E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Carrie Dann and Ken Strickland
With over 70 percent of voters saying that they disapprove of the job Congress is doing, it’s not surprising that many of them are itching to “throw out the bums,” as GOP Sen. Jim DeMint put it on NBC's TODAY Show this morning.
But many Americans (including many First Read commenters during this week’s “Exit Interviews” series on the United States Senate) believe that it shouldn’t take an electoral defeat to show members of Congress the door.
They advocate for term limits that would cap the number of years lawmakers can serve on Capitol Hill.
The average length of service for senators this Congress is 12.8 years, just over two terms. It’s a full term longer for the senators who are leaving the chamber at the end of this year. The average length of service of the elected senators who are retiring or who were voted out this year (not including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who will announce whether or not she will mount a write-in candidacy tomorrow) is 18.8 years.
Republican Sen. Sam Brownback is retiring this year because he limited himself to serving only two full terms. He believes that all senators should follow his example.
"You can find 100 competent people to do these jobs year in, year out," said the Kansas lawmaker in his exit interview with NBC News. "And you ought to have a change of blood and a change of ideas."
Brownback believes that, as senators serve longer, power is consolidated in fewer hands and over time creates a more partisan Congress.
Last year, Brownback joined Republicans Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas in proposing an amendment that would cap Senate service at two terms. (Hutchison is currently serving her third term, having failed to win the Republican nomination for governor in her home state in March.)
Term limits are gaining steam as a campaign issue as well. Several successful Tea Party candidates – including Colorado’s Ken Buck, Kentucky’s Rand Paul, and Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell – supported the idea during their primary campaigns.
It’s a popular idea. A recent FOX News poll found that almost eight in 10 registered voters said they would like to see a cap put on how long members of Congress can serve.
Brownback, who's now running for Kansas governor, also wants term limits for Supreme Court justices. Members of the high court have served lifetime appointments since the nation’s founding.
Either suggestion presents a steep climb for would-be reformers. Implementing term limits for either senators or justices would mean a constitutional amendment – which would require either a national constitutional convention or the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress.
Leave a Comment:
Serve no more than two terms, receive no pension for the service, and once finished they go back to the business that they were in, prior to government service. We DO NOT NEED, NOR WANT CAREER POLITICIANS. This should stop the morons from spending $30 Million for job that pays $200,000 a year, plus it will eliminate all the nonsense that goes on within the walls of congress.
While we're at it, get rid of the damned Electoral College. It is archaic and as bad as Congress when it comes to under the table deals.
Excellent point! I think we the people should elect the president, too!
The electoral college allows the least populated states a voice in selecting the President. If it was by strictly popular vote then one would only have to win in 6 or 7 states, like CA, TX, NY, Fla, Ill, and a few others. Smaller states like NV, Del, RI, AK, ID, SD, ND & others would have little input into who is elected. Besides I believe only twice has the candidate who won the popular vote lost the presidency.
Maybe the smaller states should follow the American way and just buy votes for a larger voice like the corporate lobbyist do that represent their smaller constituent of corporate individual principles, money talks as we've been shown.
People who ask for term limits on Senators and Representatives generally want one of two things: either (1) that horrible person from the other party and state they don't like to be forced out of office; or (2) that horrible person of a different political persuasion to be forced out of office. Well you know what? If you don't live in my state or district, my Senator or Representative are none of your business. You don't like them? Tough. They aren't yours. And if I don't like yours? Tough. If I want a Senator from my state out of office, I can vote. If I want my Representative out of office, I can vote.
Why is the incumbency rate so high? At least in part it's because the voters like the job their Senators and Representative are doing no matter what they think of other Senators and Representatives or Congress as a whole. When the voters don't like their members of Congress they vote them out, sometimes in the primaries.
Or maybe because the incumbent can spend tons of lobbyist money on TV ads waving half-truths (and sometimes outright lies) about their opponents?
That may be part of it (although all candidates use lies and half-truths), but it's out-of-state money pouring into campaigns. Doesn't matter what state you live in, it should be illegal for a candidate to accept money from outside the state, period. In fact I would like to see a requirement that contributors be registered voters in the state and district of the candidate. I would go so far as to say that all elections for Congress should be taxpayer-funded, except I have no clue how to pay for it.
One way would be to lower the cost and level the playing field. The idea of being registered in a state and or district to contribute is worth serious consideration.
Limit the number of T.V. ads.
Limit the beginning of public campaigning to 90 days for general elections. 45 days for primaries.
Require all unspent campaign monies to be placed into a Fair Elections fund.No more warchests.
Place a cap of how much can be spent on campaigns. Both primary and general.
I agree with the money limitations on campaigns. I think it limits candidates in that you probably will never hear from earnest people with sincere public service ambitions because they can't compete with lobby money or millionaires.
I have problems with limiting by caps, whereas I don't have problems with eliminating donations entirely. If candidates can raise money, then one of the first signs of qualification is the ability to raise money. A candidate who can't raise money effectively is unlikely to be able to convince fellow Congress-critters either. But the Fair Elections fund, I like that.
I've always felt that elections should be publicly funded, and that Congress critters should be prohibited from accepting any money in any form except their taxpayer-funded salary. I would also make lobbying illegal, except that would mean I couldn't try to get my critter to vote the way I see things either.
Owlsview brings up interesting points. I agree, campaign reform should limit the number of TV ads, limit days to campaign and set caps on money spent However, unspent money should go to shelter the homeless, or feed the poor. All this campaign money floating around is absurd and, in my opinion, can be directed to a greater good.
How about this: In every campaign ad when an “advertiser candidate” says something negative and inflammatory about the opponent, he/she must also say something positive or informative about him/herself or their policies. I’m so tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and would so like to vote for someone with a relative clue.
There goes free speech, though, so this would sadly never happen.
There is no other way to put this. You are incorrect in your assertions. Wake up! Term limits are needed for many good reasons. Historically it is very difficult to displace an incumbent. Power is the drug of choice for politicians. In case you haven't noticed incumbent politicians become more powerful the longer they are in Congress. They also spend countless hours campaigning for the next election rather than working for the people they should be serving. They become beholden to special interests (Corporations, PACs, and Unions) that help them get elected rather than listening to citizens. If you want more of the same dsyfunction Congress delivers year after year then that's your choice and you have the right to support it. Not for me!
Congress 3 Terms=6years Can be voted out sooner if decided by voters Can run for Senate
Senate 2 Terms=12 years Can be voted out sooner if decided by voters Can run for Pres. or V.P.
Total Service 18 years. Same benefits as all other Federal employees, no more no less.Does not include being elected V.P. or President. If they are that good 34 years.
If these people are smart enough to contribute to the running of our country, they should also be smart enough to plan for their own retirements.
Committee Membership No more than 6 years on the same committee.
Committee Chairmanship No more than 2 years of the same committee.
End the power blocks. Term limits are workable. The good old boy system is not.
One thing I would like changed is to actually lengthen the term for House members, as two years, in my opinion, is way too short simply for the fact that they are ALWAYS Campaigning; as soon as they win a seat they're back out on the campaign trail and not doing the work they were elected to do! Extend it to four years and they can actually worry about doing their jobs and not raising money.
We need a return to citizen legislators. The natural instincts of our founding fathers seem to bear this out. As a caller to a radio talk show put it, "After enough time/seniority in Washington, DC they all go 'native'."
It strikes me that a balance could be struck for those who burn for public service at the federal legislative level and our need for citizen legislators by crafting a Constitutional Amendment that limits legislative service in each chamber to 12 years: 2, 6yr. terms for Senators; 6, 2 yr. terms for a House of Representatives member.
This would allow sufficient time for a reasonable learning curve and horizon for accomplishment. Additionally, it would allow those so inclined to log a total of 24 years of federal legislative service should the majority of their constituents feel they deserved their vote on 8 occasions.
Want term limits for members of Congress? Think again. Or look at California, which has rigid limits on terms of its legislature. This year we're already 77 days past the deadline for passing a budget. The reason is that all the Senators and Assemblymembers are novices, and most of them are amateurs. They don't know how to cut a deal. Instead, they rely on the real powers in Sacramento -- lobbyists for unions, corporations, whatever. In short, they rely on special interests which are reluctant to compromise on their goals. Lobbyists know far better than our term-limited legislators how to work the system -- and how to gum it up if their interests are in jeopardy. Term limits are one of the worst political ideas to surface in the 20th century.
Are you saying that California and other states have never gone way overdue on their budgets when they didn't have term limits?
Cutting deals equals pork.
Pork = things I don't want, good spending = things I do want. Example: Gov. Jindal of Louisiana is on the record saying that volcano monitoring is a waste of tax money, therefore pork. I look out my window and see two active volcanoes so I disagree. If he'll give up his hurricane centers then I'll give up my volcano monitors.
I have to say it. Weneed more articles like this where people can carry on an intelligent exchange of ideas and comments. Instead of sifting through all of the bashers and thrashers can easily maintain continuity of thought.
Thank you the posters here and thank you FR give us more of this please.
Why not start with a FOUR year term for Congress instead of two, and still impose limits on the "number" of terms one must serve.
I agree that is a sense, we do have term limits like many have said, in other words re-elections. However, as also stated that I agree with is that the moment a person is elected to Congress, for only two years, they immediately start working on their re-election. Senators can accomplish more having 6 years. THEREFORE, along with term limits, possibly making a Congressional seat last for FOUR years might lead to more progress. They have more time to work on their agenda for those they represent, and less need to immediately worry about re-election. Also, if the "people" deem fit, we can still limit the number of "four" year terms. The same can be done with Senators. In the end, I do think that only two years is a very short time for anyone, regardless of party, to accomplish much.
We may be "friends," HOWEVER we remain political opposites. BUT, great post. Regardless of how much you always disagree with me.
Only wish I thought of it.
Yes Both
2 year terms, with a max of 3 terms. They are never going to change any for the rules as long as they can stay in office. After all they are the one's that gave themselves all of the perks. If they are in now they should be voted out. But the american public as a whole are stupid, they will never do it.
At least a few are supporting term limits. Now the majority have to be convinced that it is for the good of the country.
They should have term limits. They should also be placed in prison for NOT doing there job (i.e. saying NO to every bill just for political gain or shutting down government)! They should only make minimum wage and then get a bonus for improving the economy. They should not have life time benefits or a health insurance that is above the average Americans.
Let's ask the real question...
WHY do you REALLY want term limits...for your Senators and Representative or for everyone elses?
...and stop hiding behind this "Accountability From Congress" BS...tell the truth!
If this is about your Senators and Representative then you have term limits...they're called ELECTIONS!
I suspect, however, that this is really about everyone elses Senators and Representatives. I've read the comments ad nauseum on this blog and it's very clear to me.
You hate Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel and Barbara Boxer and John Boehner and John McCain and Mitch McConnell and Jim DeMint but for the overwhelming majority of Americans there isn't a damn thing you can do about them because you don't get to vote on them.
This is about you wanting The Constitution to do something you can't...take someone else's representation out of government because you think they're the problem.
You're entitled to your opinions but in the end if you don't like the representation that someone else elected then tough noogies!
It's time for a change America. Its time for the people to take back our government. Term limits, and NO LOBBYISTS!
I think that would make a good start.
Come on America, lets show the world what home of the brave means.
"Either suggestion presents a steep climb for would-be reformers. Implementing term limits for either senators or justices would mean a constitutional amendment – which would require either a national constitutional convention or the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress."
There are two chances of getting two-thirds approval of both houses of Congress, none and none. Therefore, whatever is required to hold a national constitutional convention should be initiated immediately.
The question isn’t should there be term limits. The question is how do we make it happen. Politicians become corrupted by the environment in Washington. You have lobbyist promising behind the scene payoffs and future appointments to corporate boards in return for favors. I believe most newly elected senators and congressman go to Washington with good intentions. They soon become drunk with the power of their office.
Term limits would be a good start, but it needs to go further. They should be forbidden from working for or as lobbyist once they leave office. Finally, there should no statue of limitations from prosecution for crimes committed while in office.
We the people impose our changes on the people who SERVE the people of the United States.
What a no-brainer. Whenever you bring new people into a group you bring in new fresh ideas. Get it????
I believe term limits are a good start. We need the following legislative changes to move the country forward.
A) Term Limits for Congress
B) Balanced Budget
C) Flat Tax
D) Only U.S. Citizens permitted to contribute to a political campaign (No corporations, unions, or PACs)
E) Defined limit for conducting political campaigns
The above would substantially change the way the political system functions in this country for the better.
So if a corporation gives me money to give to a candidate, that would be ok, right?
Not really.
Get the unions and corporations out of being able to lobby Washington. Make it racketeering with a life sentence. Get these corrupt monsters out of our government. How can you run anything when you have private interests shoving mountains of cash at all our politicians and they are allowed to take it? How do the tax paying citizens compete with that as a priority? YOU CAN’T
Think of how a corporation would run if all its customers were allowed to bribe the purchasing people for preferred pricing below cost, or even free, based on how much money they put in the purchasers private pocket? Then the employees elected that purchaser after he was being able to take company money and throw it at all the employees to vote for him.
Strict term limits with three independent financial audits per year of all their personal/spouses and business monies for their entire tenure as well as five years afterwards. We need the IRS and citizen action committees up their tails for every dollar taken. Track every nickel and publicize all of it frequently. You become an open book when you take office.
If they are going to take lobby money make sure it cannot be connected in any way to bills or laws passed during the politicians tenure. If it is…. then both the politician and lobby are brought up on racketeering charges. Make it so it is just not worth their while to engage in the bribery.
I disagree with term limits. The Senate originally was controlled by the state legislatures. They could decide how long Senators remained. Now that Senators are elected, they are practically untouchable, whereas before at least legislative politics could boot a Senator, say due to a losing party.
What the entire Congress needs is expansion. We live in an electronic age in which it is possible to conduct business in much less intimate settings than the Senate chambers. You could have a 50,000 member Senate housed in a football stadium-like building. Or members could even hold a quorum over conference call or the Internet.
Term limits would boot out the right of the majority to decide for an incumbent. That doesn't hold to the original idea of democracy. I think each member should simply represent fewer people, so that member can be more responsive to his/her constituents.
Would you really want political decisions made by who could hire the best hackers?
You keep a copy of your vote and send the cops after the criminals.
Term limits would be great.That is why cong. was set up the way it was so all americans could serve in it. You can see two reasons why they should not stayin office for long times sen. Rangle and that lady sen. that think they can do what ever they want and get away with it,they have been there so long they think there ten foot tall and bullet proof,and the worst of it is they think they have done nothing wrong,and there prez. is going to take care of it.The worst of it is they want him and her back in and that makes the people that vote for them just as crooked as they are and they are slick trick con artist and crooks. and no telling how much graff money they have taken,payoff money to do favors for people.campain money they have put in there pockets they must go get them out of the swamp
Limiting terms is necessary
Say YES to term limits!!!!!!
Would term limits have possibly unthought of side effects such as giving young people more of an interest in running our country through their votes? In other words not waiting untill their forties and fifties because they can't seem to overcome the politicians entrenched by their parents and grandparents? Not all young people are stupid, in fact very few of them are. It may be our job to teach them how we believe they should live, but not to dictate to them.
We may be able to stop the lobbyists from walking in the hallways of Congress, but we will never be able to stop them from finding other means of communicating and influencing them. Term limits at least would make their jobs harder. The longer a person stays in office the easier it is to become stagnant and or corrupted.
The ideals of youth and the wisdom of age together could just be the blend that we need.
I agree with most of this as wisdom usually comes with age. I think as long as the rep is honest, supports the people instead of themselves or major corporations and are proven efficient in their work, no term limits are needed. Let the people decide through the voting process.
But, we absolutely must have stronger annual reviews by independent parties on an annual basis!
"as long as the rep is honest" that is the ultimate qualifier for term limits. Career politicians have over and over again been able to hide their dishonesty for long periods of time. Dishonest people are masters of deception. If term limits were to start at the local level an individual could still serve his town, his county, his state and his country for over fifty years. The voters would be deciding.
Only 5 years service and they get a partial pension ??
wow.