The state of the State                                               

Term limits When monumental egos vie for both public condemnation and commendation By JENNIFER HALPERIN

Rather, what struck me most when I visited the Capitol there late this summer was the theme set by the building's interior. While the rotunda of Illinois' Capitol is filled with statues and busts and portraits of people, Wisconsin's relatively spare rotunda is given over to four beautiful murals in praise of four concepts: liberty, justice, legislation and government.

Frankly, it was an inspiring sight. In comparison, Illinois' Capitol looks like a monument to the egos of our state's history. That's not to say these leaders are undeserving of praise. But I couldn't help wondering: If Illinois' Capitol building adopted a similar setup to Wisconsin's, would two of the murals end up depicting the powerful House speaker and Senate president, respectively?

Worse, would the other two be reserved for powerful groups like the Illinois Medical Society or other big-time campaign contributors who have come to play significant roles in what happens under the state Capitol dome?

Now along comes state Treasurer Patrick Quinn pushing a political hot button with the potential to stir Perot-style excitement among the Illinois masses: term limits. His petition drive to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot calls for limiting state legislators to eight years in the General Assembly.

If successful, as it could well be (similar ones have been approved in 16 of 17 states in which they've been pursued), the initiative would wipe out much of the power now consolidated in legislative leaders. Political pundits have long bemoaned this power, especially the hold House Speaker Michael J. Madigan has over his Democratic ranks thanks to the money he is able to plow into their campaigns for reelection. So these same pundits should be jumping on Quinn's bandwagon, hailing him as a knight in shining armor, right?

Well, not exactly. Because while Quinn has adopted the most populist-sounding rhetoric in pushing his proposal, those who have been around remember similar-sounding promises over other initiatives, particularly the so-called "cutback amendment."

Term limits, Quinn says, will be "an incentive for good, competent people to run for office. It would mean we'd have much more action-oriented members of the legislature."

Back in 1980, Quinn helped gather more than 252,000 signatures in a statewide petition drive for the Legislative Cutback Amendment. The amendment, approved by voters in 1980, reduced the size of the state's House of Representatives from 177 to its current 118 members. It took effect in 1982.

While collecting signatures for that petition drive, Quinn sang the cutback amendment's praises. (See Illinois Issues, January 1980, page 6.) Comparing the Illinois House to "a Marx Brothers comedy that has become a statewide laughingstock," he said the amendment would make the House more efficient and effective, cutting down on the number of bills introduced and leaving time for thoughtful debate of proposals.

He said that by abolishing the jobs of the 59 extra lawmakers, taxpayers would save $7 million a year in reduced salary, expense and staff costs. And he said simultaneously abolishing the cumulative voting that elected three representatives from 59 districts would increase competition as candidates instead battled for one seat in each of 118 districts.

But the reality more than 10 years later hasn't quite shown itself to be the epitome of efficiency and effectiveness. Analyses of the results have shown costs were not reduced after the cutback, and

8/December 1993/Illinois Issues

the number of bills was not reduced. (See Illinois Issues, July 1991, page 13.) In fact, two results seem to be that incumbents wind up holding their seats longer and the House is more dominated by its leadership — arguments Quinn now uses in support of term limits.

It's impossible to predict the results of term limits. Naysayers fear a legislature ruled by bureaucrats, who would be the only ones knowing how to get things done. Supporters say staffers already orchestrate much of what goes on.

Opponents say term limits would leave voters unable to reelect lawmakers they think are doing a good job. Supporters say there would be more bold lawmakers who would accomplish more because they wouldn't be as worried about reelection. The debate on both sides goes on and on.

No one should be surprised if Quinn's "Eight is Enough" campaign really starts picking up steam, especially as the early May deadline for signature collection nears. And who can blame voters for supporting it as a way to vent frustration? The State Journal-Register in Springfield recently carried an account of how former state Rep. Al Ronan, now a lobbyist for riverboat gambling interests, called lawmakers from their seats in the House to hand them checks from his clients.

It's not that this particular event was so surprising. Some politicians, lobbyists and members of the press wrote it off as "no big deal" (which is a problem in itself). But it's the latest in a continuing series of reports that raise ethical red flags in voters' minds. And with someone like Quinn proposing a solution, it's easy to see how Illinoisans indeed could say "Eight is Enough."

Some see campaign finance reform as a way to steer away from politicians' reliance on special interest money. But skeptical voters probably won't have the patience to wait for such ideas to become reality. And they probably fear loopholes will be written into any legislation that passes to let the politically connected keep doing what they want.

In short, the current system can blame itself if term limits are enacted for Illinois lawmakers. And it could be Pat Quinn's face we see in a mural one day. But given that term limits may not be a magic solution to Illinois' problems, he may be depicted with egg on his face. *

December 1993/Illinois Issues/9