Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Sales tax avoiding companies dealt huge loss by IL Supreme Court
Posted in:
* From a press release…
The Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits announced today that it has collected more than 150,000 petition signatures and is halfway to placing the term limits amendment on the November 2014 ballot.
“Illinoisans are hungry for term limits and our effort is gaining serious momentum,” said Bruce Rauner, chairman of the committee. “This amendment will help put the people back in charge of state government and folks are enthusiastically signing on.”
The term limits initiative has steadily gained steam since it was announced at the beginning of September.
In September, the committee collected 12,250 signatures. In October, over 61,000 signatures were collected. More than 77,000 signatures have already been collected in the first three weeks of November.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 12:03 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Sales tax avoiding companies dealt huge loss by IL Supreme Court
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
150,000 signatures … at $10 a siganture …
$1.5 Million(?)
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 12:06 pm
$10 a signature?
Is that the going rate these days?
Yowza.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 12:11 pm
When you really talk about term limits with folks it comes out that they are generally satisfied with their elected rep or senator or whatever. However, it is the rep or senator in another district they would like to see turned out of office!
Comment by Nearly Normal Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 12:13 pm
- Formerly Known As… -,
Remember, Rauner has hired a group to get signatures, be it for himself, or for the referendum, or both…
$5 for a “line”, $5 for the “handling per line” by the compnay … total cost $10(?)
It’s always the “incidentials” and “handling” charges that get you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 12:17 pm
Rauner should keep forming committees. He has a loyal crew that will drop money on all of them. This one, his campaign committee, his Reform PAC….
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 12:26 pm
They are for term limits…until their rep is to their liking. Actually term limits are as simple as an election. If they want to limit the term, VOTE THEM OUT.
Comment by DuPage Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 12:27 pm
$10 a signature is a good rahmner investment especially when you consider how much money they will make selling the names for years to come.
Comment by William j Kelly Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 12:45 pm
Bruce must be a student of Jerry Brown. The term limits enacted in California have yielded a legislature that doesn’t really know what it’s doing — thereby concentrating even more power in the Governor’s office.
Thankfully, Rauner would be even less experienced and knowledgeable than the term-limited folks in the GA, so there’s a limit to how much damage he could do. But hey Bruce - -think about what would happen if somebody like Mike Madigan (you know, somebody who understands the system inside and out) took control of the Mansion for eight years. Wouldn’t that be AWESOME?
(See Consequences, Unintended on page 303.)
Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 12:48 pm
This reminds me of the populist stuff that PQ used to do to get attention. I guess, given that he is now the governor, that it worked so BR is taking a page out of his playbook.
Comment by Kerfuffle Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 12:50 pm
Soccermom makes an interesting point.
The “Law of Unintended Consequences” should be in play here. Someone should educate Rauner on how Quinn’s Cutback Amendment wiped out most of the moderates in each party and ended up putting more power in the hands of the Legislative Leaders.
Comment by anon sequitor Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 12:53 pm
If challenged by Madigan, he needs more like 450,000 to 500,000.
Comment by Perceval Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 12:56 pm
Mixed feelings on term limits. Yes, you can always vote people out but that doesn’t happen very often. There is something to be said for experience / knowing how things work behind the scenes. Otherwise all the power will reside in the hands of the staffers and aides to the legislators.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:00 pm
I’d be happier with 10/12 years than 8, but I signed it and I’d encourage everyone else to as well. I’d even support 4 year terms for Reps, so the every other year time wasted on campaigning could be put to better use.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:09 pm
i think the tea party in 2010 elections, for both sides, showed term limits aren’t necessarily needed. but there have been unintended consequences for that too.
Comment by PoolGuy Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:09 pm
- A guy … -,
Do not “sleep” on what an asset “institutional knowledge” is. With the “term limits” and especially with you even liking 4 years, the only group having the “instituional knowledge” will be the Lobbyists, as they try and “teach” those fresmen after wave of freshmen…. “how it all works”
I had heard this and I don’t know how to take it, but it made me think.
“Making sausage and passing laws are always compared. So, you want new people learning and making sausage constantly, or would you like to know there are some making the sausage who actually know how to make sausage you are going to eat?”
Yikes!
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:14 pm
It’s worth remembering that the amendment would not only create term limits. It also increases the governor’s power by changing veto override requirements and decreases the number of senators to the point where each would represent about half the population of a congressional district. Soccermom’s comparison to California with these changes is apt.
Comment by muon Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:15 pm
==Otherwise all the power will reside in the hands of the staffers and aides to the legislators.==
This might be a good thing; I tend to trust the staffers and aides more than I do the legislative leaders.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:25 pm
==I signed it and I’d encourage everyone else to as well==
Here’s a newsflash. We already have term limits. They are called elections. I would encourage people not to sign it. If you don’t like who is in office then vote for somebody else.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:25 pm
If he paid $10 for a petition signature, what’s his going rate for a primary vote?
Comment by Toure's Latte Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:28 pm
If they’re at 150,000 signatures as a raw/gross number, then they’re short of half. There is always a statistically significant invalidity rate on petitions (sometimes, a quite high invalidity rate). Realistically, they’ll need to get a lot more than 300,000 signatures.
Comment by titan Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:30 pm
===This might be a good thing; I tend to trust the staffers and aides more than I do the legislative leaders.===
Ok, how about this;
Staffer and Lobbyist work for a Bill, no crop of Freshmen come in, Staffer makes case for Bill to be sponsored and ran, gets freshman and lobbyist together to “learn” about the Bill …Bill Passes, Staffer “quits”, works for “company, not lobbying state for a year, backfills hisher job with a “friend”, comes back next year, “new” lobbyist and “new” staffer work “new” Bill …”Rinse and Repeat”
“Staffer/Lobbyist” worsk the rules, but never faces election, and this network “runs” the legislative on a number of issues, with no “check” from the voters…
I like my democracy at the Ballot Box, not the Staff Lounge, or at a Lobbyist Dinner.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:33 pm
I’m embarrassed I can’t remember, but can somebody remind me as to the rules regarding Constitutional questions in Illinois? Isn’t there a maximum? If this gets traction, can Madigan sponsor measures passed by the General Assembly to keep this off the ballot?
Comment by LincolnLounger Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:38 pm
I’ve never had a good handle on what problem term limits are a solution to.
What is so dire that you degrade the rights of a certain group of citizens and deprive voters of a choice?
Willie Brown was term-limited as both California State Assembly Speaker and Mayor of San Francisco. But he still runs the show and has a secret client list as long as your arm.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/julyaugust_2012/features/the_power_broker038423.php?page=all
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:43 pm
The following states already have term limits for their state legislatures:
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Louisiana
Maine
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Dakota
As I look through that list, it doesn’t seem like any are in horribly bad shape (particularly when compared to Illinois). If the lobbyists and staffers are running these states, because of term limits, then they are certainly doing a better job than our tenured Illinois politicians.
Comment by Downstate Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:44 pm
So one of the big GOP platforms is smaller government and less governemnt interference….
How is telling me who i can vote for anything but heavy handed government interference?
And as i have said many many times, why do we think inexperience is a plan?
Lets run a bill that you can only make money off an investment buisness for 4 years, then you have to go into another line of work to avoid the corruption in the industry.
When Rauner shows up for a surgical procedure and demands the least experienced surgeon, and demands his legal work only be done by attorneys fresh out of law school, I will ceded that lack of experience is a good plan for critical decisionmakers.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:45 pm
No one will be precluded from serving until January 2023:
Time served in the General Assembly before the session beginning in January 2015 does not count toward the eight-year service limitation.
However, the ability to veto legislation apparently would be effective immediately:
ARTICLE IV SECTION 9. VETO PROCEDURE
(c) The house to which a bill is returned shall immediately enter the Governor’s objections upon its journal. If within 15 calendar days after such entry that house by a record vote of two-thirds of the members elected passes the bill, it shall be delivered immediately to the second house. If within 15 calendar days after such delivery the second house by a record vote of two-thirds of the members elected passes the bill, it shall become law.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:51 pm
Unless Bruce Rauner plans on serving at least 3 terms as governor, term limits will not take immediate effect.
However, the ability for the governor to veto bills under the new rules would be effective immediately.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 1:53 pm
So we are limiting the elective options for people who are currently eight years old? Geez.
Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:05 pm
No one would be ineligible because of term limits until the 2022 election.
A 2/3rds vote to veto appears to be effective immediately - perhaps including any lame duck sessions between November 2013 and the seating of the new GA.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:11 pm
This is not a serious effort for term limits, it is a serious effort at data collection. So if you sign the petition you should expect a lot of mail from iPi, enjoy!
Comment by William j Kelly Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:15 pm
Is anyone else concerned about the fact that this amendment shrinks the Senate and Expands the House? All this will do is decrease the representation of the downstate. The Senate districts will be cut from down state, and the House districts will be drawn in Chicago. Therefore, we should be much more concerned about getting the Independent Redistricting Commision amendment on the ballot.
Comment by Connor Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:24 pm
My thought was the same as Downstate’s - we haven’t voted out the people who got us into this situation, with the exception of Jay Hoffman, who is now incomprehensibly back in, so maybe term limits will do what the voters won’t or can’t do. Or we could sit back and trust in the promises of guys like John Shimkus, who originally ran on a pledge of 6 terms and recently announced for #10. What institutional knowledge has he gained in office? The knowledge that the value of his word and reputation do not equal the value of that political office. No, wait, that’s Pat Quinn, isn’t it?
Comment by aufjunk Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:25 pm
@aufjunk
=== so maybe term limits will do what the voters won’t or can’t do ===
And you believe circumventing the will of the voters is a good thing?
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:30 pm
- Bill White -,
What needs to be done is to limit democracy to save democracy, and take the vote away from the people, voting, for whom they want to represent them.
Nose…face … cut.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:36 pm
I got asked to sign it while waiting on an L platform a few weeks ago.
I said, “No thanks,” and the guy eyed me like there was something wrong with me.
Comment by Lurker Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:53 pm
A guy … -,
Do not “sleep” on what an asset “institutional knowledge” is. With the “term limits” and especially with you even liking 4 years…
O Willie, pardon my poor attempt at communication on this sentence. I like term limits. I’d prefer they be 10 or 12 years rather than 8. But I could live with 8. In the case of State Reps, I meant to state that I would be supportive of 4 yr vs. 2 yr terms, so they weren’t stuck raising money and campaigning literally every other year. I didn’t mean to suggest a limit of 4 years. I hold out no hope of changing rep terms from 2 yrs to 4, but I wish they would and take advantage of the time saved and allow them to think a little bit more long term when they’re voting.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:55 pm
Willie Brown was term-limited as both California State Assembly Speaker and Mayor of San Francisco. But he still runs the show and has a secret client list as long as your arm.
W Slinger, what you’re saying here is absolutely true. It happened because he spent decades as Speaker first (sound familiar?) His influence will die when he does. Term limits ‘could’ prevent the manufacturing of any more of these kind of political creatures. He and MJM are in a class of their own. It doesn’t happen often, but when it does…
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 2:59 pm
@Bill White,
I hate to carry this on, but let me state the obvious: If term limits were to pass, wouldn’t that be the will of the voters?
Comment by aufjunk Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:03 pm
A guy, why is inexperience a good way to run government? What other areas of your life do you ask for the least experienced professional to do work for you?
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:07 pm
=== If term limits were to pass, wouldn’t that be the will of the voters? ===
True.
And, this is why Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar is a terrific explanation as to how democracies are vulnerable to those skillful at demagoguery.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:08 pm
If he passes this referendum and he wins the race he and Quinn will have something in common besides being Governor: making the General Assembly worse.
Comment by Just Me Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:13 pm
==so maybe term limits will do what the voters won’t or can’t do==
So what you are saying is that the voters aren’t doing their job through voting so we need to change the democratic process so that the law will do the job that they are supposed to be doing at the ballot box. Got it.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:31 pm
Wow.
I was assuming this was another of Rauner’s fake positions to get him a win in the Primary, then to be forgotten. If he’s actually serious about it, he is worse than I had hoped.
This is a very bad idea, and I hope and pray it doesn’t make it to the ballot. Otherwise we get business, and other giant campaign funders determining even more of our legislation. One of those ideas that sounds great to the public, until they actually realize the results years later.
We have representative government, rather than direct democracy, precisely to avoid these kinds of traps.
Comment by walkinfool Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:35 pm
Voters frequently cannot fix it at the ballot box. The deck is so heavily stacked that many challengers find it impossible to gain ballot access (it takes much more effort to gather petition signatures and the signature minimums are higher than was case years ago). Many legislators ran uncontested races in gerrymandered districts.
Quinn’s “populist” Cutback Amendment made the General Assembly much worse and truly empowered the Four Tops.
Comment by anon Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:38 pm
===Voters frequently cannot fix it at the ballot box.===
Says who? So you take away the right to vote because YOU don’t like the results … so you “fix” …Democracy … by taking away the opportunity to vote for someone?
Yikes! Read what you just posted, you really want to give up the right to vote for anyone, and cut off your nose to spite your face because you can’t win elections?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:46 pm
You know, I would love to make Rahm Emanuel a 1 term mayor. I just don’t think there’s going to be anyone running against him.
So much for the ballot box as a term limit.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:47 pm
Connor makes another good point at 2:24 pm
Decreasing the number of IL State Senators and increasing the size of the IL House empowers Chicago at the expense of downstate.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:50 pm
=== The deck is so heavily stacked that many challengers find it impossible to gain ballot access (it takes much more effort to gather petition signatures and the signature minimums are higher than was case years ago).===
I’m sorry, but if you can’t put together an effort to get 500 valid signatures, you don’t deserve to be a state rep.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:51 pm
Good timing. He’s also half way to not getting the nomination.
Comment by too obvious Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 3:57 pm
==Voters frequently cannot fix it at the ballot box.==
So why even vote. Why not just have a draft for representatives. We all get a number and when our number is called we serve our term in office. That way we just get rid of voting altogether. If the voters can’t do anything by voting then why vote at all?
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:08 pm
===Why not just have a draft for representatives====
I actually like that idea and have long privately felt that a small number of members in at least one chamber should be chosen that way.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 4:11 pm
By the way. - if it makes the ballot you’ll have your democratic right to vote against it if you like. And chances are the political machines of all the people who need to be replaced will be working and promising to make sure their bosses won’t lose the opportunity to continue to run the state into the ground like they have for years…
Comment by Really? Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 5:38 pm
There is a limit of three issues that can be placed on the ballot. The three that go on the ballot are determined by the legislators.
Comment by Tom Joad Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 7:08 pm
To take a bit of liberty: Be careful…you get what you vote for…
Earlier, Downstate listed states with term limits noting (i’m paraphrasing) nothing bad happened. In my mind, that’s not the issue…if I’m going to say everyone gets thrown out after a certain, arbitrary period of time, I want to know its a demonstrably better result.
I don’t know that any state can make that claim.
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Thursday, Nov 21, 13 @ 7:46 pm
Term Limits are excellent, also its a nonpartisan issue. Cause its not throwing out my bum I’m worried about, its throwing out the other guys bum thats important.
Comment by Biker Friday, Nov 22, 13 @ 12:05 am
What we need are term limits for legislative leaders. Let me see now, how many years has the kingpin been running the House?
Comment by Earl Shumaker Friday, Nov 22, 13 @ 11:07 am