Date: Friday, March 06, 1998 2:26 PM
Subject: USTL Attacking Conservative California House Candidate, Why?
Sender: owner-ccrlink
WHY IS U.S. TERM LIMITS OPPOSING TOM BORDONARO, ANYWAY?
by ACU Polictical Director
Bill Pascoe
If term limits survive as an issue capable of swaying congressional
elections, it will only be despite the best efforts of the two largest term
limits groups in
the nation -- one needs only look to California for proof. In the March
10 run-off election in California's 22nd congressional district,
Republican Tom Bordonaro is a strong supporter of term limits, and has
pledged to vote for any term limits measure that hits the floor of the
House. His opponent, Democrat Lois Capps, opposes term limits
outright. So what are the two largest term limits groups in the country
doing? They're spending tens of thousands of dollars to defeat
Mr. Bordonaro.
Excuse me?
You read that right. U.S. Term Limits and Americans for Limited Terms
are spending tens of thousands of dollars to defeat a conservative
Republican who supports term limits, and elect instead a liberal
Democrat who opposes term limits.
To hear USTL and ALT representatives tell it, it's a rather simple
matter. Mr. Bordonaro, they charge, has refused to pledge to them to
serve no more than three terms in office, while Mrs. Capps has pledged
to term limit herself.
So the criterion for judgment by USTL and ALT now is a self-imposed
term limit of no more than three terms? And they will actively oppose
anyone who refuses to self-limit himself, even if he's a committed
supporter of a term limits constitutional amendment?
There's a special medical term psychiatrists use to describe people
engaging in such behavior. They're called stupid.
Unfortunately, what's really so disappointing about the actions of USTL
and ALT is that they're not at all surprising -- at least not to anyone
who's followed the term limits debate over the last several years.
Harken back to March of 1995, when the House of Representatives, under
GOP control for the first time in four decades, moved a term limits
constitutional amendment to the floor for the first time ever. In the
days leading to the vote, it was clear that most Republicans would
support term limits, while most Democrats would oppose them.
(The final floor vote showed this clearly -- 83 percent of House
Republicans voted for the amendment, while 82 percent of House
Democrats voted against it.)
As term limits supporters around the country rallied to the fight,
contacting their Congressmen to urge support for the amendment, what
was USTL doing? Running attack ads against Republican term limits
supporters immediately prior to the vote. The alleged "sin" of the
targeted Republicans? They didn't support the right term limits
measure -- or, in some cases, they supported all term limits measures.
The "right" term limits measure was the so-called "3/2 option" -- three
terms for Congressmen, two terms for Senators. By USTL's standard,
anyone who supports anything other than the hallowed "3/2 option" is
not a true supporter of term limits. There's just one problem.
The "3/2 option" has about as much chance of passing both houses of
Congress as Saddam Hussein has of being named "Man of the Year" by the
B'nai B'rith. The only term limit amendment that has any chance at all
of passing both houses of Congress allows Representatives to serve for
six terms. But that's not good enough for USTL and ALT, so anyone
supporting the longer term limit is deemed by these two groups to be
an "opponent" of term limits.
Go figure.
This bizarre reading of who's a supporter and who's not explains why
USTL and ALT have attacked some of Congress' strongest supporters of
term limits -- in particular, Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL), who first
introduced a term limits constitutional amendment in 1980, long before
USTL and ALT were ever established.
But what, one might ask, is so magical about allowing Representatives
to serve just three terms, instead of six? According to USTL, the
majority of term limits supporters nationwide believe that three terms
is the proper limit.
Of course they do. But to suggest that, therefore, anyone who supports
a limit of service longer than three terms is by definition an
"opponent" of term limits is ridiculous. That's like saying a Member
of Congress who supports the Armey-Shelby flat tax (which sets the tax
rate at 17 percent) isn't a supporter of real tax reform, because they
don't support a 10 percent flat tax.
What's really going on here? Many term limits supporters, inside
Congress and out, suspect that USTL and ALT have no real interest in
seeing congressional term limits enacted. Almost two years ago, Rep.
Bob Inglis (R-SC) -- who was the chief sponsor of the USTL-favored
"3/2 option" amendment considered by the House in March 1995 -- called
USTL leaders on the carpet, suggesting in a strategy meeting of term
limits supporters that their real interest lay not in enacting congressional
term limits, but in sustaining the issue indefinitely, so as to
maintain their raison d'etre. Were congressional term limits ever to
be enacted, Mr. Inglis reasoned, USTL would no longer serve any purpose
in the public policy arena, its donations would dry up, and its
leaders would be looking for work. Many others in the room that day
harbored then -- and continue to harbor today -- the same suspicion.
And with USTL attacking term limits supporters like Tom Bordonaro, is
it any wonder?
                                   #######
Bill Pascoe is a Washington-based lobbyist who serves as legislative
director of the American Conservative Union, and a columnist for the
Washington Times.
----------------------
All inquiries regarding this message should be directed to
acu@conservative.org
The American Conservative Union's Web page is located at
http://www.conservative.org
  
--- WWIVToss v.1.40 Registered 
---------------