It is a great point...with out the fear of losing one's Job what is going to stop these Lame Ducks from milking the system for all it is worth?

I don't support term limits, but I also don't see how they keep someone from voting a person out of office. What am I missing here?

Frankly, I think that this is a moral choice.

The positive of getting rid of people like Minnis far outweighs the negative of losing a good legislator.

I'll probably vote in favor of this.

Anon,

Two things:

First, Term Limits would remove 5 times as many good legislators as bad ones.

Second, What makes you think that if a district elected a bad legislator then will elect a good one two years later. If they have already drank the kool-aid then what makes you think they will stop just because the flavor has changed?

Will people PLEASE stop using the "kool-aid" metaphor? I'm about to go insane.

I will vote in favor of term limits, although I agree that with the pros and cons of the measure. This may sound terrible to those of you who see government as the ultimate solution to our problems, but I believe with more turnover less will get done.

One thing I disagree with Locke's statement that "Term Limits would remove 5 times as many good legislators as bad ones." It is closer to 50/50.

In a term-limits world, plausible challengers don't run until the term limit is up - essentially guaranteeing a legislator a full run (and thus less interest in making tough choices and being accountable). In a no-term-limits world, you could draw a tough challenger anytime - and thus you have be on good behavior.

Too many state legislator start their re-election campaign the day after the election. They immediately start looking for contributions to their re-election campaign funds, and provide favorable treatment to legislation supported by wealthy special interests and oppose the rest. "We the People" are not significant players.

In a term limit world, half of the senate (and a third of the house) would not be up for re-election, and there would be no reason for at least those legislators to be blatantly in favor of special interests and opposed to the needs of their constituents. Maybe that would be a good thing.

Term Limits would remove 5 times as many good legislators as bad ones.

I don't know every current legislator and everyone's voting record, but I can count the ones I would consider "good" (principled, hard working, visionary) on the fingers of one hand. But maybe the Nike vote and a few other issues in the last session have made me cynical.

I recently moved from California, a state with term limits. My perception is that term limits results in a much less successful legislature. The members are political novices you spend most of their time just trying to figure out how the process works.

If you support term limits, you are essentialy saying, "I'm too stupid to make informed and intelligent decisions about candidates." Actually, you probably believe you are informed and intelligent enough to make those decisions--it's just all those other voters who are stupid and ignorant.

But if all these people are too stupid to vote wisely on candidates in their own districts, how can we trust them to vote wisely on this ballot measure? Doesn't make sense. Let the people decide whether they want to keep a Peter Courtney around for 20 years or so.

What term limits tries to address is the power of incumbency. It is not so much getting rid of the really bad legislators. After all we could recall them (not likely, but theoretically possible). Term limits is a way to deal with the mediocre, the do-nothings. The people with no vision; the party hacks. An incumbent starts any election cycle with name recognition and money. If the legislator has done nothing to upset their own party, no one will run against them in the primary. And if they are in one of the large number of "safe districts", a candidate from the other party doesn't stand much of a chance, and a third party or independent candidate even less. So we don't have much of an opportunity to vote them out. We have to wait for them to die, retire or run for another office.

Frank, inasmuch as your plan seems to lead to an empty Capitol, it goes a little far...

Once again we get the misdirected solution of deconstructing the governmental institution not giving us the representation we require. As 'perpetualstudent' points out, term limits ensures us House-fuls of ineffectual novices. A swing-and-a miss! [Crowd boos]

Judy Dresser at least asks the right question: "How will we punish misbehaving legislators?" Waiting until their re-election is obviously inadequate, but cynically maintaining that there is just no hope of holding experiened representatives accountable for their performance is worse. If we really believe that democracy is our best hope for a just society, we must believe that there is a way to make the representational democracy which we've been bequeathed work for us! If we can't enlist a broad constituency that demands professional representation we will never get out from under Fascist exploitation.

I find that same rank attitude behind Measure 46, the State Constitutional Amendment intended to authorize campaign finance limitations. The same cynical despair of holding legislators accountable for opposing effective campaign finance reform led them to institute the three-quarters assent "superdupermajority" requirement to pass a CFR bill. That's a mistargeted attack on the representational institution designed to take away the power of the Legislature to do their job rather than promting a means of ensuring that they do their job honestly.

The plan of Frank's to which my last comment referred was the one to "throw [all] their asses out of the temple".

If you want a stagnant good-old boy club in Salem - you've got it - a dysfunctional, anti-competitive elections system with a 98.1% November reelection rate. Only one legislative incumbent has been removed in each of the last two general elections. More were removed due to criminal convictions.

If you want to allow experienced legislators to go back into the real world, or other political jobs ... if you want to allow new people with a fresh outlook to serve in our Legislature -- then vote YES on 45.

Note :The Maui lobbyist is the single largest cash donor to the No on 45 campaign. He does not invite challengers -- only incumbents. If you want do not want to curb the corrupting influence of lobbyists on our Legislature, if you liked Maui-gate, vote No.

Here's why term limits for legislators = term limits for lobbyists -- because every termed-out lawmaker means a terminated relationship with a lobbyist.

Paul Farago, spokesperson, Restore Oregon's Term Limits Committee See the M45 blog or website

“Actually, you probably believe you are informed and intelligent enough to make those decisions--it's just all those other voters who are stupid and ignorant.”

You got that right!

I used to be leery of term limits but will give them a chance with this ballot measure.

After seeing pols like Erik Sten (just an example, this measure does not apply to PDX city council) elected time after time it becomes evident too many voters base decisions on name familiarity and a perceived political philosophy they think they agree with. The incumbent's track record seems hardly to be taken into account.

Public service wasn't ment to become a career. Getting new people in on a regular is good for the body politic.

Term limits can’t be all bad. After all, how would you feel if it didn’t apply to the presidency?

What looks like a good idea can turn out to be a nightmare.

In California, where I recently moved from, term limits were enacted over 10 years ago.

Initially, long term legislators, like Willie Brown (against whom the Republicans designed the Proposition), Sen. Burton (the great legislative memory bank) and others were termed out. At first, there were more women in office in the Assembly and Senate, but now there are fewer in total than before the legislation passed.

The worst outcome is that institutional memory in the form of long term legislators is completely gone. Most legislators take a term or two to really learn the job, but Assembly members get only 3 terms (6 years.) A member has to run for Speaker before gaining this knowledge. Senators get only 2 terms (8 years).

Consequently, the majority of bills are now being written by lobbyists not legislators. Bills are getting passed before the legislators realize the harm they may cause, or good bills are written badly and are ineffective.

For Californians, really good legislators are being lost, such as Sen. Sheila Kuehl. She got a really great health insurance bill passed after 8 years of work (vetoed by Gov. Schwartzenegger), but she is termed out and cannot bring it up again. While only the bad legislators could have been turned out by the voters and the good ones kept. Term limits are enacted as a substitute for good campaign finance reform. The true incumbents' advantage is that only they get the large contributions from lobbyists.

Let us not duplicate the foolishness that California is suffering. Oregonians are mature enough to not re-elect the bad legislators and to vote for campaign finance reform. Vote No on Measure 45.

Frank, it is you who displays an ignorance of history: the institution of the Oregon Legislature is worthy of your respect because it is a government of the people. If you are looking to place blame for its failure to serve your best interests, just take a look in the mirror citizen!

All that payola you so rightly despise isn't going to a dictatorial or aristocratic elite that forces you to go along with their nefarious schemes; it is all pointed in the end at you. They are schmoozing your representative and if you don't hold him responsible for his actions, and if you don't watch what he is doing in your name, the failure is yours, not that of the institution of democracy in our state.

In truth, attacks on the institution of the Legislature such as term limits, which at worst prevents dedicated servants of the people of this great state from forming a network of concerned citizens guarding their freedom, do help the imperial presidency to gain traction. The institutions of democracy are our only bulwark against despotism. Do not allow your cynicism to subvert your self-interest.

"Term limits bad. Limits on political contributions good."

Frank, is that the sort of demagogue you would follow?

Diplomacy means listening to people with whom you disagree. Obviously, not everyone is willing to do that.

I've probably been to Salem a little more than the average voter - but like most folks, I am not a political insider.

Citizens want greater control over our state government - not by becoming insiders, but by applying reasonable limits to what is now mostly unlimited, undisciplined and unaccountable government in our state.

Term limits elevate our experienced legislators to new challenges. After all, issues in Salem do not take place only within the building. Programs involve local and county officials, too. Is it good for Oregon that some of the local officials have experience in the state Legislature as a result of term limits? Yes. And term limits open service in the Legislature to people who have political experience at the local level. Is it good for Oregon that some of legislators who ran and won only due to open-seats / term limits, have experience at the local level. Yes. Programs also involve the private sector. Is it good that some of our local and state officials have recent private sector experience? Yes. Is it good to allow in "citizen-legislators", who only expect to serve a term or two and return to non-government life? Yes. But they won't even apply for the job when there's no real chance of winning, and when there's no chance of having influence, under the strict seniority system, until you've won a series of reelections.

Under M45, all these folks will have a seat at the table. In the current system, the cardinals work it all out in back rooms. The rank-and-filers do crosswords and sudoku puzzles, sing songs, recite poetry, etc. waiting to see the color of the smoke rising, waiting for the cardinals and lobbyists to emerge telling them how to vote (and telling them what gifts to disclose/not disclose to the Ethics Commission.)

This means most likely - your representative doesn't really have seat at the table at all.

Without term limits, the alternative is stagnation: from a 98.1% incumbency retention in general elections and a dwindling number of open seats (only 10 of 75, this year). That makes for less representative, less accountable state government. We can do better.

Paul Farago spokesperson, Restore Oregon's Term Limits Committee www.oregontermlimits.blogspot.com

Dear Frank, Should my one of my friends fall into self-indulgent delusion, and rationalizing his (or her) failing to take action to remedy their situation as the "system" being broke "so there is nothing they can do", you can bet I will talk to them as loudly as it takes to get their attention and let them know that they need to get off their stool, dump that teary beer, and get crackin'! Should they persist in delusion and start muttering about blowing up buildings, I'm surely going to intervene. You need someone to intervene before you do damage to democracy.

Paul, in the district next to mine, there was an excellent state rep. named Larry Wells. A rural resident representing rural residents, someone with an excellent record on water quality. And, just as important, a legislative office welcoming to all from the area--from high school students to anyone who had a question.

Term limits threw him out and we got Dan Doyle in that district (until his legal troubles removed him from that seat and sent him to jail). An urban person representing a rural district, very arrogant, his office snippy to people who asked questions because after all, he knew everything--or so he and his office wanted us to believe.

That isn't term limits theory. That is what actually happened. No one on your campaign that I know of has addressed the actual result of the previous term limits--regardless of your theory, not every person removed was an awful person replaced with an excellent representative.

Not to mention Speaker Simmons, who became a nursery lobbyist before his term as Speaker ended. Did he do that because he was term limited so it didn't matter what voters thought of him?

No one from the term limits campaign seems to want to address those issues. They want us to believe that experience only counts in other areas of life and legislators are like widgets or like food with a "sell by " date. That if you replace person X with person Y you will get equal quality (or maybe you want lobbyists and staff to have more power than members?). What is it about institutional memory which bothers you so much? Without term limits, the control of the House was decided by 7 state rep. election margins of less than 1000. Sounds to me like an engaged electorate.

Having worked on campaigns where we "gave term limits the old fashioned way" and elected a challenger, deposing an incumbent, I don't support term limits.

And exactly how much of the money for your campaign was collected from Oregonians? I mean both the signature collection campaign and the ballot measure campaign. Paul, how long have you lived in Oregon and have you ever worked on a challenger's campaign?

From today's Oregonian:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1160717224292170.xml&coll=7 Meet the money behind the measures New Yorker Howard Rich hates big government and the spotlight Friday, October 13, 2006

LAURA OPPENHEIMER ..................... Rich operates most visibly through Americans for Limited Government and U.S. Term Limits, groups he has started with like-minded friends. He also doles out money and advice through several other organizations. Combined, they have spent at least $10 million this year, including $2.8 million in Oregon.

Frank,

Don't give Meek's opinion on this too much credit. His proposals will actually create more barriers to electing citizen legislators.

Anyone who has ever had the pleasure of trying to get their head around the 185-page state campaign finance reporting manual must realize that M47 will just add another 50 pages to it.

Green Party candidates don't have to worry about that monstrosity because they never raise more than $2000.

Adding new rules to an overlycomplicated system will require every legitimate candidate to rely upon paid consultants to navigate the process.

This system would ultimately undermine its own purpose.

oh Pancho, puh-leez! Opponents of 46/47 need to stop talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, they criticise the measures as "too complicated" but then they also say, "they won't go far enough" to stop money getting into the system. Huh?

M47 adds a dozen pages to the existing 300+ pages of election code. Its onus is entirely on the candidates, and frankly, if they can't handle this, do we really want them as our legislators?

I have personal experience with campaign finance reporting. Federal reporting standards are stringent (the limits aren't, but that's another story) and far more onerous than this. Hasn't stopped any of our Congressional or Senate candidates that I know of.

This is such a stupidly specious argument I sometimes have to wonder about the intelligence of the people making it...which depresses me, because generally we are supposed to be on the same side!

When will progs wake up this election cycle and realize the true battles should be AGAINST 39, 41, 43 & 48? If you believe in reform, stop paying lip service to the notion. The legislature isn't going to do anything (they haven't for the past 10 years)...this is your option for 2006 - do nothing and live with the spreading cancer of money in Oregon politics, or apply some chemo in the form of 46/47.

As to term limits, I'd say on balance: bad idea. But if we have term limits and NO campaign limits...well, that's your disaster scenario for Oregon, folks!

Funny how the most vocal complainers about TL are self-proclaimed experts who work in and around state government. Here's what ex-Rep. Carl Wilson said, before casting his vote that tipped off the get-rid-of-TL scheme:

"There comes a time when you decide you'll try all methods and all means available to do something. We need to take every approach possible. I don't expect voters to understand. But as you know, we are privy to things they are not. This hallowed place is where we are, and we know it best." – Rep. Carl Wilson (R-Grants Pass)

Self-important, "ends-justifies-the-means" thinkers seem incapable of understanding that citizens are fed up with dysfunctional and self-serving "expert government" that has grossly overpromised and sadly underdelivered. Contrast Carl Wilson's comment with Benjamin Franklin's explanation of Revolution-era American government's lively experiment:

"In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns. For the former, therefore, to return among the latter [is] not to degrade but to promote them." – Benjamin Franklin

We asked this question recently in a survey: Does gov't work for you, or do you work for gov't? By 47-40, people now regard our public servants as masters. Thanks to folks like Carl Wilson, we no longer have "free governments" as described by Franklin. The relationship between the people and our governments has largely been inverted. Is the Oregon Legislature "free" or is it serving special interests, as the Paul Romain / Maui-gate saga so clearly demonstrates? You decide.

By most people's measure, unlimited state gov't has had a long run. It is simply out-of-control, and M45 is something voters can do about correcting it.

P.S. To B.O. critics who would rather discuss personalities than the issue: I have lived in Oregon for almost 15 years, raised family here, and am an actively-practicing acupuncturist in Portland. I volunteer for M45 and have always been a donor/volunteer to the TL cause.

"B.O. critics who would rather discuss personalities than the issue" The issue of commenter anonymity (an unknown name being much the same) deserves some comment itself: while I respect that some commenters need to remain anonymous to shield themselves from undue repercussions from exercising free speech rights, they must reconcile themselves to a certain lack of credibility in an arena where important local issues are under attack from people with a wider agenda within which Oregon issues are used as pawns in their game plan. It goes beyond mere diversion to discussion of personalities.

In light of that, you may want to know something of my experience of local culture. I am a bit younger than Frank Dufay, was born in and have lived almost all my life in Oregon, the most notable exception being my active duty stint (only one!) in the Navy whereby I missed the entire reign of Frank Ivancie. Having lived in the Portland area it was a good time to miss, epitomized by the erection of the ghastly Portland Building. Nuff said! I spent a few years recently in Washington State during which time 'resident Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war jolted me out of political passivity. I cannot tell you how profoundly his re-election depressed me, but I cannot relapse to passivity.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (Winston Churchill, from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

Churchill certainly understood the frustration of working in a democracy, having been given "The Order of the Boot" as he called it, being voted out of leadership as soon as he led Britain through to victory in WWII. We must display similar patience with the institutions of Democracy here.

I maintain that it is the institution of the electorate that needs change most desperately. The electorate has changed much since the framers of the Constitution implemented it. It was their prosperous middle class who fought the Revolution and ratified the Constitution to make themselves secure in their own homes. Without them no democracy can survive, for without a broad class of people who have the time and ability to be informed and engaged partners in their own governance democracy cannot function. Since the time of Churchill, the corporate special interests have been working to whittle down the middle class whom they see as rivals for power to be ruthlessly taken out. When people like Grover Norquist talk about whittling down government to where it can be drowned in the bathtub, he's really talking about you and me as effective partners in that government. You'll note that he and his co-conspirators like Abramoff and Reed have not been loath to use the power of government to achieve their nefarious ends.

We have arrived very close to their dream of an impoverished middle-class electorate unable to promote their own interest. The corporations and their wealthy elite have sucked ever-mounting portions of the resources of our society to their own coffers and have demanded that their "tax burden" become ever lighter. So guess who is left with an ever-mounting tax liability? It is no accident that most families must have two wage earners to avoid bankruptcy these days. Or that bankruptcy has been made so much more draconian. It is a fact of political life we have to work around to avoid losing the institution of democracy in all but the name. We must not surrender to cynicism and declare that we have no power in the political system, so we must cut back the power of its institutions to avoid having their power used against us. That is the definition of self-defeat!

I'm for term limits. As a separate issue, voters in the districts of those legislators that didn't list their trips paid by lobbyists should be voted out of the Oregon Legislature.

My advice is: don't just vote for the name you know and don't buy their claim of having more experience. Who cares? I say subtract negative from postive experience. Some legislators won't look so wonderful doing this kind of math. If they are in the pocket of lobbyists, they are not putting the people in their districts first.

I'm for term limits. As a separate issue, voters in the districts of those legislators that didn't list their trips paid by lobbyists should be voted out of the Oregon Legislature.

My advice is: don't just vote for the name you know and don't buy their claim of having more experience. Who cares? I say subtract negative from postive experience. Some legislators won't look so wonderful doing this kind of math. If they are in the pocket of lobbyists, they are not putting the people in their districts first.

The last comment should have read: legislators that didn't list their trips paid by lobbyists should be voted out of the Oregon Legislature.

Thank you.