It’s no wonder the Missouri Influencers don’t like term limits

This week, the latest question posed to The Star’s Missouri Influencers panelists asked about Missouri’s term limits for state lawmakers. And it’s no surprise that almost all those who replied think those measures have been unsuccessful. “A disaster,” said one.

That’s because from their perspective, term limits have diluted their power of influence.

Term limits are supported by voters for many reasons, chief of which is breaking up the “good old boys club.” Others include:

▪  Making our elections more fair by ending incumbents’ built-in advantage.

▪  Increasing the number of citizen legislators.

▪  Fostering new ideas.

▪  Dispersing power from the few who currently hold it.

Have term limits broken up that “good old boys club?” Yes. Jefferson City insiders have a much harder time lining up support behind their anointed replacements. Lobbyists also no longer have it easy. They can’t depend on longstanding relationships, as they have for too long. Instead, they are forced to work harder to influence newly-elected officials.

It’s interesting to note we have not seen a Missouri Speaker of the House indicted since term limits passed in 1992. Two of the last three speakers immediately before the legislation passed — Bob Griffin and Richard Rabbitt — were indicted for violating their public trust using their political influence.

Do term limits increase political gridlock? No. We can see things are much worse on that front in places without term limits — Illinois, Connecticut or Washington, D.C., for example. Logjams over budgets and other issues that prompt lawmakers to call special sessions are common in states both with and without term limit laws.

Have term limits ended incumbent advantage, increasing the fairness of our elections? Yes. The nonpartisan Ballotpedia counts the number of open seats in state legislatures each election cycle. The national number of open state lawmaker seats in the 2018 election cycle is 1,190, or about 19 percent of the total 6,073 seats. In Missouri, 57 of 180 seats are open this cycle, or about 32 percent. Most of these seats are open because of term limits.

Another way to read this: About a third of Missouri’s General Assembly races were not influenced by incumbent advantage. This is about 10 percent higher than the national average.

Have term limits increased the influence of lobbyists, political consultants and bureaucrats? No, because political influence comes from relationships — and term limits break them up.

The Missouri Influencers (a group that includes lobbyists, consultants and bureaucrats) have achieved their influence because of their relationships. Term limits make their jobs harder because newly-elected officials have closer ties to their communities and constituencies.

Former lawmakers who become lobbyists after leaving direct government service are only as valuable as their connections, and under term limits, the number of relationships they have with lawmakers steadily decreases each cycle.

Does having term limit legislation mean lawmakers “don’t have to live with the consequences of their actions,” as one Influencer claimed? To the contrary. With term limits, those who get elected know that some eight years down the road, they’ll be back in their communities. There, they will actually live with the consequences of their actions.

Term limits result in new ideas, making legislators more responsive to the people. They decrease the clout of long-established special interests — which is why The Star’s panel of influential Missourians thinks they have been a disaster.

Term limits are more popular than ever with voters. And that’s specifically because they make it harder for “influential” people to control the legislative agenda.