A friend of mine, Pat Payne, asked that I look into campaign finance reform and term limits. So let me do a deep dive into one of those (term limits) today. But in order to analyze the subjects properly, I want to set up some structure to the analysis.
1) What do people on either side say/What are the historical roots?
2) Which of those arguments do I find persuasive?
3) Is there a compromise that can be made/what do I propose?
4) How easily could this be done?
Term limits
I find this issue easier to talk about because there aren't a lot of legal issues around it — mainly just an issue of philosophy. I'm referring specifically to Congressional term limits. The Presidency already has term limits and the judicial branch is intended not to have them. That may be a discussion for another time, but I'm OK with no term limits on the Supreme Court.
Pros and Cons
On the side of term limits are those that say politics is too corrupt/easily influenced. The arguments for term limits come from a variety of sources, but it amounts to a few issues:
1) Fresh faces in Congress keep new ideas flowing.
2) Term limits push members of Congress to get more things actually done rather than continuously push things off.
3) Term limits reduce the potential for corruption and the power of influential sources of campaign donors.
4) New faces in Congress keep them accountable to their constituents rather than the ... ahem.... trappings of Washington.
5) It prevents career politicians by limiting the time they are in power.
In essence, it's a push to limit the power of incumbency, which is a severe advantage already. incumbent representatives and senators are re-elected about 90 percent of the time.
On the other hand, there are some decent arguments on the other side. They amount to "the will of the people" and "term limits won't be that effective."
1) If the people vote for a person repeatedly, that's their prerogative. It's undemocratic to put limits on what the people want.
2) It punishes experience. It takes time to figure out any new role, and term limits — especially relatively short ones — would reduce the power of experience.
3) A corollary to the above issue: It turns Washington into a revolving door rather than have stalwarts.
4) There's no incentive for an elected official to pay attention to what his district wants when they are a lame duck after their final election.
Which Arguments Are Convincing
Starting with the pro side, it's fair to say that our modern politicians are too entrenched. A 90 percent incumbency rate is crazy high. And term limits would be the most obvious tool to take care of that. However, I'm not convinced that money would no longer have an influence and Congress would actually get things done. Rather, they may just say "not my problem" and punt until after their terms. Or money would go to the party to be trickled down rather than the candidate. Effectively, it'd make parties far more powerful than they even are now. But there is something to say about how term limits would prompt change and reduce — though not eliminate — corruption.
And the cons side is correct about their first two points: It's undemocratic and experience does matter. Experience can help guide through tricky issues. It can help people come together because they have a shared history rather than being fresh faces. The other two arguments are less convincing.
My proposal
So in the spirit of trying to build something and find compromises, I have a proposal: Candidates may spend 22 years combined in the House and Senate, with no more than 16 years (lifetime) in the House or 12 years in the Senate (lifetime).
Some calls for term limits are as little as 8 years or 12 years. I find those a little unconvincing -- if desired, a state or district should be able to elect a Congressperson for more than the length of a presidency. This is for balance and for long-term goal setting — the experience issue. However, 20 years in either chamber is too much, so I put a cap on those.
And if the idea of term limits is to prevent career politicians, a reasonable limit should be set. Because of the size of the House, I have a longer potential term in the House, because experience can matter when there are hundreds of new faces each year. But maxing your time there would limit you to one Senate term. The Senate, supposedly the more deliberate chamber, would have a lower term limit to emphasize the gravity of that chamber, but I would be open to 18 years there, too, for the sake of experience and long-term coalition building. *Note: The Senate has to be a multiple of six to prevent the staggered election years from getting too crowded. Right now, 33 Senate seats are up every two years.
Could it be done?
Here's the rub.
I don't think it could be done through Congress in our current climate, unless one side or the other did it while they were in the majority. And there's no incentive for a group in the majority to put limits on the potential amount of time they can serve. Let's say you're Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell. Why would you call for term limits if you're in power? With the high incumbency rate, you could stay in power a long, long time. You'd be essentially saying "We admit our chamber — of which we're the most powerful people — are too corrupt to be trusted." That's a dumb move.
So the only option left is a constitutional amendment. That would require 38 states saying they want federal term limits. And it doesn't appear that's likely. One key test is how many states have term limits on their state legislatures. And the answer will surprise you: Only 15 do. (Locally, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska have term limits in their state legislatures.) There were another 6 term limits that have been overturned either by state legislatures or courts. I did pick up on a trend: Almost every Western state has either had or has term limits, except for Alaska, Hawaii and New Mexico. Also, all of the state term limits have been put into place in either the 1990s or 2000s. So it appears there is a rising force for term limits, but it hasn't really made its way eastward. One other cynical view why federal term limits are unlikely is that the state politicians will likely run for federal office in the future, so they'd be limiting their own future power.
Perhaps in 20-30 years, there may be an appetite for a constitutional amendment, but it does not appear to be the case now and the only methods to bring it about seem unlikely.
Summary Judgments
Last week, I shared on Facebook a story in the Los Angeles Times about a Muslim man who takes care of foster children who have terminal diseases. It was by a former colleague of mine at OU (She has won a Pulitzer.). There is an update: Readers have donated more than $100,000 to the man after seeing the story. What an incredible impact that journalism can have. • • • Twitter has its uses. For instance, live events and direct access to fans/citizens. However, I find myself becoming more curmudgeonly about it, like the opening rant by Drew Magary here. • • • I ran 2 1/4 miles at one point this week, but I'm missing a day or two of running while taking care of a sick boy and trying not to get the disease myself. I'm probably not going to make it to 4 miles in my training by this time next month (March 11 is my first 4-mile race), but that's OK. My biggest problem is that every time I decide to run, the temperature drops to the 20s or 30s that day. It's a terrible trend that makes me feel like a bad runner, since I don't run as well in the cold as I do when it's respectably warm outside. • • • Roland was sick yesterday and today, but he's feeling OK. He's got a virus that kind of looks like pink eye or conjunctivitis, but isn't. The doctor: "Good news: It's not pink eye or conjunctivitis. Bad news: He's got a different virus." Me, a few minutes later: "Is it as contagious as those other diseases?" Him, not missing a beat: "Oh, yeah. Maybe worse." The good news was very fleeting in that doctor's visit.
Pros and Cons
On the side of term limits are those that say politics is too corrupt/easily influenced. The arguments for term limits come from a variety of sources, but it amounts to a few issues:
1) Fresh faces in Congress keep new ideas flowing.
2) Term limits push members of Congress to get more things actually done rather than continuously push things off.
3) Term limits reduce the potential for corruption and the power of influential sources of campaign donors.
4) New faces in Congress keep them accountable to their constituents rather than the ... ahem.... trappings of Washington.
5) It prevents career politicians by limiting the time they are in power.
In essence, it's a push to limit the power of incumbency, which is a severe advantage already. incumbent representatives and senators are re-elected about 90 percent of the time.
On the other hand, there are some decent arguments on the other side. They amount to "the will of the people" and "term limits won't be that effective."
1) If the people vote for a person repeatedly, that's their prerogative. It's undemocratic to put limits on what the people want.
2) It punishes experience. It takes time to figure out any new role, and term limits — especially relatively short ones — would reduce the power of experience.
3) A corollary to the above issue: It turns Washington into a revolving door rather than have stalwarts.
4) There's no incentive for an elected official to pay attention to what his district wants when they are a lame duck after their final election.
Which Arguments Are Convincing
Starting with the pro side, it's fair to say that our modern politicians are too entrenched. A 90 percent incumbency rate is crazy high. And term limits would be the most obvious tool to take care of that. However, I'm not convinced that money would no longer have an influence and Congress would actually get things done. Rather, they may just say "not my problem" and punt until after their terms. Or money would go to the party to be trickled down rather than the candidate. Effectively, it'd make parties far more powerful than they even are now. But there is something to say about how term limits would prompt change and reduce — though not eliminate — corruption.
And the cons side is correct about their first two points: It's undemocratic and experience does matter. Experience can help guide through tricky issues. It can help people come together because they have a shared history rather than being fresh faces. The other two arguments are less convincing.
My proposal
So in the spirit of trying to build something and find compromises, I have a proposal: Candidates may spend 22 years combined in the House and Senate, with no more than 16 years (lifetime) in the House or 12 years in the Senate (lifetime).
Some calls for term limits are as little as 8 years or 12 years. I find those a little unconvincing -- if desired, a state or district should be able to elect a Congressperson for more than the length of a presidency. This is for balance and for long-term goal setting — the experience issue. However, 20 years in either chamber is too much, so I put a cap on those.
And if the idea of term limits is to prevent career politicians, a reasonable limit should be set. Because of the size of the House, I have a longer potential term in the House, because experience can matter when there are hundreds of new faces each year. But maxing your time there would limit you to one Senate term. The Senate, supposedly the more deliberate chamber, would have a lower term limit to emphasize the gravity of that chamber, but I would be open to 18 years there, too, for the sake of experience and long-term coalition building. *Note: The Senate has to be a multiple of six to prevent the staggered election years from getting too crowded. Right now, 33 Senate seats are up every two years.
Could it be done?
Here's the rub.
I don't think it could be done through Congress in our current climate, unless one side or the other did it while they were in the majority. And there's no incentive for a group in the majority to put limits on the potential amount of time they can serve. Let's say you're Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell. Why would you call for term limits if you're in power? With the high incumbency rate, you could stay in power a long, long time. You'd be essentially saying "We admit our chamber — of which we're the most powerful people — are too corrupt to be trusted." That's a dumb move.
So the only option left is a constitutional amendment. That would require 38 states saying they want federal term limits. And it doesn't appear that's likely. One key test is how many states have term limits on their state legislatures. And the answer will surprise you: Only 15 do. (Locally, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska have term limits in their state legislatures.) There were another 6 term limits that have been overturned either by state legislatures or courts. I did pick up on a trend: Almost every Western state has either had or has term limits, except for Alaska, Hawaii and New Mexico. Also, all of the state term limits have been put into place in either the 1990s or 2000s. So it appears there is a rising force for term limits, but it hasn't really made its way eastward. One other cynical view why federal term limits are unlikely is that the state politicians will likely run for federal office in the future, so they'd be limiting their own future power.
Perhaps in 20-30 years, there may be an appetite for a constitutional amendment, but it does not appear to be the case now and the only methods to bring it about seem unlikely.
Summary Judgments
Last week, I shared on Facebook a story in the Los Angeles Times about a Muslim man who takes care of foster children who have terminal diseases. It was by a former colleague of mine at OU (She has won a Pulitzer.). There is an update: Readers have donated more than $100,000 to the man after seeing the story. What an incredible impact that journalism can have. • • • Twitter has its uses. For instance, live events and direct access to fans/citizens. However, I find myself becoming more curmudgeonly about it, like the opening rant by Drew Magary here. • • • I ran 2 1/4 miles at one point this week, but I'm missing a day or two of running while taking care of a sick boy and trying not to get the disease myself. I'm probably not going to make it to 4 miles in my training by this time next month (March 11 is my first 4-mile race), but that's OK. My biggest problem is that every time I decide to run, the temperature drops to the 20s or 30s that day. It's a terrible trend that makes me feel like a bad runner, since I don't run as well in the cold as I do when it's respectably warm outside. • • • Roland was sick yesterday and today, but he's feeling OK. He's got a virus that kind of looks like pink eye or conjunctivitis, but isn't. The doctor: "Good news: It's not pink eye or conjunctivitis. Bad news: He's got a different virus." Me, a few minutes later: "Is it as contagious as those other diseases?" Him, not missing a beat: "Oh, yeah. Maybe worse." The good news was very fleeting in that doctor's visit.
No comments:
Post a Comment