Philip Blumel: Welcome to No Uncertain Terms, produced by U.S. Term Limits.
Speaker 2: Your sanctuary for partisan politics.
Philip Blumel: Two steps forward, one step back. Hi, I’m Phillip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits. Welcome to the No Uncertain Terms podcast for the week of August 27th, 2018.
Philip Blumel: Maybe I should have said two States forward. Earlier this year the legislatures of Alabama and Missouri both approved resolutions calling for a term limits convention. But, sadly, in Florida, just last week, a Leon County judge ordered that Amendment 8, which would have term limited all school board members statewide, be struck from the November ballot. The judge objected to the ballot description as inadequate. The judge’s order is being appealed. More on that later in the podcast.
Philip Blumel: Back to Alabama and Missouri. With Florida, which approved an application for a term limits convention a year or so earlier, there are now three states officially onboard calling for an Amendment proposing convention limited to the issue of Congressional term limits. If 34 States, that’s two-thirds of them, make such a call, Article V of the U.S. Constitution mandates that such a convention be held.
Philip Blumel: We often hear that Congress will never pass an Amendment to term limit themselves. Well, maybe and maybe not. But via an Article V convention, the decision is not theirs to make.
Philip Blumel: With me today is Nick Tomboulides, executive director of U.S. Term Limits.
Nick Tomboulides: Your intro doesn’t even tell the full story about the type of momentum this campaign has right now. Because, in addition to passing fully through the states of Florida, Alabama, and Missouri, the term limits convention also passed one chamber in Utah, Arizona, and Georgia.
Philip Blumel: That’s right.
Nick Tomboulides: Got through the Utah House, the Arizona House, and the Georgia State Senate. So we’re making progress in all three of those states, and building a tremendous amount of momentum toward the ultimate goal.
Philip Blumel: And there’s a lot of groundwork going on, also, at the grassroots level in other States where we haven’t actually had the Bills introduced, or haven’t gotten that far. So there’s a lot going on on this issue across the country.
Philip Blumel: But what is its import? We got two States that fully passed, and we’re jumping up and down about it. I talk about this, and I’m excited about this. And folks will look at me, “Well, what, exactly, does that mean?” It takes a little bit of explaining.
Nick Tomboulides: Right. This goes back to 1995. There was a big Supreme Court decision. It was U.S. Term Limits versus Thornton. In a 5-4 split decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, in order to get term limits on Congress, it has to be an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There’s no other way to do it. It has to be an Amendment to the Constitution.
Nick Tomboulides: Article V of the Constitution gives you two ways to get that Amendment. The first is what I like to refer to as asking the turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving. That’s the Congressional approach. You need a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress. That’s extremely difficult because how likely is it that Congress is gonna vote to stop their own gravy train?
Philip Blumel: Right.
Nick Tomboulides: I don’t know why. I’m just full of Thanksgiving references here.
Nick Tomboulides: So that’s highly unlikely, absent some kind of external pressure to force them to do it. That’s why we think it’s gonna be the States initiating this Amendment before Congress ever lifts a finger to do it.
Nick Tomboulides: The Framers actually gave us this State initiated convention to give citizens a way to bypass Congress when Congress starts abusing its own power. Give citizens a way to get Amendments that may not necessarily be in Congress’ best interests, but are good for our Republic. And term limits is absolutely one of those Amendments.
Nick Tomboulides: So what this tells us is that Congressmen might be too selfish to propose term limits, but the State legislators are not. State legislators are willing to give this a good look, and are willing to propose it. And we’ve proven the concept at this point, we just need to go into more States and get it done.
Philip Blumel: Right.
Stacey Selleck: Hi, this is Stacey with the August 2018 update on U.S. Term Limits Article V application progress.
Stacey Selleck: The States can propose term limits on Congress. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. The Constitution, itself, acknowledges that it may need to be modified, and provides the framework to allow for Amendments. As a matter of fact, our Bill of Rights makes up the first 10 Amendments. Article V was written specifically so that Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed equally by either Congress or by the States.
Stacey Selleck: Congress meets regularly, and may propose Amendments at any time. However, the States have a special procedure to call a convention specific to making Amendments to the Constitution. That is, 34 State legislatures must pass a resolution through their States that makes it known they want to meet at an Amendment proposal convention.
Stacey Selleck: Now here’s where it gets a tad complicated. The Constitution doesn’t define every detail about how to implement its components. It provides the framework, but we must rely on case law or existing practices that have already set a precedent.
Stacey Selleck: To date, there have been nearly 400 resolutions passed from practically every single State making it known they want to have an amendment discussion. Yet, a proposal convention has never convened. The reason is that it is believed the language of 34 applications must be similar.
Stacey Selleck: In other words, in order for Congress to call a term limits amendment proposal convention, the resolutions from 34 States must either include the topic of Congressional term limits or be inclusive enough not to rule term limits out. States don’t always pass the exact same language in their resolutions. So, today, there are States that have passed U.S. Term Limits only resolutions, States that have passed convention applications that include terms limits with other related issues, and several States have passed convention calls that may include term limits.
Stacey Selleck: Robert Nadelson, law professor, author, and renowned authority on the U.S. Constitution, penned many groundbreaking studies on the original intent of the Constitution and its Amendment process. His works have been referenced in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Stacey: In his most recent white paper, Nadelson concludes that single and multi-subject convention applications, which include the single subject, may be combined with inclusive, non-specific applications. The results of a combining or aggregating all these applications would be a convention that may discuss only the single subject. Which, in our case, would be limited to Congressional term limits.
Stacey Selleck: In other words, if some States passed resolutions making apples the national fruit, and some States said apples should be the national fruit, and eagles should be the national bird, and, yet, other States say, “We just wanna have a general discussion about amendments.” And if all those applications added up to 34, the convention must be called. But it could only discuss apples as the National fruit.
Stacey Selleck: So where do we stand? Three States, Florida, Alabama, and Missouri, have passed USTL’s application specific to the single topic of term limits. Nine more States have passed term limit specific language as part of a multi-subject initiative. And 13 States have passed inclusive Article V applications, meaning they approved convention resolutions that could include term limits.
Stacey Selleck: Based on our legal interpretation, that brings the total term limits convention applications to 25. Meaning we have just nine more States to go. However, to eliminate all legal uncertainty and positively impose term limits on the House and Senate, USTL is fighting to pass our term limits convention only legislation in 34 States.
Stacey Selleck: Remember, a proposal is just the first step. Once an Amendment is proposed, it must go back to the States and be ratified by 38 of them in order to become part of the Constitution.
Stacey Selleck: One thing is clear. The individual States have declared that they do have the power to propose Amendments. They are passing resolutions to convene the discussion. And they are taking action to impose term limits on Congress.
Stacey Selleck: Will your State be next?
Stacey Selleck: To help us call the term limits convention and eliminate careerism on Capital Hill, please sign our petition and be ready to contact your State representative to support our term limits resolution in your State.
Stacey Selleck: To see a copy of our progress map, visit www.termlimits.com/progress. And, as always, thank you for your continued support.
Philip Blumel: I remember back in the ’90s when State after State, with some assistance from U.S. Term Limits, were term limiting their Federal Congressmen. This was being done by the initiative process. And it was that initiative process which led to 23 States successfully term limiting their Federal Congressmen. And that’s what led to the court case you referred to.
Philip Blumel: Now, going back after the U.S. Term Limits versus Thornton decision, looking for another way to try to pressure Congress, we started working on the idea of this convention. We don’t have recourse to the initiative anymore. What’s our next lever going to be to either try to push Congress or go around Congress? And the answer is, the Article V convention.
Philip Blumel: So how, exactly, does this work? First of all, we have three States fully onboard. And how many do we need?
Nick Tomboulides: You need 34 State legislatures to pass the resolution to get the convention started. At which point, all 50 States would be able to send delegates of their own to this convention to deliberate on term limits and write what they think is the ideal Amendment to curb incumbency in Congress.
Nick Tomboulides: Once that convention reports out an Amendment, it would have to be ratified by 38 State legislatures to become part of the Constitution.
Philip Blumel: Right. That’s quite a project. Now, we believe this can be successful. One, because term limits is such a popular issue. It’s one of those issues that large majorities of Democrats, and Republicans, and Independents all support.
Philip Blumel: Also, because unlike asking Congress to do it through themselves, when we’re asking States to call for a Amendment writing convention, we’re asking State politicians to vote for a process that would term limit Federal politicians. So we’re not asking them to term limit themselves.
Nick Tomboulides: Even State legislators who don’t wanna term limit themselves … I mean, let’s say your sitting in Wyoming. You’ve got 5,000 people who live in your district. You consider yourself a citizen legislator. You may not want term limits on yourself, but you certainly want it on Congress.
Nick Tomboulides: Because you look at these politicians, every Senator thinks he’s gonna be President one day. Every member of the House thinks he’s gonna be a Senator. And, naturally, every State legislator thinks he’s gonna be in Congress. But you can’t do it if you’re blocked by some incumbent who’s been in Congress since the moon landing. So you need to dislodge some of these aristocratic politicians that we have in D.C. And, frankly, they’re not gonna leave on their own because, right now, the only term limits we have are, unfortunately, death, indictment, or retirement. And, in many cases, that never seems to come. So for State legislators, the only way to have a viable path to Congress might be through term limits.
Philip Blumel: Right.
Philip Blumel: Two additional States calling for a term limits convention is a big step forward for the term limits movement. But sometimes we suffer setbacks, too.
Philip Blumel: In last week’s podcast, we interviewed Collier County school board member, Erika Donalds about Amendment 8. Which, if approved by voters, would impose eight year term limits on all Florida school board members. But since then, a circuit court judge in Leon County, pulled it off the November ballot saying the ballot summary of Amendment 8 fails to adequately inform voters of the chief purpose and effect of the proposal.
Philip Blumel: Is there still hope for Amendment 8? We have on the line the chair of the Indian River school board district, Shawn Frost. Frost is also an executive board member of 8 is Great, the committee set up to advocate for Amendment 8.
Phil Blumel: How you doing, Shawn?
Shawn Frost: I’m great. How are you today?
Philip Blumel: All right.
Philip Blumel: Now, polls show that Florida voters are chomping at the bit to approve Amendment 8. What happened?
Shawn Frost: Well, what happened is you have a number of money special interests who just don’t want parents to have the power in their choice making, as far as education goes, so they sued to get it taken off the ballot so that the monopoly over our schools can stay with the school districts.
Philip Blumel: Who was behind this lawsuit?
Shawn Frost: The League of Women Voters are the Plaintiff, as well as the Southern Poverty Law Center. They joined later.
Philip Blumel: Okay. Well, what’s the next step? Is the State appealing?
Shawn Frost: Yes, the State is appealing. And we have until Monday the 27th to file amicus briefs, and we do expect two to be filed on behalf with the Supreme Court of Florida.
Shawn Frost: Then, I believe, the State has to get their arguments in on the 29th, next Wednesday. Then the Plaintiffs have an opportunity to reply. We’re not sure if oral presentations will be given or not, but we’re hoping that they will.
Philip Blumel: Okay. Is it certain that the Supreme Court will take up the case?
Shawn Frost: Yes, they have accepted the case. [crosstalk 00:14:17]
Philip Blumel: All right. Well, is there time to save the Amendment, then?
Shawn Frost: Absolutely.
Philip Blumel: What I mean by that is that, let’s say, there’s changes required to be made in order to satisfy the courts. Is there time to do that? Or is that just completely out of the question?
Shawn Frost: Well, I don’t know if that’s even in play. My understanding, and, again, I’m not an attorney, is that this will be an up or down as to whether the interpretation of the lower courts was accurate.
Shawn Frost: Of course, we feel as though it wasn’t. But September 4th is the cut off for making the ballot, according to the Department of State Division of Elections.
Philip Blumel: Okay. Well, litigation was anticipated, I’m sure, when this Amendment was being crafted. So I’m sure that a lot of these objections that the lower court had are things that were considered during the process of putting the Amendment together.
Shawn Frost: Absolutely.
Philip Blumel: So how confident are you that the court’s objections can be answered?
Shawn Frost: We’re actually in a really great position because the author of the ballot language will be presenting before the Supreme Court. Barry Richard, who, actually, he normally works for the other side on these types of issues, so we’re very fortunate to have him. He has a pride of ownership. He clearly understands the issue well. He literally wrote the Amendment. He wrote the language that’s on there, so he can speak to all the case law that he considered when he made the recommendation on the language. And we feel very good that, if anyone can get it done, it certainly is Barry Richard.
Philip Blumel: That sounds very promising.
Philip Blumel: What is the core issue that was raised, that brought the judge to throw this off the ballot?
Shawn Frost: Sure. The core issue that’s cited in the opinion or the ruling was that it doesn’t mention charter schools by name. But, as will be clearly put forward, it doesn’t mention any other type of school by name. It doesn’t mention public magnet schools. It doesn’t mention virtual schools. It doesn’t mention as yet unthought of types of schools. So the language was intentionally ambiguous to give the legislature the opportunity to develop the innovative education policy that is necessary for the next 20 years.
Shawn Frost: So their main complaint is that it doesn’t mention by name one particular type of school. Which is doesn’t.
Philip Blumel: And just to remind listeners that Amendment 8 is actually an amalgam of three different policy ideas that were put forward by the Constitutional Revision Commission and put on the ballot for voters to consider in that.
Philip Blumel: So the objection is to one of the three parts of the Amendment 8. And the objection isn’t actually the term limits portion of it.
Shawn Frost: That’s correct. The term [crosstalk 00:17:16]
Philip Blumel: But it is an up or down vote, so it’s not like in cases where … Like, for instance, in the U.S. Term Limits versus Thornton case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, Florida had passed term limits on our State and Federal legislators, and the Supreme Court knocked down only part of that. We still have term limits on our State legislators, but not on our Federal legislators as a result of that decision.
Philip Blumel: That cannot happen in this case. It’s going to be up or down.
Shawn Frost: Correct. And I don’t know if you mentioned in the introduction, but I’m the one that actually proposed the citizen proposal for P43, which was the term limits portion for school board members. Because as a school board member, I saw that, having looked into the belly of the beast, and having held the opinion of citizen legislators my entire life, I saw that there was truly an opportunity to limit government and to give people an opportunity to have more of a say in their education process. And the way that begins is by limiting the power of special interests. And the only way we do that is by limiting terms.
Philip Blumel: Right. And we appreciate your efforts on behalf of that, for sure.
Philip Blumel: So how can citizens help? Apparently there’s hope here. The court can come out and put this back on the ballot. So there’s still a campaign to run. How can citizens help?
Shawn Frost: Absolutely. Well, they can go to 8isgreat.org. You can spell that anyway you like. We have all the domains. We captured all of them for any type of spelling. And make an $8 contribution.
Shawn Frost: Of course, you can volunteer on the website, as well, to pass out literature. You can just share the issue, and tell people that you know 8 is Great because it has term limits and innovation.
Shawn Frost: So there are a number of ways to get involved. Of course, the most important way is to get out there and cast a vote.
Philip Blumel: Okay. And one last thing. As I mentioned, this Amendment 8 is an amalgam of three different ideas. They’re tied together because they all have to do with education.
Shawn Frost: Right.
Philip Blumel: Now, I would imagine that most people listening to our podcast are gonna be supporters of term limits, and be inclined to vote for Amendment 8. And we encourage them to do so.
Philip Blumel: They may not be familiar with the other two parts. So if you could a quick case for voting for Amendment 8 as a whole, please do.
Shawn Frost: Sure. Well, what Amendment 8 does is it has, of course, the term limits, which create eight year term limits for school board members to bring fresh faces and ideas into education, and instead of career politicians who are out of touch. And gets power to the parents instead of entrenched special interests.
Shawn Frost: It creates opportunities for students. Amendment 8 cuts the red tape to make way for student centered public education possibilities, which gives families more opportunity to make decisions. You know, when it comes down to home rule, education decisions should be made in the home. That’s the rule. So what this does is it gives parents more power in education choice.
Shawn Frost: Then, finally, it creates informed and engaged citizens by prioritizing and protecting civic education. Helping students understand their government and its processes. And fostering civic pride and involvement by enshrining in the Constitution a requirement to teach civics to all public school students.
Shawn Frost: Those are the three things it does. Term limits, opportunities for students, and then informed and engaged citizens.
Philip Blumel: I’m sold.
Shawn Frost: All right. Well, 8isgreat.org. Go visit and learn more. We’re going to have a very aggressive digital campaign launching in the next few hours. It’ll probably already be up and performing. And please do engage with that content. If you like something, like it. And if you don’t, let us know so that we can answer to it.
Shawn Frost: Thanks so much.
Philip Blumel: Thank you very much. Great talking to you. Bye-bye.
Shawn Frost: Take care. Bye.
Nick Tomboulides: And while we are working in all the States to try to get States to propose this Amendment, we haven’t fully given up on Congress. In fact, there is a sizeable number of Congressmen right now who do support term limits. About 60 Congressmen between the House and Senate who’ve signed the U.S. Term Limits’ pledge stating that they will sponsor and vote for an Amendment limiting Congress members to three House terms, two Senate terms, and no longer limit.
Nick Tomboulides: So when that day comes, when Congress sees the writing on the wall, feels pressure from States to write a term limits Amendment, we have a decent voting block in Congress that will ensure it is a solid term limits Amendment. ‘Cause every Congressman’s gonna want a 30 year term limit. The career politicians are gonna want a fake term limit that really doesn’t affect all that much.
Nick Tomboulides: And, remember, with Constitutional Amendments you just get one bite at the apple, so you gotta get the Amendment right. That’s why we’re working with Congressmen like Ron DeSantis from Florida to make sure that is a strong term limit Amendment that will really curtail the power of incumbents.
Philip Blumel: Another benefit of the term limits convention is that it does give some backbone to Congress, as well. If there’s a element of Congress that wants to pass some kind of compromise term limit that is extremely weak just to get it done, looming out here is more and more States calling for a term limits convention that would have the power to establish a much tougher limit.
Philip Blumel: So, in many ways, the idea of the term limits convention is going to put pressure on Congress to act, and put pressure on Congress to act in a genuine way.
Nick Tomboulides: You look at some places like Arizona, where we only got through one chamber. We got through the Arizona House. Well, people of Arizona are pretty darn angry with the Senators who blocked the term limits convention from passing the Senate. And you might see a handful of those guys get defeated this November, and replaced with term limit supporters.
Nick Tomboulides: So this is an issue that is important to people. It is moving the needle. And with citizen support, it really can be unstoppable.
Philip Blumel: The November elections are drawing closer. Let’s stop to see how we’re doing on our Congressional pledge program.
Philip Blumel: As you recall, U.S. Term Limits distributes a Congressional pledge to every candidate to the Congress every election cycle. If a signatory pledges in signing this at, “As a member of Congress, I will co-sponsor and vote for the U.S. Term Limits’ Amendment.”
Philip Blumel: Scott, what’s the latest?
Scott Tillman: Phil, this is Scott Tillman of the U.S. Term Limits. The national field director. I wanna give you an update on how many candidates have signed this cycle.
Scott Tillman: For Congressional candidates, we’ve had over 315 total Congressional candidates in the 2018 cycle. Of those 315, 130 are still in the race. Some of these have gotten through their primaries. Others are still looking at primaries coming up. Although most of these, now, are beyond their primary. We do have two big primaries coming up next week. Florida and Arizona.
Scott Tillman: Then we’re also doing another pledge of State legislators. For State legislative pledge signers, we’ve had 260 total candidates sign the pledge for the State Article V convention. 176 of those have passed their primary, or their primary hasn’t occurred yet. So 176 of the 260 are still in it.
Philip Blumel: What about mechanics of how these convention applications, we call them, get through State legislatures?
Nick Tomboulides: It involves constant citizen lobbying from the very outset. First, you have to find legislator who’s willing to sponsor it. That means, he’s gonna be the lead cheerleader, the champion for the legislation. You need one in the House, one in the State Senate. And it’s those guys who really carry the torch, and take the Bill through the committees and onto the floor, and, ultimately, to the final passage.
Nick Tomboulides: But I’ll tell you this, it cannot happen without very engaged, grassroots volunteers, and very engaged citizenry. Politicians just don’t wake up and say, “I really wanna worry about term limits today.” No. It’s their constituents in their district who make them worry about it. It’s groups like U.S. Term Limits that make them concerned. So if you’re not calling your State Legislator, if you’re not calling your State Senator and demanding that they vote for Congressional term limits, it’s unlikely to get very far.
Philip Blumel: Citizens have a lot more leverage over their local representative in their State than they do over a Congressman. Congress doesn’t have to listen to us, and they don’t. In the States, we have a lot more access. They’re getting a lot less calls. Particularly, less calls from citizens. Most citizens don’t know who their legislator is.
Philip Blumel: When there is an engaged electorate on the issue like this of term limits, it’s a power that’s really hard for legislators to ignore. It’s hard for legislators to push against.
Nick Tomboulides: I was at a conference, and a politician walked up to me. I said, “Well, where do you stand on term limits?” He was like a classic Southern gent, so he goes, “Son, we have terms limits and they’re called elections.” We know that’s not true.
Nick Tomboulides: I said, “But, sir, in polls, 82% …” He leans in, in that same very Southern drawl, goes, “I’m listening.” And the next day we had a signed term limits pledge from that guy.
Nick Tomboulides: One of the reasons that States like Illinois and Maryland have Republican governors in office right now is because those guys ran on term limits. Illinois, Bruce Rauner, the governor of Illinois in 2014, ran almost entirely on a campaign of term limits. And he’s still working on enacting that. I think he’s up for reelection this year.
Stacey Selleck: Voter fraud. Voter fraud. Voter fraud. Voter fraud.
Stacey Selleck: Palm Beach Gardens’ City Council defies judge, deceives voters on term limits measure.
Stacey Selleck: Earlier this year in Florida, Palm Beach County circuit judge Joseph Curley threw off the ballot a measure to weaken the City Council term limits, calling it, “Vague and misleading”. The measure was cleverly designed by the City Council to solicit a yes vote from term limit supporters, even though the actual effect of the measure, if approved, would be to weaken the existing two term limits already approved by the voters.
Stacey Selleck: Judge Curley’s final word was damning. “The failure to communicate that the Amendment’s affect is to increase rather than create a term limit renders the summary so misleading that it must be invalidated.”
Stacey Selleck: Undeterred by Judge Curley’s admonishment, the council majority is back to its old tricks. They reworked the ballot language to pass legal muster and placed it on the August 28th ballot.
Stacey Selleck: They simultaneously launched a marketing campaign that, once again, attempts to trick term limit supporters to vote for a weakening of City Council term limits. The council is using tax payer dollars for signs, billboards, robocalls, T-shirts, and Facebook ads that would make Vladimir Putin blush.
Stacey Selleck: Their message? “Vote yes to keep term limits.” But what the measure actually does is weaken the term limits from six years total to nine. Desperate to lengthen their time in office, the council feels they have no choice but to use deception. After all, it was just 2014 that 80% of the voters approved a citizen’s initiative to place the current six year term limits on the City Council.
Stacey Selleck: It is pretty clear the reform is popular. If the trick works, Palm Beach Gardens will have the weakest term limit in Palm Beach County. At nine years, Palm Beach Gardens’ council members will get one more year in office than the President of the United States.
Stacey Selleck: Worse, the council majority, courageous council member Matt Lane, is alone in having opposed the scheme, authorized using tax payer money to push this lie to the tax payers.
Stacey Selleck: The Palm Beach Post reports that Palm Beach Gardens paid Cornerstone Solutions $43,200 for the public education campaign before the fraudulent March vote. And is planning to spend about $65,000 on the current campaign. It has also solicited monies from interests with business before the council.
Stacey Selleck: To put a fine point on it, the perps in this egregious misuse of public money are Mayor Maria Marino, Vice Mayor Carl Woods, Council Member Mark Marciano, and Council Member Rachelle Litt.
Stacey Selleck: What can the citizens do? There’s less than a week to expose their deception. Fortunately, Palm Beach Gardens’ citizens, using their own money rather than taxpayer funds, have quickly printed up accurate signage, and are going back to court. In a new lawsuit filed just August 22nd, resident Sid Dinerstein is, again, suing the city to stop the misuse of taxpayer money to intentionally deceive the voters.
Stacey Selleck: You can help get the word out. Please go to termlimits.com and share this article. Also, you can find us on Facebook at U.S. Term Limits, and on Twitter at U.S. Term Limits. Grab hold of our posts and share them with as many people as you know.
Stacey Selleck: Send the crooked Palm Beach Gardens’ City Council a message. Don’t mess with our term limits.
Philip Blumel: Well, that wraps up the third episode of No Uncertain Terms. We are seeing momentum on multiple fronts, even with a few setbacks here and there.
Philip Blumel: Next week, we’ll talk with Tim Jacobs, spokesman for a citizen effort which successfully got a term limits initiative on the ballot statewide in Arkansas for November.
Philip Blumel: Skeptics say term limits is a great idea, but it’ll never happen. It is happening. Thanks for being part of it.
Philip Blumel: This podcast wouldn’t be possible without the support of you, the American people, and your voluntary financial contributions, which can be made through our website at termlimits.com. Thank you.
(end podcast)
MUSIC CREDITS – Full versions of the music sampled during this podcast may be purchased via iTunes at the following links :
“Two States” written by S. Kannberg as performed by Pavement, “Albatross” by Lydon/Levine as performed by Public Image Ltd., “Babylon’s Burning” written and performed by The Ruts
The “No Uncertain Terms” podcast is produced by Duke Decter for U.S. Term Limits
Executive Producer Philip Blumel (President, U.S. Term Limits)