Term Limits

I was on the Colin McEnroe Show yesterday.  It feels good to be able to have a wider forum to talk about the non-compete clause and how we get our democratic elections back to being democratic.

The other guests (Brian Hill and Matthew Oakes) both agreed that the process is broken and that money is way too important.  However, they also both spoke in favor of term limits for Congress.

On this, I couldn't disagree more.

There might be a case for term limits AFTER implementing a non-compete clause for all members of Congress, their staffs, and everyone in the administration.  But if term limits are implemented by themselves, it will be a disaster.

The most common suggestion is to limit Congressional service to 12 years--6 terms for the House and 2 for the Senate.

What that would do is give even more influence to senior members--those in their 8th-12th years of service.  And these are the exact politicians who would be looking for their "next" job.  The allure of a five-fold increase in income AND the ability to "stay in the game" would be too much to resist.

Lobbyists would be able to tell any committee chair that a "great job" awaited.  And it is human nature not to want to disappoint a future employer, especially one who is offering significantly more money.  This is pretty much the current strategy of lobbyist as described by Jack Abramoff.

I understand the appeal of term limits.  But they only address a symptom.  The underlying problem is that once elected politicians become addicted to the power of Washington--and right now all the power is connected to money.  Listen to the This American Life episode Take the Money and Run for Office, it does a great job of making all the connections.