No term limits on venality

There’s a new theory being raised about legislative term limits and it may be the nuttiest notion yet. It is this: The longer someone serves in the Legislature, the more likely that person is to become corrupt.

That’s like saying the more years someone puts in as a pharmacist, the more likely he is to start peddling illegal drugs.

Or, that a commuter’s repeated trips to a parking garage could turn him into an auto thief.

My theory always has been that you’re either a car snatcher or you’re not. It doesn’t matter how much time you hang around cars. Likewise, filling blood pressure prescriptions doesn’t make you a crack dealer.

And it has been my observation that the tendency toward political corruption is brought into an office, not generated by it. Some lawmakers begin trolling for special interest bucks, dangling their potential votes, the moment they’re sworn in -- much like a newborn colt hitting the ground on all fours.

Moreover, it’s power that enables corruption and somebody is always going to hold it. The power never disappears, although individuals do. There’s no term limit on power. It’s constant, and consistently in the hands of someone, whether for one year or 10.

This might not be worthy of mention except that a respected, reform-oriented think tank, the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, recently issued a report pitching the experience-breeds-corruption theory, which is significantly featured in a lengthy treatise on term limits.

For example, right up front on Page 1: “The potential for corruption has fallen because [legislative] tenures are now shorter and incumbents have less exposure to corrupting influences.”

Guess that would depend on one’s definition of corruption.

The report offers an example: “accepting campaign contributions or personal financial support to move or oppose a specific legislative issue.”

“Members new to statewide office are said to be skeptical of lobbyists and lack the knowledge to exploit the political process for personal gain,” the think tankers continue. “In contrast, long tenures endow legislators with detailed knowledge of the perquisites of office, deeper relationships with lobbyists and access to government resources that may lead to the appearance or actuality of corruption.”

That is a belly-laugher. New legislators may be skeptical of lobbyists, but they’ll eagerly accept their clients’ campaign money. And it doesn’t take much knowledge -- in fact, it’s a required course in political training -- to hire a professional fundraiser to hit up the special interests.

Another reason for mentioning this is that the report’s corruption “finding” has been seized upon by opponents of Proposition 93, which would alter term limits, to show why there shouldn’t be any tinkering with the present system.

No state has tighter term limits than California: three two-year terms in the Assembly; two four-year terms in the Senate. A total of 14 years. Only Oklahoma has what Prop. 93 offers: A total of 12 years, but all of it allowed in one house.

There are legitimate reasons to vote against Prop. 93.

One is that Prop. 93 was written by incumbent legislators to especially benefit incumbents. Many would get a sweetheart package with extra years in office.

Second, Democratic leaders reneged on their promise to deliver a companion ballot measure that would have eliminated the Legislature’s gerrymandering power to draw its own districts, a blatant conflict of interest.

So, one could easily conclude, a pox on all these pols. Why reward them? Do it right, then come back and ask!

But the fantasy that taut term limits reduce corruption is not a reason to retain the status quo.

The Center for Governmental Studies acknowledges in the report that it didn’t really study the corruption issue. It just theorized. Shorter legislative stints under term limits, the report says, “suggest that the likelihood of corruption or appearance of corruption has fallen.”

“However,” it adds, “this assumption is not based on quantifiable evidence or observations. It merely provides a useful theory for predicting the likelihood of corruption.”

Ludicrous. No, let me rephrase that. It’s naive, cockamamie and insulting -- insulting to countless current and former longtime, principled lawmakers.

The only recent, solid evidence of illegal corruption in Sacramento -- although I’ve argued that the whole system of private campaign financing is legally corrupt -- stems from an FBI sting in the 1980s. That sparked the voters’ approval of term limits in 1990.

Fourteen people were convicted, including five legislators. The lawmakers’ experience didn’t seem to matter.

Three lawmakers had been at the Capitol for 14 to 16 years, but another had been there for 10, and one had served only six.

The think tank report did produce some useful research. It found that few legislators are sticking around as long as they could under term limits. Indeed, only 19 of 187 have served the full 14 years. “That was the most interesting thing,” says the center’s president, Bob Stern.

The report was neutral on Prop. 93. It recommended enacting a similar 12-year system, but without the incumbents’ sweetener.

“Term limits are neither the devastating force the opponents decry nor the panacea that supporters assert,” the report concludes.

It assesses the much-debated detriments: loss of legislative experience and reduced ability to monitor state government. It also notes the benefits of opening up legislative seats to more people, including women and minorities.

But trying to cast term limits as a cleansing agent for corruption is a comical reach.

george.skelton@latimes.com