Voters like the idea. Republicans promise to bring it to a vote. Here are the main arguments for and against limiting congressional terms On January 4, the 104th Congress will start work -- and for the new Republican majority in the House, the first order of business will be its "Contract With America."
Among other things, the contract promises a bill imposing term limits on members of Congress: "A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators." The idea is enormously popular. In the past four years, voters in 21 states have overwhelmingly approved ballot measures that would limit members of Congress to 12 years or less in office; 20 states have imposed term limits on state legislators, and some 240 cities and counties have capped tenure for local officials. A look at the arguments on both sides of the debate:
PRO The case for limiting the terms of lawmakers is rooted in U.S. history, law and politics.
Term limits are as American as apple pie. If the idea is good enough for Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan (presidents are constitutionally limited to two terms) and 36 governors, it's good enough for legislators.
Limits prevent incumbents from exploiting the system. There are still huge advantages that tilt politics in favor of incumbents and turn them into pro-government advocates. Even in a sea-change election like the one in November, roughly 90 percent of incumbents seeking re-election kept their jobs. The temptations for newly arrived lawmakers to exploit the goodies built into the system are great: Once sworn in, they can start sending out truckloads of "franked" (free) mail to constituents; they can get special interest political action committees to contribute to their re-election coffers; they can hire multimillion-dollar staffs to meet constituents' demands. The only way to guarantee that some legislators will ever leave is to force them out.
A fixed retirement date will make them better lawmakers. Limiting congressional terms is the only idea that has a fighting chance to break the logrolling, money-soaked, gridlock-fostering politics that is endemic in the capital; sadly, most legislators are professional politicians whose paramount mission is winning re-election, not seriously deliberating the great issues. Term limits would encourage them to ignore some of the weirder passions that regularly overwhelm Congress now. Limits would also encourage legislators to scrap the seniority system and base key committee assignments on merit.
Limited tenure will curtail the capital's corruption. Limiting legislators' terms is a surer way of breaking the hold of special interests than campaign finance reform.
"Amateur" legislators can't do any worse than the "pros" have done. Need we say more?
Term limits are good for the country's soul. The certainty that congressional elections will regularly be competitive could enhance voter interest and turnout and perhaps mitigate the cynicism that pervades the land. Besides, the cynicism will only deepen if Americans are prevented from enacting an idea that they so clearly like.
CON Our system has built-in term limits: Every two years, every congressional district in the nation has a chance to throw the bums out; each senator has to face the constituents at six-year intervals. The sweeping change wrought by the 1994 election is proof that no gimmicks are necessary. In fact, more than half the members of the House have been elected since 1988.
Term limits for Congress are unconstitutional. Do states have the right to limit the terms of federal officeholders beyond the Constitution's specifications? A case now before the U.S. Supreme Court poses the question starkly. If the court rules no, the way around it, of course, is a constitutional amendment. But the Founding Fathers considered term limits and dropped the idea without dissent. They specified only three qualifications for members of Congress: citizenship, age and residency.
Do we really want amateur lawmakers? Over time, legislators gain wisdom, respect and institutional memory that insulate them from undue influence and enrich debate of the nation's business.
Short-term legislators mean more power for bureaucrats and lobbyists. The complexities of modern government are such that knowledge and experience count for a great deal. Short-termers would inevitably rely more on career staffers, wise in Washington's ways; special interests would court those staffers, establishing with them the ties they once might have sought with members. Neither bureaucrats nor lobbyists are accountable to voters.
Smaller states would suffer. Congress's seniority system allows figures from relatively small states -- outgoing Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell of Maine, for instance, and his successor, Bob Dole of Kansas -- to have great influence. Limiting terms would guarantee a huge advantage to representatives of the richest, most populous states.
Term limits are profoundly undemocratic. Americans should be able to vote for anyone they want. If Chicago Democrats want Sidney Yates in the House for 46 years and South Carolina Republicans send Strom Thurmond to the Senate for 42, so be it; to deny them the right to vote for such candidates is to infringe on the most precious American franchise.
