FISCAL AND POLITICAL CRISIS IN ILLINOIS  FIND OUT MORE

 

“Insiders and special interests dominate the state. And too many politicians will do anything to hang on to power. Decades of mismanagement, corruption and insider deals have devastated Illinois.

 

We need a new path forward. Illinoisans from both sides of the aisle agree the current system only benefits the politically connected. It’s time to limit the insiders’ power by enacting term limits. To bring back Illinois, we need to start by changing the system. It’s time to fix Illinois.” - fixillinois.com

 

The Foundation for Modern Youth & Civic Participation (FMYCP) agrees that the current government system in Illinois promotes mismanagement, corruption, insider deals and unprecedented gerrymandering, making it virtually impossible to change status quo.

 

GOVERNOR BRUCE RAUNER PROPOSED TERM LIMITS

on the office of the governor and legislators and proposed to eliminate gerrymandering.

 

• The FMYCP supports the restructuring of voting districts to reflect civic reality, and supports the elimination of gerrymandering.

 

• The FMYCP supports term limits of the governor.

 

• However, instead of imposing term limits on elected legislators, the FMYCP proposes that term limits should be imposed on congressional leadership & committee positions held by legislators.

 

Limiting and rotating control and influence, would maintain operational stability and would prevent the creation of an overly powerful bureaucratic civil service. This would leave the decision with he voters to freely elect their legislators (senators and representatives) and would allow experienced legislators to continue in their elected functions.

 

Most legislation is written by a committee that handles a specific duty or topic. Committee appointments can be very prized positions for the power, influence and financial backing that can be attained. These positions are often assigned based on political favors and a willingness to support causes or projects. Therefore, career politicians who have formed the most self-serving relationships can often be given the most power in Congress. Term limits on committee positions would work to stop this cycle of political reward and power abuse and the excessive influence which legislators can stock up during their committee mandates and eliminate their abuse of power. Committee assignments would be determined by merit and expertise, resulting in fair and informed decisions.

 

Imposing term limits on leadership and committee positions vs legislator terms would increase feasibility and successful implementation of the proposal.  It has a higher possibility of success.

 

Term limits on leadership and committee positions target the core of the problem. It is effective enough if we throw out just the bathwater.  Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater too.

 

Further arguments for and against term limits below should be viewed under the premise, that gerrymandering is fixed in Illinois.

 

Arguments against term limits of legislators

 

• Career politicians should be valued for their experience. If we regularly fill a Congressional office with a newcomer, we will lose the valuable experience on-the-job that person can offer in government.

• Members of Congress will have less time in office to develop the base for their future “civil” activities, hence may be prone to expedited lobbying and questionable activities to increase monetary gain.

• There are members of Congress who fought for their constituents and resisted the corrupt system of power abuse that is considered normal. Ultimately, the decision should be of the voters’, to directly decide, if their local legislator is performing to their satisfaction.  Taking that choice away is insulting, and assumes voters are too dumb to decide themselves.

• Problematically, we continue to elect the incumbent because of name recognition and party affiliation rather than a proven track record. Realistically, there is usually someone just as qualified to take over the incumbent’s office.  However, the lack of voter knowledge should not be fixed by limiting legislators, rather civic participation and education programs should be introduced informing voters on progress.  Window politics is a helpful tool for voters to use to decide if they are generally satisfied with their legislator’s performance and party’s results.

• Term limits are not necessary because members of Congress must be regularly re-elected. If they are not doing a good job in office, we can simply vote for someone else.

• Term limits would give more power to bureaucrats and lobbyists.

• This argument is based on the notion that incoming legislators will be inexperienced legislators and will be easily led astray by staff, bureaucrats, special interests, etc. The way the system works today suggests that the real problem is in the longevity of power and the complacency that can come along with it. For instance, lobbyists invest heavily in long-term relationships with sitting legislators. Congress members currently shirk many responsibilities by delegating them to bureaucratic agencies.

• Term limits have the potential to greatly reduce these problems. When more Congressional races are won by challengers from outside the Beltway, this change is likely to bring new staffers with new ideas into Washington, rather than recycling the same old corrupt insiders.

• State actions are often used as precedent for other states and federal direction.  Not every state faces issues similar to Illinois.  

 

Arguments for term limits of legislators

 

• With term limits in place, Congress may be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves. They will have to live under the laws they have created while in office.

• Members of Congress will have less time in office to develop financially beneficial commitments to lobbyists and other special interest groups, thereby undermining the threat of lobbyists being a primary influence on legislation.

• Congress is heavily entrenched in partisan politics, resulting in gridlock when trying to pass any legislation. If term limits were enacted, toeing the party line would be less important, as the need for re-election and holding onto party seats would no longer be the driving force behind most legislative decisions. Congress would have an easier time passing the legislation that would make a positive difference for the nation.

• Money is a major factor in who will win an election. Incumbents have the benefit of the profits they made while in power — plus the backing of their party, contributing organizations and special interests — to get re-elected. However, these wealthy incumbents are often not the best person for the job, as they are so far-removed from the daily realities of the American people. A middle-class person who better understands the problems facing the average citizen is highly unlikely to get elected over a wealthy incumbent. Term limits will help to eliminate the long, shady, profitable relationships between members of Congress and special interest groups, and therefore reduce the wealth gap between candidates. In turn, more qualified people will have a real opportunity to win elections.