Term Limits III

Reduce the Market Itself

Donald Trump campaigned explicitly on term limits. His proposal was that Senators serve only two terms (for a total of 12 years) and that Congressmen and Congresswomen serve only 3 terms (a total of 6 years, for those of you who slept during civics class). This might be the smartest idea that Donald Trump has ever had (re-proving – yet again – what I quoted above about the blind squirrel and the broken clock).

The surest way to drastically reduce (notice I said “reduce” not “rid”) the political system of the vast sums of money that pour in from both Democrat and Republican PACS, and SuperPACs, and lobbyists, etc., is to make the “market” for politicians to be so low that the amounts wouldn’t rise to enough to finance a political campaign. You want to discourage both the buyers and sellers from even attempting the transaction.

Congress’ approach to things they don’t like, as shown above, is simply to declare it illegal and then order the King’s Men out to enforce the edict. But as has been repeatedly shown, “prohibiting” something, even with draconian enforcement methods and penalties, has shown itself to be an abysmal failure in every instance, including campaign finance reform.

I have one friend who believes the answer is what I consider the “death penalty” for re-election campaigns: one term for all politicians, ending the re-election campaign market entirely. Senators would serve their single 6 year term and Congress-critters would get only 2, then it’s just like they say at the barber shop: “Next!”

I think this attempt to obliterate the entire re-election market has too much downside, no matter how much it personally appeals to me. There are valid arguments for some continuity and retained “corporate knowledge” in the legislative arm of the U.S. government. I believe a middle-ground between the current system and the “no re-election” position is (and I can’t believe I’m saying this) exactly what Trump campaigned on: 12 years for Senators, though I would give 8 years (4 terms) to Congressman, because of the shorter terms. While it doesn’t completely eliminate re-election campaigns, what it would do – along with staggered elections every two years for one-third of each legislative chamber – is drastically reduce the “value” of any given legislator to near zero, because:

1. There  is a “lag time” required for new legislators to build up their graft mechanis- er, re-election campaigns. It takes some time to find one’s way around. I would give the incoming Senators and House members the benefit of the doubt for one Senatorial term. Twelve years is plenty of time to pursue something, do some legislative “good”… and then it’s time to go back to the productive working class. The same is true of the 8 year limit for Congressman. After that, you’re a government welfare recipient of the worst kind.
2. Term limits act as a natural check on legislative overreach and ambition. Legislators know that 90% reelection stat and they all are “banking” that they won’t be in the 10% who get sacked. The law is NEVER applied to Senators and House members like it is to the rest of us, as Obamacare showed everyone. (No Senator waits in line at the DMV like you do, either). If, however, the clock is already set for a fixed term, old Congressman Been-Here-Decades might think twice about what he does to you and me with his pen if he knows in the not-very-distant future, someone may very well be looking at her cell phone records, too.
3. Large donors would have to take far greater risks with the possibility of no payback for their dollars. Given the current system involves tiered rates for those higher up in the food chain, the time compression of term limits would mean that by the time someone gains the experience to become a Committee Chair, they would likely no longer be facing a re-election campaign to solicit donations, perhaps one or two in Congress. In other words, as one spent more time in the Senate or House with the clock ticking in the background, one’s “value” (measured as the ability to control a legislative agenda, pass legislation, or the like) would come with a lowering of value because of dwindling chances for re-election.

More Possible than Ever?