Philip Blumel: Let’s make a deal. Hi, this is Philip Blumel. Welcome to the No Uncertain Terms podcast for the week of December 17th, 2018.
Stacey Selleck: Your sanctuary from partisan politics.
Philip Blumel: Last week, we discussed the negotiations going on in the Democratic party, where juniored members are demanding term limits and other concessions in order to re-elect Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House. During the election, 20 Democratic House members pledged not to do so.
Philip Blumel: The Democratic party is aging and the younger, newer members are far, far away from any influence. They are impatient and so are we. For an update on the situation, let’s chat with U.S. Term Limits Field Director, Scott Tillman.
Philip Blumel: Hey, Scott.
Scott Tillman: Hey, Phil. Glad to be here. We actually have some resolution on this issue as of today.
Philip Blumel: Oh yeah?
Scott Tillman: Yeah. They’ve had a vote and they’ve decided to come to an agreement and they’ve struck a deal. They’re going to limit the top three leaders of the Democratic caucus, Democratic leadership to three two year terms, which is interesting ’cause we’re in favor of three two year terms for other stuff also.
Scott Tillman: But Nancy Pelosi came out and said that she would self-limit. She would apply this to herself and actually they’re going to apply this retroactively for people. So, Nancy’s only got two more years before that self limit will actually take effect.
Philip Blumel: This is pretty significant. We’re talking about the top three. We’re talking about Nancy Pelosi, who is the presumed House Speaker and now she’s got the votes because of this day. The number two leader, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, and then Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.
Philip Blumel: These folks are gonna be term limited and it’s a six year limit, but then they could serve one more if they get a supermajority vote to continue. That is pretty powerful. Now, we were talking about committee chair term limits too. That was not part of this deal, was it?
Scott Tillman: No, that wasn’t part of this deal but we can see what the mentality of the new, incoming legislators, especially this new crop of, we had, what some people are wanting to call a wave election because we had quite a few turnovers.
Scott Tillman: These people want to have some influence today. They don’t wanna wait. They don’t think that they should have to go through a long period before their ideas are the ones being presented in leadership. That’s what we’re seeing this push back about.
Philip Blumel: I think that would be in the best interest of the junior members if they did enact committee chair term limits as well and although that’s not part of this deal, I understand it is going to be part of the rules package that’s gonna be voted on in January.
Philip Blumel: Any Democrats listening or truly anyone that has a Democratic representative should be calling their representative, writing their representative, emailing them and saying, look, we want you to enact term limits on the whole Congress, but right now we want you to enact term limits on our committee chairs.
Scott Tillman: Absolutely. Some of these committee chairs have been in there for decades and we know that the American people are very excited to vote in some new people. They want those new ideas heard now. They don’t wanna wait.
Scott Tillman: These committee chairs are people who ran on stuff that was fresh, 20, 30, 35 years ago. This is the House of Representatives. This is supposed to be responsive to the people. It’s not supposed to be go there in the House of Lords and serve your time for decades and decades and decades and then you’re gonna talk about what was popular way back in the day.
Scott Tillman: No, voters want stuff changed today and the younger members of Congress who are going in see that and they’re looking for ways to implement that going forward through what they can do just in their own caucus.
Philip Blumel: It’s been fun to watch members of Congress who of course don’t wanna touch our term limits amendment bill argue for term limits when it’s in their own best interest. These junior members of the Congress aren’t necessarily clamoring for term limits on themselves. They’re wanting term limits on committee chairs so that they can get to those positions of power.
Philip Blumel: What’s interesting about that, it’s very analogous to the situation that citizens are in and why citizens want term limits because citizens are locked out of the process because of the entrenched incumbency in the Congress. Analogously, the junior members of the Congress are locked out of the power within the Congress.
Philip Blumel: For the very same reason, the junior members are sort of analogous to the citizens in the larger story of term limits. It’s fascinating to watch.
Scott Tillman: Yeah, that’s what these people are pushing back against when they’re calling for term limits on these committee chairs is they actually want to have a voice now which is what they were elected to do and what the people want.
Philip Blumel: One of the inspirations for the term limits convention movement is David Biddulph, a semi-retired entrepreneur from Florida who has been leading the effort to call for an Article 5 convention limited to the subject of a balanced budget.
Philip Blumel: Through the balanced budget amendment task force and now the Let Us Vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment Foundation, Biddulph has revived the 1970s effort to launch the BBA convention and has led 16 new states to make convention calls since 2010.
Philip Blumel: U.S. Term Limits executive director Nick Tomboulides caught up with him at the recent American Legislative Exchange Council conference in November.
Nick Tomboulides: We’re here at the ALEC States & Nation Policy Summit at the Grand Hyatt in Washington D.C. This is Nick Tomboulides, executive director of U.S. Term Limits I’m here with David Biddulph who is the co-founder of Let Us Vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment Foundation and David is right now leading the charge to obtain a balanced budget amendment.
Nick Tomboulides: Our listeners know this podcast is primarily about term limits but there’s a lot you can understand about term limits and about the Article 5 process by talking to David because he has lived it. For years, he has been a leader in the Article 5 movement, encouraging states to bypass the swamp in Washington D.C. and call an Article 5 convention for a balanced budget amendment.
Nick Tomboulides: He’s really sort of a patriarch of the Article 5 movement in many respects. David, tell us exactly what you are working on and why you think this mission is so important.
David Biddulph: Basically, it has to do with my granddaughters. They’re 13 and 16 and in 10 years, I explained to them that interest on the debt will take 7% of their paychecks nationally and they thought that was unfair. As a grandfather, I think it’s unfair that we’re $21 trillion in debt.
David Biddulph: We plan to lose a trillion dollars a year and this is going to substantially affect their future in a negative way. They will not be able to live the American dream as our generation has and we’re getting services that we’re not paying for and Congress is not gonna change.
David Biddulph: It has not balanced the budget since 1957 so we are campaigning for a balanced budget amendment that is not drafted by Congress, but drafted by a convention of states.
David Biddulph: We think that there are sufficient applications into Congress under Article 5 to actually call a convention and that they can do so by the end of this year. They call a convention of states to draft a balanced budget amendment. They should also notify the American people the ratification would be via vote of the people as soon as November 10th of 2020 where we would go to the polls and if the voters in 38 states voted to ratify a balanced budget amendment drafted by our states, it could go into the constitution and slow the growth of government spending to the point that economy could grow faster than the federal government over very long term and that would be a prescription for definitely passing along the American dream for generations to come.
Nick Tomboulides: That sounds great. What was it that attracted you to the Article 5 convention as the process you needed to pursue to make this happen?
David Biddulph: I grew up on the right of citizens in the state of Florida to propose amendments for ratification by the citizens and I was the number two man for one called Save Our Homes that literally has saved billions of dollars on homeowners taxes.
David Biddulph: I saw that it was effective. The people approved it. I went on to propose a few more amendments. Two of them got into the constitution, one as a supermajority, to raise taxes or fees or put them into the constitution such as a personal income tax. Florida now takes a two-thirds vote of the people to raise the tax or fees such as a personal income tax.
David Biddulph: We also have press toured on property rights and got a very good law because we had over 700,000 petitions signed to give people compensation if government regulations reduced the value of their property. I learned that a citizen, I’m just a grandfather, just an ordinary citizen without any serious money, can actually affect change without the normal process of electing officials and political parties and so forth.
David Biddulph: One day, I was just simply reading the constitution at the federal level. I read Article 5 and I said why don’t we do this? Because it’s never been done. There’s never been a convention called in Congress to have the states come together and draft and amendment and I know after reading further that our founders knew the day would come when the federal government would get off track.
David Biddulph: And it would only be the states coming together and acting to propose an amendment that could be ratified by the American people that could change the course of our country’s future and so profoundly, we need to have some limits on the amount of deficits this country can run and that’s our track and we’re here basically at ALEC and we are right on the cusp of actually asking Congress today to pass a resolution that does three things.
David Biddulph: One, call a convention for a balanced budget amendment for next year, June in Philadelphia. Number two is use the state convention mode of ratification which is a vote of the people and stipulate to the American people that if it’s proposed, you shall be in charge of deciding whether or not it goes into the constitution.
David Biddulph: If the voters in 38 states, majority of voters in 38 states, approve of it, it does go into the constitution. Finally, no amendment unrelated to balancing the budget shall be authorized or sent back to the states for ratification. There can be no runaway convention.
David Biddulph: It’s possible. If all of this comes together that the call of the convention is made by the end of this year, that we actually could have a vote of the people to ratify a balanced budget amendment of November the 10th of 2020.
Nick Tomboulides: Yeah, I saw today that your model policy asking states to encourage Congress to call this convention was approved by the Federalism and International Relations Task Force of ALEC. Wanted to congratulate you on that.
Nick Tomboulides: I know that you are someone who tracks federal spending, debt, and deficits very closely. Here at U.S. Term Limits, we have actually done our own research and we’ve seen research from professors of economics who have said that there may be a correlation between legislative tenure and the propensity to vote for increased spending and deficits.
Nick Tomboulides: What do you think about that? What do you think the relationship is between these careerist legislators and the tendency to essentially bankrupt our country?
David Biddulph: I think there’s a very high correlation. We know of careerist people in Congress that are actively fighting against calling a convention, actively prohibiting states from actually applying for the convention, and those are people that have served a very long time in the swamp, they love it, and they do not wanna give up any of their power and they’re willing to take our country over the cliff.
David Biddulph: It’s truly frightening how these careerist swamp dwellers have put our country at such a great risk.
Nick Tomboulides: Thank you so much, David. One final question. I just wanted to ask you, let’s suppose that in the next two years, there is an Article 5 convention called for the purposes of proposing a balanced budget or maybe for Congressional term limits. We don’t really know how it’s gonna shake out.
Nick Tomboulides: What would the implications of that be for our country long term? Because to me, it would seem like a game changer. It would unlock a whole new world of political reform in this country if the states are able to seize that power back from the federal government and begin to become proactive in terms of fixing our national problems. What do you think the future holds for this movement and the possibilities for really affecting change at a national level?
David Biddulph: I believe that you put your finger on it. It’s a game changer. It would restore the balance of power our founders envisioned. They envisioned the states over here, the federal government over here, equally balancing power against each other.
David Biddulph: The key part of that was that the states had the same power to propose an amendment as the federal government. It’s never been done. That, of course, is the supreme law of our land and if the states stand up and the people that ratify an amendment to the constitution, term limits or a balanced budget amendment, that will open up this process that the founders expected.
David Biddulph: This would be a profound redistribution of power in our country from what is now a 95% power in Washington to a more equal balance of power between the states and the federal government and the people. Giving the people the chance to ratify an amendment to the constitution has been done once and that was to repeal prohibition in 1933. The people went and voted to repeal prohibition.
David Biddulph: We want to give grandparents and parents and adults the chance to vote yes or no to prevent the federal government from bankrupting our country, social security, national security, and the American dream.
Philip Blumel: It’s great that so many citizens are contacting their legislators right now on this issue and Democrats, of course, are supportive of term limits as Republicans essentially. Most of the national polling we’ve seen, I think the national number’s like 82% of Americans support term limits.
Philip Blumel: Usually the Republican number is slightly higher than Democrat number, but that’s not always true and it might be changing. This debate within the Democratic party really shows a new excitement around this issue within the party.
Philip Blumel: Just today, I was looking at some new polling that was just done in Kentucky and in this polling, 85% of Democrats in Kentucky said that they support the idea of congressional term limits versus 82% of Republicans. Only 82% of Republicans.
Scott Tillman: Only 82%.
Philip Blumel: But anyway, you can see that support from within the Democratic party is growing and this debate, I think, is evidence of that.
Scott Tillman: Yes, it absolutely is. The Democrats are getting a lot of traction right now because they have ideas that they’re talking about. People understand that new people are talking about new ideas. When they get to Washington, they have to slog through it and they have to find a way to get those passed.
Scott Tillman: Voters get it. For the most part, politicians get it too. But Democrat voting needs to get it too. They have a lot of new ideas, a lot of things that they see need change. They’re pointing out that there’s a lot of things they want to happen that they want to pass and they know that unless they get new people in to do it, that it’s not likely to happen.
Philip Blumel: Right. It’s also instructive to look at who’s opposing these changes within the Congress. The largest organized opposition to these reforms is the Congressional Black Caucus and you’d think that it’s tied somehow to some kind of racial issue but it’s not.
Philip Blumel: It turns out that the Congressional Black Caucus is dominated by very senior members of the Congress and, in fact, if you look at the membership, John Lewis of Georgia who was first elected in 1987, so he’s been there for 31 years. Maxine Waters was elected in 1991, that’s 27 years. Sanford Bishop, 25 years. James Clyburn, of course we just mentioned him, 25 years. Alcee Hastings, 25 years. Et cetera, et cetera.
Philip Blumel: These guys are the guys that are in power or in line for these chairmanships and they don’t wanna give up that power. Again, analogous to the larger term limits issue where the junior members who feel locked out are supportive of term limits and the entrenched seniors who have been there forever who have power don’t wanna give it up.
Scott Tillman: And holding that power of leadership is more important to them than what their constituents want or new ideas even. They just wanna control the funds and control other things and we recently had some people talk to us in Iowa who said we kinda like the fact that our guy’s been there a long time, speaking of Senator Grassley.
Scott Tillman: What happens when Senator Grassley isn’t there anymore? Eventually he won’t be. We all have a natural term limit that we all hold.
Philip Blumel: Yeah, we do.
Scott Tillman: But, that means that Iowa will then be at the bottom of the stack. Is it wise to have that be unpredictable and random? Or is it a better thing if we had established term limits where you would know that a person would get elected, they would have so many years to get in there and get aggressive and get things done? I think they would be more aggressive about getting their agenda passed quickly.
Scott Tillman: Also, a state wouldn’t have to be at the bottom of the stack for a long time. Alabama is at the top of the stack right now with Richard Shelby but eventually when Mr. Shelby’s not there, they’re gonna have a junior member and they might have to play back fiddle to somebody for a long time.
Philip Blumel: That’s a really good point.
Stacey Selleck: This is Stacy. I’d like to share an Op Ed I came across written by George B. Reed Jr. who lives in Rossville, Georgia. It appeared in the Northwest Georgia News. It reads:
Stacey Selleck: “While viewing the congressional committee hearings on the recent Supreme Court justice nomination, I thought, ‘And we’re paying these bozos good Yankee money to do this?’ Was this supposed to be a Supreme Court nominating committee session? They could’ve fooled me. I’ll be that not one vote was changed by what came out of those hearings.
Stacey Selleck: “Everybody already knew how they were going to vote. They were merely putting on a performance for the constituents back home to make them think they’re actually doing the job they were elected to do. Congressional representatives spend over half their time fundraising and hob-knobbing with corporate lobbyists, those two activities being often indistinguishable.
Stacey Selleck: “What can we do to stop this nonsense? Vote them out of office? They would only be replaced by more well intentioned, patriotic individuals who would quickly become consumed by the Washington culture and fall into the same trap. It’s the system that’s broke and we must fix it.
Stacey Selleck: “Recent surveys reveal an approval rating high of just 18% for our present Congress. That’s an 82% disapproval rating. In another survey, congressional approval was even lower, a shocking 10%. These low ratings have persisted for some time now, yet we keep sending these same bought and paid for characters back to Washington every two years.
Stacey Selleck: “Our senators and representatives obviously no longer have the consent of the governed when their approval ratings approach single digits. What’s really going on here? And what can we do about it? Some have suggested congressional term limits such as most other Democratic Republics impose.
Stacey Selleck: “I would favor this solution if for no other reason than the congressional incumbents themselves and the corporate lobbyists so adamantly oppose it. 70 years ago, we imposed term limits on our presidents by constitutional amendment. Why not for our elected representatives? They are even more exposed and susceptible to partisan influences than presidents.
Stacey Selleck: “Term limit opponents tell us we would lose the valuable experience of our incumbent representatives. I say great! That’s exactly what we have in mind. We would lose the kind of experience and relationships that have given us increasingly soaring deficits, banking and savings and loan scandals, unnecessary wars, and an out of control military industrial congressional conspiracy.
Stacey Selleck: “The new representatives should bring with them fresh experience from the real world. Political observer Paul Jacob suggests that some of our present legislative problems might come from too much experience in electoral maneuvering, political expediency, and deal cutting.
Stacey Selleck: “New legislators almost invariably become part of the exclusive ingrown Washington culture of representatives, lobbyists, staffers, and hangers-on. Consequently, legislative decisions quickly become more influenced by relationships than merit and are twice removed from the will of the electorate.
Stacey Selleck: “With a constant turnover, these cliques would have less time to build up and there would be less opportunity to profit from such cozy arrangements. Experience with term limits in some state and local governments has resulted in a decided increase in the number of candidates running for office each term. That has to be a positive sign.
Stacey Selleck: “A recent survey showed that 84% of Americans favor congressional term limits. In a country where it’s hard to get 51% of us to agree on anything, that figure should be convincing enough. I say let’s do it.”
Stacey Selleck: Thank you, George B. Reed Jr. And lets hope that our Article 5 resolution passes Georgia this legislative session starting in January. Follow us on most social media at U.S. Term Limits.
Philip Blumel: Calling all Democrats, calling all Democrats. Right now in the U.S. House, there’s a debate raging within the ascendant Democratic Party Caucus about adding term limits to the top leadership and also to committee chairs. Democratic House members will vote on these ideas as part of their rules packages for the new Congress in January.
Philip Blumel: They need to hear from you now. Whether you’re Democrat or not, if you have a Democratic representative, please go to www.termlimits.com/savehousetermlimits and send a message to him or her, asking them to support term limits on committee chairs.
Philip Blumel: Our online tool makes it easy. Just put in your address and your representative will pop up. You can send them a pre-written message that you’ll find there or you can write one of your own.
Philip Blumel: Another thing I’d point out is when you mentioned about the not representing their constituencies, the Congressional Black Caucus, who by their name clearly intends to represent the African Americans in this country, they should look at a poll about what African Americans think about congressional term limits because African Americans don’t feel any differently than white Americans or latino Americans or any other kind of Americans, that they support congressional term limits.
Philip Blumel: Our last national polling from February of this year from McLaughlin Group points out that over 70% of African Americans want to see congressional term limits enacted. The CBC is not acting in their interest in this regard.
Scott Tillman: No, they’re not. It’s one thing when you are in a position of power, but when you’re not in the position of power, the African American caucus shouldn’t have to wait until they have somebody in seniority before they have an equal voice.
Scott Tillman: We want the playing field of all the different groups in Congress to be somewhat level. If there’s one person in there who has really high seniority and of course, then institutional knowledge that allows them to use the system and game it and run circles around everybody else, then there are huge swaths of the American people who are going unrepresented just because they chose to throw out somebody who was not representative of them or somebody who finally left and they’ve elected somebody that, in 2018, they consider to be a good representative person for their district.
Scott Tillman: That person is at the bottom of the stack, unable to serve them for years and years and years until after they’ve been in Washington for a decade or two decades and had lobbyists whispering in their ears, been out to dinner with everybody, and spent the majority of their time in Washington for over a decade, which how connected are they really to their district once they’ve spent that much time there?
Philip Blumel: Sure. These freshmen by the way, or these juniors, may well be African American themselves of course and it’s hardly in their best interest to squash term limits. It’s only in the best interest of the long term incumbents.
Philip Blumel: Really, that’s what it’s about. It’s about power and incumbency. It’s got nothing to do with race, whatever.
Scott Tillman: It’s a few individuals who are holding power and when they finally have it, they don’t wanna release it and it’s across both parties and across every caucus or group that we’ve seen come together in Washington. Once they get it, they don’t wanna let go.
Philip Blumel: It’s an old, old story. Let’s switch gears a minute. We had some interesting news occur over last weekend, on December 9th that is, in Peru. In that country, there was a vote on four items that were meant to and I think honestly meant to reduce corruption in that country, which is rife.
Philip Blumel: Polling in that country shows that 94% of Peruvians believe that there is a high level of corruption in their country and, to put it in quite American terms, they’re mad as hell and they don’t wanna take it anymore and they’re not. Over I think it was 85% of the voters voted for three of this four items of this anti-corruption package.
Philip Blumel: One of them was term limits. There’s a five year term in the Peruvian assembly and now after this vote, a Peruvian assembly member, when he reaches the end of his term, cannot run again. He has to sit out before he can run again. He can’t run again as an incumbent and that’s after one term. This is pretty meaningful and Peruvians embraced it overwhelmingly.
Newscaster: Peru voted overwhelmingly to support an overhaul of the country’s judiciary and corruption plagued political institutions. With more than 85% voting to back President Martin Vizcarra’s proposals, it’s a show of support for the leader who has become an unlikely people’s champion.
Translator: The only thing that these results show is that democracy has been strengthened. We are on the road to make big changes and with these results, there are no winners or losers. Here it is Peru that has won.
Newscaster: More than three quarters of Peruvians voted yes to reform how judges and prosecutors are selected to toughen regulations on financing political parties, adding criminal penalties for those who break the rules, and limiting law makers terms, banning immediate re-election.
Newscaster: On the question of expanding the legislature to a lower and upper house system, the answer was a resounding no, showing perhaps just how deeply unpopular politicians are.
Peruvian Female: We want a congress that represents us really. People in Peru believe that this congress did not represent their expectations. They don’t believe that the judges are fair. They don’t believe that the police is honorable.
Newscaster: The people have spoken, but the hard part begins now. Activating the judicial and political reforms will be met with a push back from the status quo. But hitherto unthinkable changes have already taken place this year and that gives people reason to hope.
Philip Blumel: Throughout the 2018 election cycle, we’ve been reporting on the citizen effort in Arlington, Texas which successfully collected 11,000 signatures to put six year term limits on the ballot. The city council went berserk and through roadblock after roadblock in the citizens’ way, using public money to try to get the money removed from the ballot and even trying to bend the city rules to put a competing measure on the ballot.
Philip Blumel: Courts shot down these extra legal measures so the city council then launched a costly campaign using citizens’ money once again to fight the citizens’ initiative at the polls. But the term limits measure won with 63% of the vote in November.
Philip Blumel: That should be the end of the story, but we saw a news item over the weekend that the city council was suing to overturn the results of the election. We called Zach Maxwell, the organizer of the term limits effort to get the whole story.
Philip Blumel: Hey, Zach. Philip Blumel here. What’s going on?
Zack Maxwell: Well, they’ve got a lawsuit now that they filed as of a couple of days ago and the person that filed this is a donor and friend of our mayor.
Philip Blumel: Of course.
Zack Maxwell: This guy is trying to sue to overturn the election and invalidate those results.
Philip Blumel: Right, on behalf of the council of course. It’s not like their fingerprints aren’t on this.
ZachkMaxwell: Right. It’s indirect. There’s not any one thing there that we can say that’s connected to the council. It’s one of those things where he’s a donor. He’s a good ole boy. He’s involved with that group. Our mayor has not done anything to tell this guy to cut it out.
Zack Maxwell: It’s like our mayor’s the steward of the taxpayer dime and here he’s letting his buddy, his donor, his friend sue the city to protect him.
Phillip Blumel: Right. On what basis are they claiming that this election should be overturned?
Zack Maxwell: Essentially what’s happening here is that the guy’s trying to claim that people were misled and he’s trying to say that the ambiguity of a sentence in our proposition sets it up in such a way so that certain councilpersons have to come up for re-election next May even though that’s not the case.
Zack Maxwell: I am not sweating this too terribly much because this guy is trying to get a judge to call an election contest and we have state laws that govern who can call election contests. Now, here’s the thing. Our state laws very clearly dictate who is allowed to bring forth these types of election contests and it was very specifically reserved for candidates in elections, office holders.
Zack Maxwell: You had to have been a participant in an actual election for a seat to go to a judge and request an election contest. He doesn’t even have standing in court to do it. I feel sorry for him. I hope he’s getting a refund from his lawyers because it was quick and apparent to me that when I saw the basis for his lawsuit and you just read the law, it’s very cut and dry.
Zack Maxwell: We’re gonna intervene in this lawsuit by the way. What we’re gonna do is we’re gonna go to the judge, we’re gonna say, look judge, he doesn’t even have standing. He does not qualify to even use this law, so this lawsuit should be tossed out immediately. My thinking is we’ll be in and out of the court within 15 to 30 minutes.
Philip Blumel: I can’t see how 63% of the people voting for it misunderstood it, especially when the city spent so much money trying to quote unquote “educate” the public about what a bad idea it was.
Zack Maxwell: The fact that they spent over $300,000, not even spent, burnt, they lit it on fire, trying to convince the public that these term limits were bad. They even, by the way, had the final say over the actual language on the ballot. It’s insulting because a judge is gonna look and they’re gonna say, “Well, did the petitioners follow the law in regards to getting a charter amendment election?”
Zack Maxwell: And the short answer there is yes. We followed that law to an absolute T because if we hadn’t, that charter amendment would never have even made it to a ballot. The city council would have invalidated it.
Philip Blumel: Of course. You guys followed it to the T, of course you have to because if you didn’t, you’d be shot down. That’s the way these things go.
Zack Maxwell: It should reveal to your listeners the dynamic of our city, the dynamic that the way our city operates right now is we have a council and a good ole boy system that knows better than everyone else. They don’t care what you know, who you know, how you went about doing it, they know better than me, they know better than you, they know better than everybody else and it is flat out insulting.
Zack Maxwell: I’ve been saying it, especially now that this lawsuit’s filed, the citizens of this city would be very wise to rise up this next May and throw this mayor out of office and kick with him his posse of jack boot thugs because that is what he brought to the table.
Philip Blumel: That’s what it sounds like from my seat. All right, I’ll tell you what, you went out and collected the signatures and they tried to stop you from doing that but you did it. You tried to get this on the ballot, they threw roadblocks in front of you over and over again, and it got on the ballot. They tried to stop the people from voting for it and then spent all this money to convince them it a was radical, dangerous idea and that you were a dangerous person and 63% of the vote was in your favor.
Philip Blumel: I think you’re gonna win this one too. This is the flimsiest attempt they’re making so far and I wish you the best of luck.
Zack Maxwell: We love winning, Philip, so I look forward to talking with you soon and letting you know how this goes.
Philip Blumel: The negotiations continue. In the meantime, let’s make sure our Democratic representatives are hearing from us leading up to the early January vote on the new rules package. There are two bits of homework we’re assigning this week if you haven’t already completed them.
Philip Blumel : One, go to www.termlimits.com/savehousetermlimits and send a message to your Democratic representative and two, subscribe to this podcast. You can do so using the podcast app on your iPhone or you can use Stitcher or Google Play on your Android device. Or go directly to Itunes and while you’re there, please rate and review us.
Philip Blumel: We’ll be back next week. Until then, enjoy the holidays and stay free.
Stacey Selleck: Corruption.