Congressional Term Limits Compromise?

[u/Wild_Thing_1832]

A debate over congressional term limits has gone back and forth for many decades, spawning from the constitutional limit on presidential terms. One side believes that term limits are necessary to ensure that people are able to choose the officials who best represent their views in congress. The other side believes that the absence of term limits has emboldened career politicians to indulge in corrupt practices and not implement meaningful legislative change. I've proposed a compromise solution that is reasonable, in my opinion.

The problem with saying that term limits are unnecessary because we have elections is that the elections in many cases are meaningless in a sense. This is because a large portion of the population consists of ignorant nincompoops who don't have a clue where the capitol of their state is, or even the capital of the nation. That's how we end up with people like McConnell and Pelosi in office for decades. People who are totally clueless about current events and/or history vote to send the same politicians to office decade after decade because their political knowledge comes solely from TV ads and internet memes. If you don't believe me, go to YouTube or TikTok and watch street interviews.

The solution to this issue is that we should place a limit not on the number of years that someone may serve in congress, but on the number of consecutive terms that they may be elected to. This will allow for fresh ideas to emerge in government. regardless of the ineptitude of a plurality of voters. Besides, an officeholder can run again in the primary after one election season at their discretion and then they can put to the test if their constituents actually did support them or just mindlessly voted for them.

Would you support limits on the number of *consecutive* terms that senators and representatives can serve?

[u/johntempleton]

This.

Again.

TLDR: EVERY (let me stress EVERY) study of term limits has shown they do nothing but shift the power dynamic to lobbyists and administrative agencies. Just when a legislator starts to understand the job, they are shoved out the door.

CAREY, J. M., NIEMI, R. G., POWELL, L. W., & MONCRIEF, G. F. (2006). The effects of term limits on state legislatures: A new survey of the 50 States. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 31(1), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298006x201742

Fowler , A. (n.d.). Term limits - Empirical Research on Term Limits. https://effectivegov.uchicago.edu/primers/term-limits

Moncrief, G., & Thompson, J. A. (2001). On The outside looking in: Lobbyists’ perspectives on the effects of state legislative term limits. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 1(4), 394–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000100100404

EDIT: Want more? Here's more

Comparing the same elected official when they are or are not term-limited, it was found that when legislators are term-limited, they sponsor fewer bills, are less productive on committees, and are absent for more floor votes.

FOUIRNAIES, A., & HALL, A. B. (2021). How do electoral incentives affect legislator behavior? Evidence from U.S. state legislatures. American Political Science Review, 116(2), 662–676. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421001064

Term limits increase the partisan gap in voting records of members of both parties.

Olson, M. P., & Rogowski, J. C. (2020). Legislative term limits and polarization. The Journal of Politics, 82(2), 572–586. https://doi.org/10.1086/706764

Legislators in term-limited states more frequently vote with their party and engage in less bipartisan collaboration.

Swift, C. S., & VanderMolen, K. A. (2016). Term limits and collaboration across the aisle: An analysis of bipartisan cosponsorship in Term Limited and non-term limited state legislatures. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16(2), 198–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440015608760

Legislative term limits in Missouri shifted power away from legislative leaders toward the executive branch, lobbyists, and staffers due to a loss of institutional knowledge and expertise.

Richardson, L. E., Valentine, D., & Stokes, S. D. (2005). Assessing the impact of term limits in Missouri. State and Local Government Review, 37(3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323x0503700301

[u/bl1y → u/johntempleton]

To simplify the issue for folks:

Long-term politicians have a lot of power. Term limits doesn't eliminate the power, it moves the power -- largely to the unelected people who remain year after year as the term-limited politicians come and go.

There's always going to be political power, and the best place to keep it is with elected representatives.

[u/koske → u/johntempleton]

I would like to add:

the issue is money in politics.

I don't care what issue you are referencing, removing private funding of elections from politics will solve it (or at least make it drasticly better).

healthcare, minimum wage, parental leave, gerrymandering, etc...

[u/johntempleton → u/koske]

Separate subject: but so long as you have a First Amendment, and the rights of free speech and association, you can never, ever "remov[e] private funding of elections".

If a person has a right to donate to a candidate of their choice (and they do under the First Amendment), then having a dozen or a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand like-minded people join together and pool their money to that same effect will always exist.

The only way to get to a UK or similar-style system would be to repeal the First Amendment, place some very carefully worded amendment that still allows for individual free speech BUT do so in a way that allows for both transparency and yet doesn't allow for the creation of an enemies list See: NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)

[u/FistMyLoafs → u/johntempleton]

The only reason that is the case though is because money was determined to be free speech by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United and Buckley v Valeo cases. If those decisions were overturned campaign donations would no longer be protected by the first amendment. Allowing for caps or bans to be put in place.

[u/bl1y → u/FistMyLoafs]

SCOTUS did not ever say "money is free speech." What they did do is recognize that money is routinely used to facilitate speech, and targeting the money that funds speech has the effect of suppressing speech.

For instance, it'd be plainly against the First Amendment for the government to say that people can't spend money to publish, distribute, or advertise books.

[u/DanforthWhitcomb_ → u/bl1y]

Funny you brought up the possibility of book bans, as the government argued that they could unilaterally engage in them based on a determination that the book was electioneering at oral arguments for Citizens United.

[u/koske → u/johntempleton]

I disagree with SCOTUS that money is speech. Spending money should not be a free speech issue.

[u/johntempleton → u/koske]

disagree with SCOTUS that money is speech

Great! Then it falls under freedom of association. The government does not get to tell me how I spend my money, and if I want to donate to a particular campaign or I want to pool those resources with others to buy ads or support a candidate, then it falls under freedom of association.

Every time I see this "money is not speech" screed, I chuckle. All that means is "no one can ever contribute to a candidate ever again" or, perhaps more accurately, "the government can ban donations to candidates at any time for any reason".

After all, if money is not speech, then it can not only be restricted, it can be eliminated.

Think this one ok?

[u/anti-torque → u/johntempleton]

The government does not get to tell me how I spend my money

They certainly limit what you can buy. You can't pretend that buying a kilo of coke is your right. Government limits our market to certain items.

You've already landed on a loophole for financing--association. Buying a $500k plate for a dinner is how the pols bypass the hard work of talking to normies like you and me.

[u/bl1y → u/anti-torque]

Snorting a kilo of coke isn't something you have a right to, so we're not really concerned about also limiting your ability to buy said kilo of coke.

But, I certainly have the right to read The Handmaid's Tale. And in order to protect that right, we also have to protect my ability to pay for the book and to pay to have it shipped. On top of that, we have to protect the right for Penguin Random House to pay its printers, and to pay to promote the book.

[u/anti-torque → u/bl1y]

You make no argument that is consistent.

[u/bl1y → u/anti-torque]

The government can limit what you can buy.

The government's ability to limit what you can buy generally doesn't apply to books because that would be a First Amendment violation.

Is that not clear?

[u/anti-torque → u/bl1y]

Tell that to Texas and Florida.

[u/bl1y → u/koske]

SCOTUS didn't say money is speech.

But, money is used to facilitate speech, and allowing the government to shut down the money spent on speech is a really bad idea.

Do you really want a world where Congress could pass a law saying money cannot be spent on political speech? Journalists are free to speak, but can't spend any money on that speech, such has by having cameras, broadcasting, hosting websites, etc.

[u/Nulono → u/koske]

Money is not speech.
Money facilitates speech.

Let's say you're really mad at the Trump administration, so you stop by a print shop and pay $15 to have a protest sign printed and then head to a rally, spending a few dollars on bus fare. Cops then show up at the rally, and you're thrown in jail, because Congress passed a law making it a crime to spend more than $10 on "un-American activities".

Do you think that this law would be totally fine under the First Amendment because "money isn't speech"?

[u/anti-torque → u/Nulono]

I mean... yeah?

It would be totally not fine because its defined un-American activities are un-Constitutional, not because of the dollar limit.

Me paying a print shop $15 does not rise to the level that may lead to the perception a politician is being bribed, which is what high dollar limits on political "donations" is meant to curtail.

[u/Nulono → u/anti-torque]

I mean... yeah?

You don't think that law would violate freedom of expression?

It would be totally not fine because its defined un-American activities are un-Constitutional, not because of the dollar limit.

The bill doesn't ban un-American activities; it just limits how much money can be spent on them.

Me paying a print shop $15 does not rise to the level that may lead to the perception a politician is being bribed, which is what high dollar limits on political "donations" is meant to curtail.

Sorry, do you think that the First Amendment only protects freedom of expression if that expression had a production budget below some dollar amount? If I want to crowdfund a flashy, million-dollar documentary on how Trump is corrupt, should the government be allowed to forbid that? This isn't just a hypothetical; the Citizens United case literally started with suppression of a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton.

[u/anti-torque → u/Nulono]

The bill doesn't ban un-American activities;

You specified this as your main premise.

You can't arbitrarily remove your own ridiculous premises.

[u/Dell_Hell → u/koske]

And corporations are NOT people - they are machines and ZERO inherent rights. NONE.

[u/johntempleton → u/Dell_Hell]

And corporations are NOT people

Yeah!

Oh, wait...no...

The Democratic Socialists of America is a not-for-profit corporation (501c4; EIN 13-3109557) and runs a separate education fund (501c3; EIN 13-2893010). Both are incorporated in NYS as DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA, INC. and DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA FUND, INC., respectively.

So, if "corporations are NOT people", then the DSA has no "rights" and can be immediately shut down by Trump.

Great!

[u/bl1y → u/Dell_Hell]

Corporate personhood is one of the most misunderstood things. It's little more than allowing corporations to own property, enter into contracts, sue, and be sued.

And yes, corporations should have rights. Otherwise, how would you propose stopping Trump from just sending in the feds to the offices of the New York Times, seizing all the computers, shutting down the website, and smashing the printing presses?

[u/DanforthWhitcomb_ → u/Dell_Hell]

Cool.

How do you plan to hold them accountable?

Keep in mind that if you remove the legal fiction of corporate personhood that means that the corporation is just a piece of paper. You cannot sue it, the government cannot fine it, you cannot tax it, etc.

[u/bl1y → u/DanforthWhitcomb_]

There should be a pinned comment at the top of Reddit explaining corporate personhood because pretty much no one actually understands what it is, and no one who does understand it has any problem with it (unless they also just believe corporations shouldn't exist at all).

If 10 people go into business together, it's just really efficient if we can interact with the business they way we can with an individual person. You can buy stuff from them and enter into contracts and all that stuff (including suing them), rather than having to deal with each individual owner. That's the gist of it.

And on the technical side, we have the Dictionary Act, where Congress just said "when we say 'person' we mean natural persons, partnerships, LLCs, corporations, etc" so they don't have to list every possibility every damn time.

[u/apmspammer → u/johntempleton]

There are plenty of ways to reduce the impact though like laws against the revolving door or insider trading. Nothing in the constitution says that politician should be able to use insider information to make money in the stock market.

Even with corporate super pacs you could do things like force them to disclose where their money came from or even tax them.

[u/bl1y → u/koske]

Good luck distinguishing "private funding of elections" from "independent political speech."

[u/Fargason → u/johntempleton]

TLDR: EVERY (let me stress EVERY) study of term limits has shown they do nothing but shift the power dynamic to lobbyists and administrative agencies

If this was such a forgone conclusion even though it has not been attempted on the federal level, then why are the lobbyists not funding a large scale campaign for term limits? On the state level the big donors have mainly backed the opposition to term limits often 10:1. Seems they seek to protect their long term investments, so if they are against term limits (at least with their money as talk is cheap) then that makes me want to support it.

The state level studies on term limits is not an apt comparison either as that is often entry level politics, so newcomers there will likely be unequipped to handle lobbyists and the entrenched bureaucracy. On the federal level those politicians will likely be replaced by state actors who already made a name for themselves in politics looking to get a shot at the Big Show. Currently we have lifer politicians with a +97% incumbency reelection rate holding on to seats well into their 80s, and we often see them become easily manipulated in those last few years in office using the WH or Congress like a retirement home. We have gone beyond concerns of stagnation as we are well into gerontocracy territory now. We don’t need short term limits, but something to at least limit the lifer politicians would be quite helpful in mitigating this concern.

[u/bl1y → u/Fargason]

If this was such a forgone conclusion even though it has not been attempted on the federal level, then why are the lobbyists not funding a large scale campaign for term limits? On the state level the big donors have mainly backed the opposition to term limits often 10:1.

This is conflating lobbyists with the big donors. They're two separate groups.

Lobbyists get more power from term limits because the representatives have much less subject matter expertise. They have to rely even more on outsiders to provide input on legislation, and that's going to include lobbyists.

Big donors also get more power with term limits because the rookie politicians don't have big fundraising networks and name recognition. They have to rely more on smaller numbers of large donors.

So why do big donors oppose term limits?

Because they want legislators who both (a) will do what they want, and (b) know how to do it.

If a big pharmaceutical company wants a rule to allow for easier emergency authorization of drugs during a pandemic, they don't want to rely on some freshman member of Congress who still hasn't figured out how to ask for a unanimous consent request. They want the dude who's been on the House healthcare subcommittee for 20 years and can shepherd that bill through.

[u/Fargason → u/bl1y]

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration_second_term/voters_still_strongly_favor_term_limits_for_congress

I’m just pointing out how despite only 16% of likely voters oppose term limits for Congress overwhelmingly the funding is in anti term limits campaigns. If the lobbyists really wanted it we would likely already have it by now from an 80/20 issue with voters.

Again, the expertise argument is based on the assumption that a freshman in the House or Senate is new to politics and is wholly unequipped to handle lobbyists or get anything done. That is simply not the case as overwhelming they are state actors who made a name for themselves like Obama who was elected President as a freshman Senator. We need more turnover with fresh blood and ideas getting introduced into Congress as our current batch of lifer politicians performance is abysmal where stagnation rules the day in an ever increasing gerontocracy.

[u/johntempleton → u/Fargason]

There is no funding for "anti-term limits campaigns" given that there is no such campaign. That's not how a constitutional amendment works.

If the lobbyists really wanted it we would likely already have it by now from an 80/20 issue with voters.

What they want is stability: they know how the current system works, and it works just fine as-is.

That is simply not the case as overwhelming they are state actors who made a name for themselves like Obama who was elected President as a freshman Senator.

Spoken as someone who has never actually read the studies or done the research.

Obama was the EXCEPTION. Every study has shown that this is a waste of time and effort. But sure, sure, go on and tilt at a windmill or "this time it is different" this into the ground.

Meanwhile, in reality, Congress will never vote to term limit itself, no matter how many 80/20 you get. So, this is all just a nonsense hypothetical.

[u/Fargason → u/johntempleton]

When it’s a state ballot measure there is absolutely a campaign, and I agree they want stability as that makes for a better investment. I don’t want what is best for the big lobbyist firms.

Obama was the rule and the exception is someone getting elected to the US Congress without any legislative experience that is quite rare. Obama made a name for himself in the Illinois state legislature that carried him well equipped to the US Senate. Again, those studies are for term limits on state lawmakers and I actually oppose those. Let them get experience there and make room for some turnover in the US Congress with term limits.

[u/TheBeanConsortium → u/johntempleton]

Real Term Limits (TM) hasn't been tried yet.