44 Comments - Redbright - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:28 am: Yes re term limits although it doesn’t work. I came here from term-limit California. The players just switch jobs; it doesn’t result in much new blood. [Yes because it is hard to be a reformer and say No. It’s not worth the argument to explain to those who have no direct experience.] Yes re the $ limits. That might actually make a difference. If the speaker can’t make extra money s/he may think twice about everyone else’s perks. - Ghost - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:30 am: No. Imagine if you went to the hospital, an accountant, lawyer, building contractor or whomever, and they said we fire anyone with 10 years of experience. Thus guarnateeing the experience and knowledge of whoever you hire is kept at a minimium. Do you want surgery perfomred by the most experienced or inexperienced: how about your house? representing you in an audit? in a court room? I want the most capable person I can get, and that usually equates to experience. I wonder how many of the people on the comission who made this recomendation had been in their current profession less then 10 years and planned to leave just as they were hitting their stride. I want an experienced politican who knows the ropes and the system. - Ghost - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:30 am: Outside income, I do suppor this with appropriate salaries. The GA reach is broad enough that this implicates too many potential conflicts. - SpfldPolitico - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:45 am: i do not agree with any of these changes. We do need to remember this is America and is the land of hte FREE…..LOL. Anyway, if an individual or group of individuals can continue to get reelected to offices, thwey should be allowed to hold those offices indefinitely. And as far as the income, again this is America and suppose to be the land of the FREE - lets all make some money! Reform should not be aimed at those that make their careers in public service. Let the voters decide when its time to elect someone new! - L.S. - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:46 am: No on both. Limit the terms of the elected leaders and the gap will be filled by career beauraucrats who can just wait out legislative leaders. Limiting their ability to make outside income is unneccessary in terms of ethics and reeks of the little personal jabs at the GA that Blago liked so much. Why is this committee, which was formed in the wake of RRB’s scandals, so obsessed with Madigan and Cullerton? It all seems like a personal gripe with Collins. - SweetLou - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:47 am: Term limits lead to constant turnover which means you’re constantly removing the people who know the bureaucracy best and how it works which eventually leads to… ineffective government! Term limits isn’t a solution, but there’s bound to be one out there. The barring of outside income may be a good start. - SpfldPolitico - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:48 am: also wouldnt saying that someone in a certain office cannot have any outside income kinda defeat the entire motive of reform by making bribes, and behind closed door deals for money even that much more tempting to these office holders since they cannot make any other money! Just make them report any income they have like everyone else in the country and then let the voters decide. i think the system we have works well, just too many whiners and criers out there that think the world is suppose to be perfect all the time! REALITY CHECK PLEASE. Table 1! - John b - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:52 am: There are definitely pros and cons for both arguments. I believe that there should not be limits, basically because I think the experience is a plus but if the people and a candidate really wanted to oust someone, with hard work and determination it can be done. - grand old partisan - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:56 am: Legislative leader term limits – yes, Yes, YES. A big part of me favors term limits for all offices, but I do understand the argument that it’s intellectually undemocratic…”if the voters want to re-elect someone, they should be able to, blah blah.” But citizens don’t elect the legislative leaders, who have vastly disproportionate power relative to the indirectly ‘democratic’ way that they are chosen. To “Ghost’s” point about long-tenured professionals being better…The legislature isn’t (or, at least shouldn’t) be a “profession.” Indeed, the idea of a ‘professional ruling class’ is in direct conflict with the spirit of our nation’s founding (government by, for and of “the people,” - as the man on our license plates once said - not government by professional legislators). Unfortunately, it IS what we have had for all practical purposes on both a state and federal level for at least the past 100-150 years….and how well has that worked out for us all??? Does anyone out there think that we have an effective, efficience and response government in either Springfield or Washington?? It honestly blows me away that on the one hand, you have people arguing that we need our legislators to be more “professional” and removed from the realities of common life, and on the other you have the President arguing that we need judges who have “empathy.” Completely backwards! The Founders must be spinning in their graves… - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:57 am: GOP, stick to the question, please. Leave your copy and pasted national political talking points out of this question and off of this blog. Thanks. Move along. - Irish - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:01 pm: I wonder if Rod had occupied the Speaker’s position if the feelings would be the same on term limits. The fact that MJM has not been a bad Speaker might reflect on the answers given above. There needs to be a way that all of the voters of the state can have a say in who runs their government. If term limits are not the answer then make the leader’s positions a State wide election. The way it is set up now the Speaker only has to satisfy the wants of his district and given the diversity of the State that could go against the wants of a majority of the voters but they have no way of cutting short his/her reign. The leaders should also not be able to be the State Chairman of their party and be able to dole out monies for other elections. You have the potential for a leader creating a dynasty of General Assembly members who are forever beholden to the leader for their jobs. At that point you no longer have a democracy. When thinking of the impact of the proposed reforms you have to think worst case scenerio and not what has been true in the past. Blago’s rule was a prime example. So it is either term limits, recall, or statewide elections for leadership positions, and an end to leadership controlling campaign money for other elections, if you truly want a representitive form of government. - wordslinger - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:05 pm: In the abstract, I think elected legislators should be able to choose the leaders they want for as long as they want. My problem is, in reality, the citizens are not allowed a real choice in electing the legislators because of sophisticated gerrymandering. Let’s make a deal: give up gerrymandering and no term limits on leaders. The problem with the commission’s case for GA reform is they’re not selling it; to do that, you have to put some flesh and bone on the story. Unless I’ve missed it, they’ve yet to give examples and name names of how present GA leaders have abused power to the detriment of the public. It’s all very civics class; give it a real-world, present-day context. For example, when you recall Blago’s high-jinks and the incredible amount of money he raised, you provide context to make the case for limits on money. On that note, to the bonus question: Are there recent examples of how today’s leaders outside jobs have harmed the public interest? If so, let’s hear them. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:08 pm: No, this is very poorly conceived. Term limits on leaders, but not rank and file? I’m for neither, but any reasonable proposal should apply equally to all legislators. Outside income ban? No, for the same reason. Why single out leaders? This is a solution in search of a problem. - Anonymous45 - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:11 pm: Wordsmith: One, no, two names: Emil Jones and Rod Blagojevich, without Emil to keep things locked up in committee, Rod would not have been able to govern in the manner in which he saw fit…how quickly we forget the recently self serving - Stones - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:12 pm: I don’t like term limits as a rule but perhaps we might need to look as some reforms in the legislature. I am just very suspicious of Pat Quinn’s self serving commission recommendations on the eve of his impending race against the Speaker’s daughter. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:12 pm: to Word’s fine point about gerrymandering: I’m all for an Iowa system. Draw the districts fairly on population and community integrity. I think in the end, that will keep the General Assembly majority Democratic, provide more turnover and competition, and address many of the leadership issues the Reform Commission is advocating. Treat voters with respect and they’ll respond accordingly. Iowa style redistricting is the single most important reform Illinois can implement. - Angry Republican - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:13 pm: No on both. We already have term limits for all politicians, they are called elections. Make no mistake, we have the government we deserve in Illinois. Eliminating outside income for legislative leaders will only encourage more “creative” means of padding their wallets (think Patti Blagoof realtor). - sal-says - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:14 pm: Sure and Sure. “legislative leader term limits…” Goes back to my ‘anbody but an incumbent’ theme. Tired of the strangle-holds the ‘leaders’ have. “… bar outside income for the Senate President and House Speaker.” Sure; if they are the ‘leaders’, doing work for the citizens & taxpayers of IL is a full time job. Do it. - Irish - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:27 pm: The outside income question is a touchy one. Rank and file State employees have to fill out a form annually and submit it to their Director to request permission to hold a second job. The Director can turn down the request if the place of employment does business with the State and there could be a conflict. The GA should do no less if that is the rule for State Employees but who would they submit it to? If we are talking about limiting campaign contributions from contractors who do business with the State would it also not follow that a member of the GA could not be employed by such an entity? How do you draw the line between campaign contribution and pay for consultant work? And how does the general public really find out about connections between legislators and companies that do business with the State? I would really like to know what the connection was between Emil Jones and People’s Energy and would really like to know why all payments for my electric bills for People’s Energy have been going to the University of Chicago for the last several years. I also still pay a minor fee to Ameren who actually supplies the power. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:30 pm: ===Rank and file State employees have to fill out a form annually and submit it to their Director to request permission to hold a second job. === Legislators are not state employees. I really can’t stand this silly canard. They are elected officials. - David Ormsby - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:33 pm: No on legislative leader terms limits. Neither the House Speaker nor the Senate President was, unless I am mistaken, arrested on December 9, 2008 or convicted on April 17, 2006. If the gubernatorial reform commission wants to term limit, term limit where state ethic problems apparently lie–the governor’s office. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:35 pm: ===Emil Jones=== He was a top dog for 16 years. Not far above the term limit. - COPN - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:42 pm: YES on leadership limits. Arguments emphasizing experience and a democratic electorate do not apply to limits on top leadership positions. A cursory search of our state’s history shows the House speaker position changing very often. It appears that only a handful have been Speaker 6-8 years, and only one longer. The internal politics of voting for party leadership is completely distinguishable and goes beyond the argument of let the voters decide. I don’t vote in any of the leaderships’ districts, and it becomes very convoluted to vote for a representative based on how they will vote for their legislative leader. A 10 year cap in no way suffocates the agenda of a leader, but 30 years of a leader can suffocate the well-deserved ideas of others. NO to complete limits on outside income. As a simple matter of equity, outside income should be treated no differently for leadership than other legislators. - wordslinger - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:45 pm: Anon 45, no doubt there are examples. My point was, the commission is not selling its GA recommendations to the public with real-life, present-day examples of why reforms are needed. Put it another way; at some point, to get some traction, they’re going to have to say “We think MJM is an example of why we need term limits for leaders, and here are our reasons for saying that.” Context. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:48 pm: Silly, silly, silly these folks keep thinking that how you stripe the field can determine whether people will play by the rules during the game. Silly. - frustrated GOP - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 12:51 pm: Term limits on leadership is fine, but really what changes once the person leaves the leadership position; tey then have their list of IOU’s to collect as a member. The only change I see making a difference is term limits on legislative terms. We all find indivuals that we want excepted but it’s time for a significant change. the only way to remove power from leasdership is make these temporary jobs. - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 1:13 pm: Wasn’t Vladimir Putin required to give up the presidency of Russia due to term limits? I don’t understand how having a rotating Speaker with someone behind the throne holding the real power is a reform. I’m also skeptical that the public can be sold on term limits for the Speaker and Prez of the Senate, but not for others. But maybe the public isn’t the audience for this, maybe the audience is the legislators. I guess I can go along with weakening the Speaker and Prez of the Senate vis-a-vis members of their chambers. But I think the governor (generically, not Quinn specifically) is always going to want to weaken the legislative leaders because s/he knows that weaker legislative leaders mean a stronger governor. Even before Bush I kinda favored a strong legislature and a weak executive. Experiencing Bush has made me feel more that way. I’m in favor of reform, but the governor pushing a reform measure that is pretty weak in general reform terms, but shifts power from legislature to governor. I’m inclined to oppose. And the outside income ban…. If we’re going to have “part-time” legislators then they get outside income. Much of this outside income is unseemly. But the reform that needs to be enacted is one that stops them from getting money connected to their public duties and status as politicians (consulting for local gov’t, tax appeals, etc.) What if a legislator had a legit private sector job? Do we expect him/her to give it up b/c s/he’s a candidate for speaker? “Sorry, the reformers say you can’t take your vegetables to the market.” - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 1:27 pm: silly, silly, silly Sometimes how the field is striped matters. Leadership limits strike at the heart of control over legislation. When a leader changes the rules to preserve their power post-leadership, they remain in control as a #2 party elder, or they use the purse strings of party campaign coffers to control legislation (ignoring possible legal implications), then we’ll talk. Until then, recognize that some of these stripes make sense, and please use your experience to further the conversation. - COPN - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 1:28 pm: missed the name box for anon 1:27 COPN - Taxhound - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 1:36 pm: Term limits for leaders - sure. Term limits for all elected positions in the state from government all the way down to mosquita abatement district. But before term limits then eliminate pensions and other benefits and minimize compensation to a reasonable amont. - Anonymous45 - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 1:38 pm: or let’s take the example of Madigan killing gaming expansion just today…one man controlling the dialogue is insane, and to boot he is doing it for purely political reasons…why do we elect his mushrooms? What is the pont of paying State Reps? Is this equal representation? Democratic? Nope… - steve schnorf - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 1:51 pm: Anon, leaders need the approval of the members to change the rules. I take it you don’t agree with me on term limits. I’m sure just as soon as we get them things will straighten out-not. A big problem with reformers is when their reforms don’t work they think its because they haven’t reformed enough yet. Silly, silly, silly - Chad - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 2:25 pm: Steve is right. Both are bad ideas. Let the voters decide when the “time is up” for someone. The proposals seem directed at MJM, whose long tenure has generally well-served the State. He has provided perspective and “adult supervision” when it was needed. And, let’s allow higher income persons who have ambitions outside the legislature to serve as leaders by continuing to allow the outside income. Abuses here would be corrected by the voters. File these proposals under “Go Gos Gone Wild”. - Jake from Bellwood - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 2:43 pm: Not crazy about legislative leader term limits. Let the parties decide who their leaders will be and for how long without intrusion. I do like limits on outside employment. This would help eliminate some possibility for conflicts of interest. Madigan, Cullerton and Cross are all attorneys whose firms court and support business with entities who seek access to those with legislative power. - Amuzing Myself - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 3:36 pm: LIKE the idea of legislative term limits. I seem to remember the great words about how nice it was going to be to “…have Pate gone…”, “…have fresh blood in the President’s office with Cullerton…”, to “…have Radogno taking over as the first female leader of a majority or minority party in a chamber…” It always seems that turnover means a sort of new day for wherever it’s occurring, and I think that’s something that could be good to have happening regularly…not just when somebody decides to retire from public office and leaves a vacancy. The expertise can still be there, heading committees, leading on the floor, etc. Sure it would be different, but from what I’ve seen the last fifteen years, different can’t really be any worse, and it can certainly be better. The limits on outside income seems silly to me. I thought this was supposed to still be a citizen legislature. Maybe lower the salaries for committee leadership spots all the way up all leadership positions so the top ones are not such highly-paid positions. I like the idea of legislators needed outside income to live comfortably. I don’t think anyone believes these reforms are going to solve all the state’s problems, and those using that as an excuse to oppose them are either short on good reasons to say no or are just being disingenuous to avoid saying they support the status quo. Are they THE answer? Of course not - not alone. Might they help? They might. We’re in such a mess in this state, I’m will to try. Couple that with new mapping, and I’d be interested to see where the state is in fifteen years. - PONsters* - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 3:36 pm: Let’s be real honest. The quickest way to turn over control to the lobbyists is term limits on members and/or leaders Only the truly naive/inexperienced (aka Quinn Commission) do not recognize this immediately. - frustrated GOP - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 3:44 pm: I love the dialog about no change. How many members are able to stand on their own. I remember talking to a freshman Senator and asking for a postion on something in the community. The repsonse was. “I don’t think my staff would let me do that.” Some people don’t even know their own power. This person had more power then they would ever know. But the leadership got someone clueless to their power and their community doesn’t get that leadership. Time for a change to break up the system. - Marty - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 3:50 pm: I don’t see why to single out the leaders– Term limits for all, not just for leadership positions.. and for all elected office under the IL Constitution—I kinda like the idea of 10 years in any one office and 14 years lifetime limitation, maybe 12 and 16, something like that. Outside income– should apply to all. Used to argue legislator was just a part-time job, but in the last 20 years or so they’ve goosed their pay and perks to where it pays better than most of them could get in a full-time “real” world job. Limit outside earned income to something like 50% of legislative pay. The trick, as per previous commenter, is to deal with spouses, etc. and I don’t have an easy answer for that. the real answer, of course, is govt is too big and has its fingers in too many pies, so of course ego and corruption are there. That isn’t about to change, so all of this is just feeble palliatives at best - levois - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 4:13 pm: I don’t support term limits, we could use the institutional memory of those who have served. If we inject fresh blood every so often is it possible to learn the system in a short period of time wether 2, 4, 6, or 8 years. I would only support barring outside income for the state legislature’s presiding officers only if they were made full-time employees of the state. - this old hack - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 4:53 pm: horrible idea–both of them. Term limits fundamentally disrupts the proper relationship between the executive and the legislative branch. This proposal is really bad, in that it attempts to limit the terms of the leaders but not the Governor. With term limits, power is shifted towards the executive branch under any scenario. In this one, even more power could go to a long serving Governor who would then be able to roll over newly elected legislative leaders. Imagine a Jim Thompson, with as much power as he had, without a Madigan or Rock. May as well disband the legislature. Also a bad idea to limit outside income. In that case, only millionaires (like say Garrett or Steans) could afford to be leaders. These are among the worst ideas from the DEFORM COMMISSION. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 5:01 pm: What’s going on here? We hear complaints that voters are too stupid to choose correctly, and now we don’t think the legislators are capable of voting correctly for their leadership? Stop the second guessing. No to term limits. End gerrymandering. - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 8:48 pm: No term limits unless they are applied across the board to all the GA and Statewides, which will never happen, so just mark me as No. The best term limiter is a ballot box. It isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the alternatives. No on the outside income idea. probably unconstitutional, and definitely a solution in search of a problem. Not that Madigan, Cullerton, or Quinn object to legislation targeting one person. Finally, hat tip to Schnorf for this great quote: “A big problem with reformers is when their reforms don’t work they think its because they haven’t reformed enough yet.” Amen, brother. - Avy Meyers - Tuesday, May 5, 09 @ 11:15 pm: Absolutely yes to term limits, the shorter the better. The powers of the legislative leaders need to be lessened and some real brakes put on outside income and employment that is even remotely involved with the state and legislative agenda. - Bookworm - Wednesday, May 6, 09 @ 9:02 pm: Term limits are OK with me if they are fairly long — say, 10-12 years for a leadership position like Speaker or Senate President, and 20 years or more for total legislative service. That strikes a balance between letting people hold office for life and tossing out experienced people to the point that all institutional memory is lost. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.