy is that both incumbents and Challengers have to get money from rich people to run for office. They win every election. He's Rich campaign contributors term limits doesn't change that. The challengers would still have to go to the same people and they would have to pay the same price per who called the tune (00:33:59) jamish wouldn't care to comment. It reminds me of a comment about something else which is the mention that somehow our group is financed by a few individuals. I mean, I'm Really one of the individuals who has helped finance it but let's be clear. Our average contribution is probably under $50 and we have thousands and thousands of contributors and we have tens of thousands of members who have expressed interest in turn was to say we're not a Grassroots group. I find a very unfair but we've talked a bit about the staff argument. I mean, you know the staff and bureaucracy have exactly as much power as as the legislators and the governor allow it and as far as I'm concerned if I don't see if there's a problem of bureaucracy that the way to fix it is to keep an office the same people who have created the bureaucracy in the first place. That doesn't that doesn't make any sense to me. I'd rather have fresh people who don't have those ties and let them and let them exert some better control over (00:34:54) it. I think that would be a real problem because what you're saying basically is you're going to have these novices who don't know how to work the system come into office. They can hardly find the restroom and yet they're supposed to be making policy and you've got all these these bureaucrats and lobbyists have been around a long time and know this System and don't you think that these new legislators are going to look really kindly on somebody who's going to be able to background them and give them the facts that are going to enable them to make decisions. But of course they're going to give them the facts from their point of view. And so I think that would be a serious serious (00:35:22) problem, but they would be more independent. Would they not? I mean, they don't have those long ties of friendship and I mean a man going out to dinner with these people for 15 years and so on and so if they if they see a screwy idea I would think it'd be able to call him on it a little quicker than (00:35:35) that. Of course. Are they going to know? What's the screwy idea? That's the other thing they aren't going to have the experience but I don't think no I don't think that's true. I think that the as somebody said a bunch of freshman Congressman were standing around they just been they just taken the oath of office and he looked around. He said my gosh were the incumbents. So the special interest money will flow to people whether they've been in two years or ten years to say that what we're not going to have that special interest money influencing us anymore because we've got all these new folks is just not true. You can look at what's happened to the freshman class in the US Congress. They were already getting A lot of special interest money, so I don't think it's going to take a term limits. It's going to take some campaign Finance reform to change that special interest money and not term limits. (00:36:18) Mr. Won't let me ask you this if if there were a way to set up the election system so that you really did have a fair across the board elections. If anybody in this is you know, if somebody decided Well heck I'm going to run for legislature tomorrow and I'm going to take on Roger mode and have a fair chance to beat him. For example, or anybody else who's been in the legislature for a long time not to pick on mr. Mole. Would that suffice then would that eliminate the need for term limits? Let me answer two parts the first part is it let me say that Joan I agree about an awful lot. I mean we're disagreeing about term limitations and let me say that I don't believe the turmoil rotations is the only answer to government and that the caller before talk about a quick fix. In fact, there are a lot of reforms that are needed including more campaign Finance reform including rotation committee chairs, but I'm telling you something. And we talked about this before the program started changing redistricting. I mean, that's a scandal the way they draw their own lines. So they get themselves re-elected. All those things are important, but I don't believe those are issues have been around for decades and no one's done anything about him for the most part because they like the way the system works. I believe in this gets the second part of would it matter if you could really make a challenge, I think the purpose of turn was is to change the incentives of people in office. If your incentive is that you're consuming passion is to be re-elected no matter what happens. You will behave in a certain way and I don't think that behavior is consistent with the best kind of government we can have whereas if you are in office believing it is a temporary Public Service, you will behave in another way and I think that you will as a result act in a way that is better for government will provide more leadership will provide more sensitivity to the broad population rather than just the people who are going to get you re-elected. Who are Give you money next time so I know I don't think frankly and also, I think it's a fantasy in this day and age. The reason that the incumbent re-election rate is at hi. I mean if you're going to make it fair you'd say well we'll give the incumbents. Let them have half as much money as the as the Challenger because in a in effect, that's about the only way you could try and even up the playing field. So I think it's a fantasy frankly other callers on the line with a question or comment. Hi. (00:38:36) Hi. I was just wondering why your guests are at that. It's not so much each one of those ideal ideology but more that you know who's in power and if the Republicans were actually the ones in power at this point in time, they would have the exact opposite view that they do now. It's just that whoever's in power wants to stay in powder and incumbency, is it be a Republican or Democrat? And I think what actually needs to happen is some kind of campaign reform and here again, the Kim's want to eliminate the packs because I think the Democrats get more of their money from that yet. The Republicans don't limit the personal that I can give us a personal person, I guess to something like 20 bucks because they count on that thousand dollar donation from the guy that lives on Lake Minnetonka. I mean it has nothing to do with ideology it has to do with where they get their money and who's in (00:39:33) power. We have heard this now that the only reason that that this is getting so much attention and the Republicans are so happy about term limits and pushing so hard is because they can't figure out any other way to get control of the legislature. They can't seem to beat the Democrats true. I think that there's there's nerve Anderson. I've heard him say this before that it's some sort of Republican plot. I I think that's pretty funny given its a great plot, especially since about 80% of the Democrats in the state of Minnesota are part of it, especially since three of the five dfl Congress. People are part of the plot and whole lot of other Other people I mean the only people who I mean there are plenty of Democrats in favor of term limitations of the support doesn't have to do with with party. I don't you know, there may be Republicans who believe that this is going to help them reassert some kind of jewelry, but that is it. I think it's not true. I think that you know, if we're Anderson's District wants to elect a Democrat there don't like the Democrat whether it's a whether it's a term limits or not term limits. So I think that's I think that's not to be not to be the case at all. Yeah, it's partisan issue. (00:40:39) Well, it's become a partisan issue. It isn't a partisan issue for common cause because we're not a partisan organization and we look at it purely as a good government issue and think that good government is better served by not having term limits. So for us it's not a partisan issue and I think I guess I would certainly agree with with been that in some districts. There will always be a Republican and other districts will always be a Democrat. It may be a different Democrat, but they'll still be a Democrat. (00:41:03) Other callers on the line with the question or comment. (00:41:05) Hi. Hi. I'm a terminal with debate take our attention away from Still necessary forms of people have talked about and I find it really interesting that it's been said that those kind of reforms are a fantasy. You said that the lobbyists and legislators, you know, they know each other they've been taking each other out to dinner for years. Well, that's pretty a perfect example of something that's been changed. They just had a landmark legislation on this on this very type of issues gifts to legislators. And the legislators are the ones that passed it. I think that those are the things that really need to be done. They've dealt with the gift issue. I think that's a really great thing the people who are supposedly so horrible in this and I think those are the kind of reforms that are really needed and and I just one other example, I'd like to throw out in California. They pass these these term limits and there was an article in the New York Times and and there was some kind of Bill I think it was environmental Bill where an industry person said to a legislator. I don't need to worry about you. You're going to be gone in a couple (00:42:07) years when you like a chance to vote on term (00:42:10) limits though. I I'm I'm supposed to term limits that I'm comfortable with the fact that once again, it's been said that their their motivations are are completely for themselves that they're that those people that voted against are doing it only to protect their position. I think they also might be worried about the institution and I think they have good reason to be worried about the institution know so I'm comfortable with the vote that they (00:42:36) took. Well I'm all in favor of the ban on gifts a lobbyist. But let's just say it's been the Wisconsin managed to do this in the 1950s and Minnesota's getting around to it 1994. I don't personally believe that there's a there I should say there is a connection between the fact that suddenly the legislature is feeling the need to clean up its act at the same time. We're pushing hard for term limits. In fact, I think terminals has been a good sort of anvil against which some of these reforms have have have been achieved because they're afraid of that the most as a result. They're showing some flexibility in some other stuff. I don't think you know, I think it's a nice change. I don't think it's really going to change the way government operates very much. And as I say there are I did not so it's a other reforms are a fantasy. I don't think they're a fantasy. I think they're far more likely to occur. If the people who are making the decisions aren't our are term-limited and operating on the basis of what's right is a matter of public service rather than what serves me for my (00:43:34) re-election, but it does make the point very well that legislators do vote in opposition to what might be perceived to be their own interests. And that was one of the reasons why people said, well, you can't let the legislators beside us because they have a conflict of interest. There's obviously certainly a conflict of interest involved in voting on on gift bands and even last year the campaign Finance Reform Bill a lot of incumbents felt that that was going to hurt them but yet they felt that that was something that needed to happen. And so I think that you can't just make a blanket indictment of legislators and say well they'll always vote for what self-serving because that isn't necessarily the case and and as the caller said some of the changes have been made In that as a result of that campaign Finance law have leveled the playing field as Ben said well, maybe Challenger should get more money. Well under the new law in fact Challengers will get 10% increase in their spending limit. So they will be able to spend more than chess than incumbents the amount of money that people can take from Pacs and from large givers has been greatly reduced so that they can only take a 20% of their contributions from a combination of big givers and Pacs and lobbyists. And so they'll have to go back to this contest constituents and get those small gift. So I think that we've already made a lot of changes that are going to make term limits perhaps a moot point (00:44:51) Roger Moe speaking of Senator Mulligan suggested yesterday that what we ought to do is wait just watch what happens in the all the other states to pass term limits. What about that? Mr. Whitney. Would that make some sense? Well, I think that's a I think a pretty unmanned Asotin thing to say in a way. I think Minnesota has always been out front. And as matter of fact, I was talking to me. I heard this said today that Minnesota is always never been afraid to go out and do what it thought was right instead of waiting around to see how everyone else did we tend to be leaders not followers and I think that is just an excuse for inaction rather than a some sort of judicious conservative concern for our of our state of government if we believe this is the right change and the people believe is the right change. I don't see why we don't enact the change I'm perfectly comfortable for example and putting a sunset provision on term limits. I mean say it doesn't we'll put a provision citizen 25 years or 30 years will vote on it again, and if people don't if it's not working then we'll vote it out. If it is working with voted back in I'm perfectly comfortable (00:45:57) that well interestingly enough. The reason he said that he thought we should wait was because he had read of some of the disastrous consequences in California where they instituted it and said, it doesn't look like it's such a great thing out there. Let's see how it plays out before we do the same thing. To ourselves. So I think that that if you look at what's happened, in other states, it can be very instructive and can save us a lot of Agony if we do Institute terminal. (00:46:20) Well, I have to disagree I the say it's been disastrous in California. I think is not based on the evidence. There have been people arguing on both sides of what the effect is going on the pro side there say there's many more people filing for officers much more citizen involvement and it's been an excellent thing in improving people's interest in democracy. So the con side saint-preux, I think it's unproven. I'd only ask any questions on proven (00:46:42) Kansai they talk about the increased influence of lobbyists. As you said before person who the caller said before the person who said I don't have to worry about you, you'll be out of office the bureaucrats who are now actually practically drafting legislation because they're the ones who know the issues (00:46:56) we have time for at least one more caller. Let's find out what this person has is to ask. Hey. (00:47:02) Hello. Well, well, we were just talking about disastrous results in California. I'd like to say that in my district here in Minnesota if term limits are enacted there may not be disastrous results, but they certainly wouldn't be positive. I'm one of the people who is incredibly happy with my representation and my representative is an honest ethical person a very responsive. He's also very experienced and I think that's a large reason why he's able to get so much accomplished and in the beginning I was somewhat in favor of the idea of term limits and one of the reasons I think is because I have a long list of elected officials that I'd like to see out of there, but when I realized that that would include my representatives and I'm pleased with that that's kind of where I changed my mind and I realized there's a lot of really really good people in there. And it's important to keep them there and if my representative starts displeasing me in any way I'm going to speak up and I'm going to let him know personally and I'm also going to vote against him. So if I would like to say that I think if we need an even playing field if that's one of the major major questions than campaign Finance reform is what I would like to hear (00:48:29) address. Okay? Mr. Whitney shouldn't she have an opportunity to vote for her representative over and over again? Don't you think I mean if he's doing that good a job. Why why kick him out arbitrarily? It isn't it mean it's when you say arbitrarily it's not arbitrary. It's a decision that we would have made as a democracy that that's the way we want to have our system that on balance will get better government under term limits and we wouldn't and yes to the extent the person wouldn't be able to vote that I always think of in a sort of practical matter if I go to a restaurant and there's one thing on the menu and I go back the next Week and there are three things on the menu Have I Lost choices or gain choices? I think that that in fact the term limits will create more choices from people and the truth is if you come from a district that has a very powerful legislator. I mean look at Dan rostenkowski down the owner. If you come from his district, you have all the incentive in the world to send that person back because if you're in the haves you're in pretty good shape the way it is now, but if you're not in the halves government's not going to work very well for you and shouldn't shouldn't we have that kind of turnover? We have just a little bit of time (00:49:39) left. We do have turnover. We as you point out that in my mean they're still at core (00:49:43) of people who kind of run things is there not. (00:49:46) Well, I think that we talked about some other reforms that might change that the fact that we could have term limits on committee chairs that sort of thing and I think the other thing is that as we pointed out throughout this program a good mix of experience and new ideas is what we have now in which the served us. Well Minnesota has a very good functioning Fletcher we are look to because of the fact that that our legislature is Progressive and and takes a tough stance on important issues. And that's under this present system. If it's not broken, I don't think we need to fix it. And I don't see that it's broken. I think that we have a good variety of experience and new ideas, which is served as well. (00:50:23) Well the debate is not over that's for sure at the legislature and we'll be following it closely like to thank both of you for coming in today and helping us out here. Thanks Ben Whitney who is co-chair of Minnesota for term limits in Joan Higginbotham who is executive director of common cause