Blog - 11/23/08 - Term Limits
A term limit is a legal restriction that limits the number of terms a person may serve in a particular elected office. There are different types of term limits. Sometimes, there is an absolute limit on the number of terms a person can serve, while, in other cases, the restrictions are merely on the number of consecutive terms a person can serve. Term limits are used as a method to stop an elected leader of a country from becoming a dictator, or a “president for life”. Use of term limits in government dates back to Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. One of the things that separate the American system of government from monarchies, dictatorships and totalitarian regimes is that these other forms of government don’t have term limits.
In the United States’ federal government the office of president has term limit restrictions, but supreme court justices serve for life and members of the Congress can serve for life too as long as they keep getting reelected. Many people believe as I do that strict term limits for congressmen and congresswomen would vastly improve the American legislature. Senators should be limited to two six-year terms and Representatives should be limited to six two-year terms, allowing each of them to serve a total of twelve years. Improvements resulting from term limits in the legislature would be: the reduction of corruption; the end of unfair advantages that incumbents enjoy in their reelection campaigns; more choice for Americans when voting for members of Congress; and an increased turnover rate in Congress.
Corruption
Politicians care more about getting reelected and continuing their careers as politicians than doing what’s right for the people they represent. There’s no question that long-term legislators build strong relationships with deep-pocketed lobbyists who have no ties to constituents. Term limits prevent corruption by helping to break ties between politicians and special interests and lobbyists. In the unusual circumstance that a congressman or congresswoman is not reelected into office they will typically find jobs lobbying Congress to leverage the connections that they established while they were members of Congress. Breaking ties between politicians and special interests and lobbyists minimizes incentives for reelection-related "pork-barrel" legislation, and improves the quality of legislation by improving the tendency to vote on principle rather than voting to return favors.Unfair Advantages due to higher campaign funds
Incumbents have too great of an advantage over competitors. Nearly 95% of incumbents win subsequent elections. On average, Congressional incumbents spend four times more on election campaigns than new candidates. This extra money comes from their strong ties with special interests and lobbyists. By forcing incumbents out of office when they reach their term limit, term limits act as a natural campaign finance reform because the new people running for the open elected office do not have ties to the lobbyists and special interests and so they are unable to benefit from their campaign contributions. Term limits on Congress would restore respect for Congress and would return incumbent reelections to 50% versus 95% now.Choice
Americans are limited in their choices for Congressional leaders. Term limits would allow more candidates to run for office, offering more choices to voters. Term limits destroy seniority and enhance meritocracy. Term limits would build a ‘citizen’ Congress and would minimize a Congress made up of career politicians. Term limits would move us closer to a government of the people, by the people, for the people as opposed to a government of the ruling elite that remain in power thanks to the exchanging of favors and horse trading that occurs in the “old boys’ club”.Turnover
Turnover in Congress averages only 15.2%, with the majority of exiting Representatives and Senators departing because of retirement or death—not failed elections. There are a total of 435 Representatives in the House of Representatives of which 392 of them are nearly guaranteed reelection every two years. Term limits increase competition among candidates. Term limits improve the timeliness of Congress’s thinking because they know that in a relatively short while they will be forced to leave Congress so they are more inclined to rapidly pass good laws. Higher turnover in Congress would introduce fresh thinking, new ideas, and provide to politicians inescapable, bracing reminders of what life in the real world is like. Term limits reduce the power of congressional staff and bureaucracy. Thanks to a combination of lack of term limits and gerrymandering, fewer than 10% of all House seats are seriously contested in most election cycles. Since over 90% of House members are nearly guaranteed reelection every two years because of lack of electoral competition, elections have been criticized as being contrary to fair competition, one of the main principles of democracy. In 2008, the United States Senate consisted of 19 senators in their 70s (one of which is Pete Domenici who is suffering from frontotemporal lobar degeneration—also known as dementia), five senators in their 80s, and one Senator in his 90s (Robert Byrd, he has been known to sleep on the Senate floor).There is overwhelming public favor of term limits. 83% of voters nationwide indicated in a Pulse Opinion Research poll that they support term limits on office holders. But not surprisingly, politicians typically don’t support term limits, and unfortunately, it’s not the voters who decide on term limits for elected officials; it’s the elected officials themselves who decide which presents a conflict of interest.
In 2008, the New York City Council overturned a 1996 referendum in which citizens voted to limit the New York City mayor to two terms. In the process of approving the mayor’s term limits, the City Council included the extension of their own term limits—again, a major conflict of interest. Fear was used in the marketing spin that surrounded this move, “we need to extend term limits for Michael Bloomberg because his experience is essential to help us navigate these difficult economic times”, but banks in New York City like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers failed during Michael Bloomberg’s second term as mayor. The financial system was rotting under his watch and even though he was a business man and even though he’s so well experienced in all matters financial the fact is that he didn’t recognize that the problem was happening and he didn’t do anything to stop the rot. Do I think that we should change the term limit law so that Michael Bloomberg can run for a third term? Hell no!
In 2002, Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican senator outspent his opponent by 2000 to one and won 78% of the vote. Just before his 2008 election he was convicted of concealing $250,000 worth of gifts from a contractor. Even though he lost that election he still won nearly half the vote and almost became the first convicted felon to be elected to the Senate.
It is true that stricter term limit laws force politicians with experience out of office sooner. This is the only argument against stricter term limits that has any merit, but it is not a strong enough argument to sway me from my belief that term limits should be applied to Congress. For every good member of Congress there are nine mediocre or downright bad members of Congress so although term limits would remove good people with experience they would be ten times more effective at removing not-so-good people from Congress before they do more damage. As far as I can tell, the only way to impose new term limits on Congress is to have Congress vote on and approve the change; don’t hold your breath.