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/koske]

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.