Just over a week ago, I penned a commentary that included some analysis of FR friend Jim Brulte’s endorsement of Proposition 93, authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, which if passed would loosen California’s current term-limit restrictions for state legislators. Today I am pleased to offer this perspective from Senator Brulte about his support for 93.
Thanks for noting my support for Prop 93. Or rather Prop 93’s endorsement of a concept I have supported for over a decade.People try to personalize initiatives rather than looking at the whole picture. I am not supporting the initiative simply to keep Fabian Nunez or Don Perata in power anymore than my fellow conservatives are opposing it to keep Senator McClintock from serving any longer.
Term limits are a good idea. But six years in the Assembly are not enough for people to learn the job, fully comprehend the nuances of complex policy issues, and develop the ability to stand up to their core constituencies when they believe those constituencies are wrong.
And as a result we have a horrible unintended consequence. Prior to term limits, the special interests needed the legislative leadership…not so today. Today the legislative leaders need the special interests; and that is a fundamental shift in the dynamic of the decision-making process. And not a good one.
Longer tenure mitigates that unintended consequence of the current term limit. When I say that only Nixon could go to China, that is understood to mean that it took a lifelong, anti-communist, conservative to be able to take what history now shows to be a very important step to begin dialogue with Mainland China. Someone without those bonafides would have never survived the uproar from such a controversial action.
Today’s legislators are not in office long enough to develop their credentials with the base over an extended period of time. And because of that, many are afraid to do what they think is right when they know the base will object.
In fact, there are many "so called" Prop 93 opponents currently serving in the legislature who plan to vote for it and are secretly rooting for it to pass. They also plan to run again for re-election if it passes. They understand first hand that term limits need to be extended but are afraid of publicly taking a position unpopular with the base.
Extending term limits is simply one of several reforms that will make the legislature a more effective body. Eliminating the ability of legislators to draw their own districts, enacting a spending limit, requiring greater openness in government are a few additional reforms that are badly needed.
When I endorsed Prop 93, I knew that many of my friends would disagree. But isn’t that what free political speech is supposed to mean. Heck, if two people agree on absolutely everything, there is no earthly need for one of them.
Let’s debate this initiative on the merits and not make it about Nunez, Perata…..or McClintock.
PS. Although I consider Jon Fleischman a friend, I think his analysis of my reasons for supporting 93 is flawed. He argued that I needed to endorse it because I have clients who could be negatively affected and therefore succumbed to the Nunez pressure.
If I were a lobbyist, that might be the case. But since I provide strategic advice to my clients….and since the legislature (including the Speaker) are generally unaware of who my clients are, that argument is incorrect.
Jim Brulte served in both the California State Senate and the Assembly. He was elected by his Republican colleagues to be their leader in both houses.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.