The Corollary of Congressional Term Limits
With congressional job approval ratings once again approaching an all time low, it comes as no surprise that cries for the implementation of congressional term limits have recently grown louder. When asked the question, “Would you vote for a law that would limit the number of terms that members of Congress and the U.S. Senate can serve,” a resounding 75 percent of Americans across the political spectrum responded in the affirmative. In the current political climate — one in which Republicans and Democrats are more ideologically divided than during any time in recent history — few policy ideas transcend party boundaries like the desire to institute congressional term limits, with 82 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Democrats approving the measure. Such a move, while immediately desirable for those voters who interpret congressional gridlock as the result of institutional inadequacy and corruption, would in actuality exacerbate the issues at the heart of the public’s discontent.
There is a sentiment that has nestled itself deeply into the American psyche that politicians are bought and sold by corporations, lobbyists, and powerful interest groups, a perception that has undeniably contributed to the abysmal approval ratings Congress has received in recent years, and subsequently, the desire to enforce term limits. While an inherent distrust of government is healthy and profoundly American, there has been an inability on the part of elections scholars to identify a causal relationship between campaign contributions and requisite legislative action. In fact, a joint study out of the University of Chicago and the University of Texas came to the inescapable conclusion that by all measures, tests examining the relationship between donators and politicians “strongly reject the notion that campaign contributions buy politicians’ votes.” However, effectuating term limits on members of Congress would certainly alter this conclusion.
The intention of those seeking to place restrictions on congressional reelection bids is, presumably, to have a constant flow of new ideas entering Washington, thus reducing the possibility of corruption and complacency enabled by extended amounts of time in office. What this logic does not take into consideration is the amount of time it takes to become an effective legislative member. Placing term limits on congressmen and senators would, ironically, limit the amount of trade knowledge and experience in the legislative branch, thus rendering Congress vastly more ineffective than it currently is. Interestingly enough, although the majority of Americans are in favor of term limits, voters reelected incumbent members of the U.S. Congress an astounding 96 percent of the time in 2014, suggesting that voters, despite their animosity for Congress as a whole, recognize the importance of legislative experience in individual members.
In addition to diminishing the available amount of intellectual capital, instituting term limits would make members of Congress considerably more susceptible to the corruption Americans are so wary of. The proposed solution for an illegitimate and unsubstantiated fear of vote buying would paradoxically bring those very concerns to fruition.
With a constant influx of new and inexperienced freshman congressman and senators, the legislative branch would be dominated by individuals with little to no experience in congressional procedure, policy development, or constituent services. Such a lack of guidance would result in several potential, equally undesirable outcomes. The first is an increased reliance on the very people American voters presume to have undermined their suffrage: lobbyists.
One of the many advantages a senior member of Congress has over a freshman is a deep and prolonged relationship with his or her constituency. If, as a result of term limits, representatives are incapable of establishing such communal ties, the job of demonstrating interests, concerns, and priorities falls into the hands of those with the means and organization to do so in a limited amount of time, namely, lobbyists and special interest groups.
In 2011, the Center for Responsive Politics — a nonpartisan, independent research group that tracks political contributions and their effects on elections and policy — published an article highlighting the susceptibility of freshmen congressmen to persuasion by lobbyists and special interest groups. The article reads:
“Many GOP freshmen ran as fiscal conservatives and political outsiders, vowing to change politics as usual in Washington. But that was before they accumulated substantial campaign debt and began worrying about raising money for the next election. Now they have aggressively turned to their party organization, K Street lobbyists and other special interests for financial assistance.”
In other words, it is the new representatives, those saddled with debt and with little connection to their constituency, not the incumbents, that provide Congress with its nefarious reputation. To implement term restrictions would effectually lock Congress into a cycle in which it is constantly operating in its most corruptible state.
The second consequence of congressional term limits would be a legislative dependence on the executive branch for policy directives and proposals. With little time to develop ideas, form coalitions, or gauge public interests, term-limited congressional members would rely on the presidency to set local and national priorities. As former U.S. diplomat Willard L. Beaulac articulates in his book The Fractured Continent, an exponential increase in the power of the executive — like that which would result from congressional term limits — opens the door for tyranny. The abolishment or suspension of the legislature for the sake of “efficiency” or the “needs of the people” in Latin America acts as a prime example. It comes as little surprise then that the Republican presidential nominee, a man whose statements indicate a proclivity for despotism, has himself pledged to implement congressional term limits. Despite the fact that Mr. Trump would, were he to be elected, have little authority over such a matter (a constitutional amendment would be required), the point remains.
Though upon first consideration, “cleaning the swamp” by instituting congressional term limits is tempting to say the least, the undeniable consequences of such a move would be far graver than the ones Americans presume to be suffering from now. A more viable solution for that 75 percent of voters who feel such reform is necessary is to actually vote. In the 2014 midterm elections, a lamentable 36.4 percent of eligible voters turned out. This pathetic display of suffrage is concerning and embarrassing, and stands as a delegitimizing factor for any and all Americans who feel the insuppressible need to lament about Congress’ composition. The best way to bring about change is not to alter the rules, but to play the game in the first place.
