No on 45: We prefer democracy

T.A. Barnhart

First, the most important thing about Measure 45, the one thing every Oregon voter ought to know: This is not an Oregon-based ballot measure. This is another of Howard Rich's bastard children, paid for by Illinois-based "U.S. Term Limits".

From the "No on 45" website:

Measure 45 is being promoted and bankrolled by an Illinois-based special interest group called U.S. Term Limits. U.S. Term Limits, which has pushed similar initiatives in other states, spent about $510,000 on the petition drive to qualify Measure 45 for the Oregon ballot. Recent reports filed with the Oregon Elections Division show U.S. Term Limits has contributed nearly $1.5 million more so far in order to convince voters to support Measure 45.

Here's a view of the C&E for "Restore Oregon's Term Limits Committee" as of Oct 1 (no further contributions reported on Oct 25th C&Es):

Howard Rich is the President of USTL, and he's spending millions across the United States to eliminate the right of local voters to choose who they can vote for. He's pushed term limits in other states, as well as being behind TABOR initiatives (M41/M48). So when considering term limits, think first about being took by a "East Coast city slicker". Maybe you should listen to the Woody Guthrie song, "Philadelphia Lawyer".

Or better, listen to the ads for M45. Of all the slick-trick ad campaigns being run this year, none comes near those pushing M45. I hear this one every morning on Air America/Thom Hartmann; it's deceitful, full of crap and very damn effective.

Listen for yourself (mp3): You may find yourself persuaded.

But let's take a look at what they're saying:

One million voters enacted term limits here. Ten years later, Salem's lobbyists and politicians conspired to kill term limits.

Yes. And then (get ready, conspiracy theorists), the Oregon Supreme Court joined the conspiracy and found that term limiting members of Congress kind of violated the U.S. Constitution. Those darn sneaky lobbyists and politicians! And activist judges. How dare they tell 1 million voters they were wrong?

And when term limits went away, the problems came back. Partisan bickering, two massive tax hikes rejected by voters.

Ok, skipping the part where "massive tax hikes" being "rejected by voters" is a problem (not sure they meant to blame voters for rejecting tax increases), the partisan bickering was not a result of term limits being removed. Let's remember Salem before term limits.

Democrats and Republicans passed the Oregon Health Plan, funded education, agreed on gun control measures, held Legislative sessions that ended about the same time school did, treated one another with respect. It was awful. They did fail in one tragically signficant way, however: they were unable to find an answer to the (perceived) problem of property taxes. This, in addition to the refusal of voters to consider a sales tax, much less any other effective change to the tax status quo, allowed M5 to sneak in the back door of a hectic election year. (Which included a fight to protect a woman's right to choose.)

Then we passed term limits and kicked out anyone who knew what the hell was going on with state government. That's when the lobbyists took over, along with the people we now recognize as their favorite customers: neocons and religious fanatic christianists. The Legislature became a sounding board for fanatics seeking to beat the devil out of the sinful liberals who'd infested Oregon for far too long. Civility disappeared because God does not require His Saved to show respect to the Damned. And when the faith-based fanatics lost their appeal to voters, the hard core neocon corruptionists like Minnis and Scott slimed into the place.

This is the fair fruit of term limits. We replaced the wisdom and experience of John Kitzhaber with the mendacity and self-righteousness of Karen Minnis.

Now, term limits are on the ballot again. A fair limit that lets lawmakers serve, then step up to new challenges. It lets in new people, and fresh ideas.

How fair is it to Corvallis and Philomath that no matter how well Sara Gelser serves us in Salem, in 14 years, she's toast? How fair is it that we lose the option to decide in a democratic process whether or not we want her as our representative? Is it up to the voters in Portland, La Grande or Pendleton to decide who we can choose as our state representative or state senator? Term limits does not bring in fresh blood; it wipes out the liberty to choose who we want from our community to serve us. Maybe Howie Rich never gets to meet his state representative, but anyone in HD 16 can have coffee with Sara just about any week.

They call our Legislature "a national laughingstock."

Ok, who the hell are they? Howie Rich and his friends? Rove and Grover Norquist? The guys at the ad agency what wrote this crap? I have not seen any state legislatures so enveloped by the love and good-will of their citizens that they have time to look at our legislature and have their little laugh. There's no attribution for this quote, just the words. Politicking is just so much easier when you get to make your shit up and toss it around like chimps tossing poo.

Let's get serious about fixing it.

I agree: Let's get serious. We do have tremendous problems with how we elect people to all state and local offices, but you can generally count on this: The easier the solution, the more likely to failure. Term limits is easy: Throw the bums out. But we know from experience it results in disaster: the lobbyists and fanatics take over; democracy gets shot to hell.

When incumbents get re-elected 98.1% of the time, there is really no choice for voters. Yes on 45 – let's respect the choice of 1.4 million Oregon voters – for competition in politics.

The re-election of incumbents is not the result of a lack of competition or choice. Jason Brown is running his ass off against Brian Boquist in HD23; if the voters in the district choose not to get educated about Boquist, or if we actually respect their decision and assume they did make an informed decision, then their choice to re-elect the incumbent was their democratic choice to make. Who the hell is Howie Rich or any of his Oregon minions to say otherwise? In a few districts, serious challengers are hard to find but that's invariably because the incumbent happens to represent district voters damn well. Just ask the folks in HD11 who happily re-elect Uncle Phil Barnhart, or Congressional District 5, where Greg Walden appears to be the person voters want in Congress (god help us). It's a conservative district; they elect a conservative to Congress. I don't like "Waldenbush" but I respect the voters.

I'm hoping that sufficient of the 1.4 million Oregonians who voted for term limits last time have wised up. I hope the House Dems have done enough to get out the message that more than anything, it's Minnis and Scott's corrupt and anti-democratic methods which have fouled up the Legislature so badly. We need to make challenges on incumbents more viable, but simply chopping their off at the knees is pointless. A term-limited politician usually has a bucket of money on hand; here in Benton County, former candidate and cheating-lying buffoon Jack Burright just handed over $28,000 to a write-in candidate. That's how an incumbent will ensure his or her replacement continues their legacy — for good or ill. That's the biggest problem, and we know it: Money. M45 does nothing about that problem (and M47 does way too much).

Vote for democracy and choice — your choice. Vote No on 45 and send Howie Rich the message: We'll make our own damn decisions our own damn way. Vote democracy. Vote No on 45.

By T.A. Barnhart Oct. 27, 2006