I attended a 2-hour small-group "coffee" with state Senate candidate Mike Brownrigg last summer in Mountain View. He was the only candidate meeting with groups of residents across the state senate district. He was forthcoming, smart and reasonable. Correctly against the developers' (SB 50) plan for mid-rise condos (and next high-rise condos) in every single-family neighborhood but in favor of more and affordable housing where appropriate.

Term limits shifts even more power to lobbyists and 'professional' staffers.

The 'deep state' staff, if you will. Freshly elected politicians have to lean on them more than an experienced office-holder who can keep both in line.

Term limits are best done with a ballot. Just ask Republicns Susan Collins, Marco Rubio, and the rest...

Responding to the last comment above: voters in California have always decided whether to impose term limits on state and locally elected officeholders. The U.S. Constitution was amended to place a 2-term limit on the Presidency. But not surprisingly Congress has not proposed a Constitutional amendment imposing term limits on its members. Incumbent members of Congress (House and Senate) are pretty well entrenched. House members benefit from gerrymandered districts - boundaries drawn to protect incumbents from challenges by the other major party. Statewide campaigns of U.S. Senate seats are hugely expensive - especially in California. Incumbents are able to raise money for campaigns and benefit from direct special interest spending on campaigns. The system is quite rigged in favor of incumbents and monied special interests. So while it's true that experienced officeholders do not need to rely on bureaucrats or respond to lobbyists, they do anyway. That is partly why California is so deep in debt and facing massive liability for public employee pensions and other retirement benefits, for example.