Term limits for Congress movement

I'd propose a catch-and-release like program for lobbyists. Use those FEMA camps for something constructive! Round up all the lobbyists and then tag 'em with GPS chips so we can see where they summer and winter and where their favorite watering holes are. I'm sure we could get funding as a longhair study by some Foundation.

And then... chip Congressmen. And that way we could have interactive GPS which would register how many and which lobbyists Johnny Grassroots from the Ohio 10th was hanging out with and how frequently. If someone is giving mealy-mouthed lip service to LBGT rights to appeal to the gay community in their district, it'd be rather interesting to see that they had lunch four times a week with the AFA. And not to pick on the conservatives... same applies to "grassroots" liberals. They talk the talk when stumping, but let them explain why they entertain so many visits from Big Pharma or Big Banking.... which many do.
 
Last edited:
foophil said:
This does indeed sound bad. Can you provide some examples?
Click to expand...

Especially how this is worse than entrenched, long-term congressmen basically doing the same thing anyway as well as directing funds towards their own pet districts for 30 years because they have seniority?

Of course, the real solution is to vastly reduce the power of Congress to begin with. Then it doesn't matter who wins, nor for how long.
 
Last edited:
balrog666 said:
I propose a better option: no lawyers are allowed to hold office.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Congress' main job is to write laws. You need people who know how the system works and how to use the proper language and such.
 
Beerina said:
Especially how this is worse than entrenched, long-term congressmen basically doing the same thing anyway as well as directing funds towards their own pet districts for 30 years because they have seniority?
Click to expand...
Because, with elected officials, there is always the possibility of not electing them, no matter how remote. That is an option that is simply not available with lobbyists and aides.

Beerina said:
Of course, the real solution is to vastly reduce the power of Congress to begin with.
Click to expand...
How do we reduce the power of Congress and to whom do we give that power to?
 
I hadn't really thought about it being easier to manipulate newly elected officials. That's an interesting point. I was thinking about outright corruption. Having to buy off a new person every so many years is more risky than just one for a couple decades.
 
foophil said:
This does indeed sound bad. Can you provide some examples?
Click to expand...
It is a bad idea. I can only offer the experience of my term-limited California state representative. Under current CA law, she was limited to three 2-year terms. Her words (paraphrased): The first term you spend learning how the legislature works, how to get bills into committee, onto the floor, how to rally votes, etc. The second term you have a chance to get something done. The third term, the opposition simply delays and delays until you are gone. But the lobbyists and paid lobby groups are always there year after year working to get what they want.

As Upchurch says, bad, bad idea.

ETA: Mind you, this is from a guy who voted for term limits when they were on the ballot. My bad.
 
hgc said:
Elections are term limits, at the voters' choice, per representative. That's a pretty good set-up.
Click to expand...

Absolutely; the idea is to make the representatives responsive to the voters by making them dependent on their votes. Term limits actually would undercut that dependency; I can easily imagine a rep in the last of his (say) three two-year terms, saying to himself, "why should I worry about what the voters in my district want anymore, since they can't elect me again? I'm gonna feather my nest but good while I can!"

And term limits are limits on the voters who make the choices as well as their representatives; how can anyone claim we have a system based on free choice if, by law, we limit the choices? It's a baby-with-the-bathwater solution, especially on a federal level; if a district in California is happy with someone who's been representing them for thirty or more years, it shouldn't be disallowable because someone in Alabama is unhappy with theirs, but is too lazy to provide a better alternative to him.
 
Donal said:
The thing is, Congress' main job is to write laws. You need people who know how the system works and how to use the proper language and such.
Click to expand...

You already have people who know nothing about the Constitution and the principles the US was founded on, going by their statements and the unconstitutional crap they´re trying to get passed. I don´t see how less job experience is going to make that worse.

As for the technicalities like proper language, that´s what staffers are for.
 
Chaos said:
You already have people who know nothing about the Constitution and the principles the US was founded on, going by their statements and the unconstitutional crap they´re trying to get passed. I don´t see how less job experience is going to make that worse.

As for the technicalities like proper language, that´s what staffers are for.
Click to expand...


Agreed. While it's understandable that such a large portion of legislators are lawyers, since law-making is closer to being in their own wheelhouse, it is certainly no requirement. And the counter-examples of lawyer-legislators who appear utterly ignorant and cavalier about Constitutional law and various matters of jurisprudence just go to show that it's no guarantee.

On the other hand, I'm reminded of an incident concerning the late Sonny Bono, who sat in the House Judiciary Committee -- possibly the only non-lawyer on that panel at the time. He complained at one point that what they were talking about was unnecessarily complex. He was out of his depth. He was also term limited by a tree.
 
Last edited:
Piscivore said:
"End up"?

What we really need is a bounty on lobbyists.
Click to expand...

Do you propose requiring just the scalp and ears or the whole head before collecting?

turingtest said:
Absolutely; the idea is to make the representatives responsive to the voters by making them dependent on their votes. Term limits actually would undercut that dependency; I can easily imagine a rep in the last of his (say) three two-year terms, saying to himself, "why should I worry about what the voters in my district want anymore, since they can't elect me again? I'm gonna feather my nest but good while I can!"

And term limits are limits on the voters who make the choices as well as their representatives; how can anyone claim we have a system based on free choice if, by law, we limit the choices? It's a baby-with-the-bathwater solution, especially on a federal level; if a district in California is happy with someone who's been representing them for thirty or more years, it shouldn't be disallowable because someone in Alabama is unhappy with theirs, but is too lazy to provide a better alternative to him.
Click to expand...

It's already severely limited by requiring serious candidates to A.) pass through the primary gauntlet of bat **** crazy, and B.) have a crap-ton of money to start with. These to me are the biggest problems with the way we elect our representatives.
 
One question always comes to mind, what problem would term limits be trying to solve?

Is it the corrupting influence of paid lobbyists?
 
For those in this thread opposed to term limits - should we remove the ones for the president then? They were added with the 22nd amendment. Was that a mistake?
 
foophil said:
For those in this thread opposed to term limits - should we remove the ones for the president then? They were added with the 22nd amendment. Was that a mistake?
Click to expand...


We've been talking about legislative term limits. I don't have any problem with executive term limits, especially for President and state governor.
 
Donal said:
The thing is, Congress' main job is to write laws. You need people who know how the system works and how to use the proper language and such.
Click to expand...

However the US seems to belive in the seperation of powers. Allowing lawyers to make laws kinda messes with that.
 
Last edited:
foophil said:
Has anyone been following the latest attempt to have term limits enacted for Congress? The webpage is pretty shoddy at this time, but the Facebook page has some more well though out information.

http://www.termlimitsforuscongress.com/

https://www.facebook.com/TermLimits...sibly-want-to-know-about-our-/740304855991599

I'm not sure how I feel about this. At first I was very much for it, but I heard a good argument against it that has me thinking. Namely that higher turnover in positions that are difficult to train for (writing laws for the country) isn't necessarily a good thing. I figured if the President can be switched out every 8 years, so could anyone in Congress, but I'm not sure that is a good comparison.

Obviously, directly tackling finance reforms and potentially anonymous unlimited donations would be better, but since that isn't happening (yet?), is this a good route to go? Would this even impact lobbying in the end like the backers of this hope?
Click to expand...

That, for me, is precisely the reason there should be limits. It has become so complex that it doesn't really work anymore. Let's shrink it down and get it manageable.
 
seayakin said:
One question always comes to mind, what problem would term limits be trying to solve?

Is it the corrupting influence of paid lobbyists?
Click to expand...

I've always held the view with the income redistribution debate that those tax policies penalize the whole rather than those who actually game the system and I view the idea of term limits to be the same way. If you're going after the corrupt politicians, one needs to tackle the underlying factors that enable the crooked ones to stay in office for decades at a time in spite of their records and the term limits don't do that directly.

Still, I wouldn't cast away the idea entirely. People change over time, term limits have a place, just not as a penal tool
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
No. I'll admit that my opinion was formed from anecdotes and opinions of people more politically involved at the state level than I am. People that I trust, but you'd have no reason to.
Click to expand...

I almost wish this was a response that people used immediately when it's the case for them. It's honest, respectful, and at the same time disarming.

Have a beer.
 
Yeah the problem is a lobbyiest is only someone who gives money to a candidate/cause that you don't like.

When a candidate/cause you like gets a crap ton of money it never seems to come from a lobbyiest.

So unless we can codify some difference between "Lobbying" and "Donating" this is all academic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom