What's your position on term limits for members of Congress?

Presidents and Governors have term limits why not members of Congress? :shrug:

Do you think term limits would be a solution to increased influence by lobbyists? I mean, the shorter the term they would be less likely to fall to corruption or special interest. What you think? There are great members of congress but it seems that after being in Congress for so many years, some tend to work against the will of their constituents. Is there other choices? What would be better Lobbyist reform or term limits?

Also, longer terms would allow setting up Congress for total control by one party (like is happening now, total control of Congress, and Supreme Court, etc.).

elections.

I think the success of Diebold was because of a combination of Lobbysts and Congress. That is why I am leaning more to term limits in Congress than lobbyst reform. That is why I am posting since i would like to see all sides.

makes 90 % of the elections worthless.

I'm for term limits.

Those are the years when they did their best stuff--after they learned the process, the town, and the way to handle the bureaucracy and the way to navigate around the entrenched interests.

in the senate 12 years, the house 12 years, was Governor of Massachusetts for 12 years and then started an environmentally friendly fishery, would the world be so much worse off.

Perhaps we'd be much better off today.

i would be more in favor of a law that requires no gerrymandering.

That seems fair.

:+

:o)

offocials to spend most of their time raising $$ for the NEXT election!!!!

I'm positive that's one of the reasons for the success of lobbyists too. After all, where else can you get $50,000 or more at a time?

to those who buy their campaigns. They vote the way they're told or 4 or 6 or 8 years later, they know they'll need a job. LOBBYISTS-R-US!!!

Tell me, other than a law firm who wants your name on their stationary, what do you have to offer in the market place? Eight years or 10 years out of the market?

I'm a personnel recruiter in the sciences and if someone submits a resume with a 10 year gap in the field, I can't help them. Companies want experience, why should we retire experience in government?

So then we're right back on the merry-go-round of attorneys and millionaires running for office and when they leave they go to work as lobbyists, IF they played nice with the "deep pockets". If they weren't the type to play with the "deep pockets" but truly represented us......too bad for us, they're term limited.

Oh yeah, and don't forget, the number of "formers" legislators will become HUGE and they'll all be getting life long insurance and pensions.

And don't forget, the experience in the House and Senate will be all the unelected, nameless "aides" who are there forever and answer to no one. Just wait out an uncoperative boss.

And a lot of news commentators. :hurts:

You have a point but of course, people who run as Senators are no average people. They are normally people with good capital and little use for a job after a career in politics. Name a "broke" ex legislator.

Just like I'm against term limits for President, Gov, Mayor and other offices. It is un-democratic to me.

We have term limits in the Florida Senate and legislature, as they do in my former home of Ohio. What I've noticed, is that you lose a lot of necessary experience and leadership. I know the power becomes too entrenched at times, but now it's worse.

You have inexperience reps in Florida, that don't know how to write legislation, so the lobbyists write it all for them!! And they introduce it without ever reading it in many cases, or understanding what they introduced.

I honestly believe that term limits were a sneaky back-door approach for Republicans to take over state governments, that were controlled by Democrats, without having to face incumbents.

But, then again, I could be wrong.

I like to see all sides. I am new to all of this but I like to learn the most i can.

You brough a good point about experience and leadership. Now look at what happened in Texas for example, with DeLay. He had lots of experience and leadership which he used in a very negative way and because of him public opinion of Congress in very low (has always been but now more). Same with Cunningham, after a while he went downhill. With term limits we would have gotten rid of someone like him. Again, I could be wrong too.

and Boxer, too.

I have no position on term limits because I do not really know all of the pros and cons. Seems to em that tehre are pros and cons for both arguments.

I never knew that Ohio had term limits(I am a transplant here from Texas), but I can tell you that the Ohio legislature is repressive, stupid, and totally out of touch with Ohioans (as I perceive it). I cannot speak for Florida.

The argumnt above that loss of leadership and experience leads to increased lobbyist involvemnt (and I would argue "handler" involvemnt, as well) seems valid.

Perhaps th problem lies not with term limits, but with lobbyists themselves. Perhaps we should fix the lobbying problem and then see if term limits are a necessity.

I am, of course, very glad that the Presidency has a term limit, and will be even more glad in 2008.

A lot of long term councilmembers--experienced pragmatic politicians--were driven out of office and the Republicans have been partisanizing our city elections ever since (Houston's City Councilmembers are elected on nonpartisan ballots). The thing is, while we had mostly liberals on the council, no one was ever entirely sure where a council member could go on a given issue because they were more free to re-think strategies for fixing problems. There were also a few fairly conservative members, even in city-wide positions, but they still tended to be thoughtful, process-oriented, and not easily pidgeon-holed on issues because municipal government can be extremely unideological. So even the conservatives ended up being the good guys.

Now the longest anyone can serve is six years--and it shows. There's always going to be a few stand-out go getters on the council, but the raw number of airheads, hardcore ideologues, career hotdogs, born followers, and outright flakes has been dramatically increased. Before term limits only about 3 or 4 of the 14 councilmembers were what you'd call benchwarmers and/or crooks. Now I'd say close to half of them are deadweights who don't really understand how city government works.

If you did that on the state level in a big state like Texas or California, the bureaucracy and the chambers of commerce would run the show, rather than just being competing power interest groups as Madison intended. If you did it nationally, I think lobbyists and ideologues would become even more powerful. But you might stand a better chance of reducing the deficit. Maybe.

Besides that, they get elected to their final term in November, swore in the first week of January and by the end of the week announce they're running for some other office and are out campaigning for the March primary and then usually running til November. If they win in November, a special election is called to fill out the second year of the term they basically threw the towel in on the previous January.

This is not an "possible scenario". It happens almost without fail, with every single term limited office holder in Houston. It's a friggin game of musical chairs.

I guess too short terms seem worse. I was thinking something like 2 - 6 year terms but for Washington and not at the local level. 12 years is a lot of time IMO, maybe 3 terms.

The terms for city council are two years and I don't recall if it's two terms or three. It's hard to distinquish, because the same people are running forever, but for different offices. First a district council, then at-large council, then there are the offices (with different lengths and numbers of terms) of treasurer, comptroller, tax assessor, justice of the peace, county commissioner, you name it. Then also, they go for state rep seats, state senate seats. They're still always in office and usually at the same time, running for different offices. You can't tell whose where without a program. It's a mess!!! As Bucky said, we use to have some damn fine people in office and if they weren't they got voted out. Now the apathetic voter just shrugs, cause in two terms they'll be out. It's fair to give a pass on one term, cause it takes more than two years to be really effective, but just when you become effective, you're out.

Really. Maybe term limits won't help in local politics but only at National level, I don't know anymore. :D :hangover:

It was all a "get back at Whitmire" thing, whom the fundies hated because she supported gay rights. She did an excellent job as mayor, and then got voted out after five terms. The thing is, of course, that she got voted out. People get tired of politicians and the elections process handles that. I agree with term limits for presidents--but that's because of the imperial presidency that's evolved beyond what the constitution intended. At the local level, it's just a cause of mischief.

(For non-Houstonians--he won the election against Mayor Whitmire.) Then, after he'd served his terms, he changed his mind. But nobody was buying.

The new system has given us wonders like Sherry Sekula-Gibbs. Formerly merely annoying, she's been making Far Right noises--hoping to replace Tom DeLay on the ballot. (Heh!) She's become very anti-immigrant--hoping people will forget she first got on the Council by running as Sherry Sekula-Rodriguez.

Term limits are, by and large, a stalking horse for corporate campaign donors. They would drive the cost of campaigning way way up. I'd rather see a way of outlawing gerrymandering--that would limit terms by a far more democratic process

but I'm not too sure about the story of nobody knowing what they're doing, and don't know how to write legislation.

Do you honestly think your Rep. writes his own legislation? I don't! Even when lobbyists don't write it, I'm positive it's written by legal staffers. Sure, it's done to accoplish what the Rep. wants, or at least thinks he/she wants, but these folks done actually write it!

As to knowing what they're doing, that's why you hire staffers who do!

I must admit though, that I would like to see districts designed strictly by census data and NEVER touched by either Party! Bring back the "I wonder who's going to win" elections again....PLEASE!

Let them live under the rules they make for the rest of us.

Some people complain that government will lose experience, that lobbyists will write the laws. Well, then, let them run again for another office, or even for their old one. After sitting out a term or two as a private citizen.

If the rookies refused to vote for laws they didn't understand, or understand the need for, perhaps us peons could understand the laws, too.

A bunch of well bought rookies can do to a state.

Now, complete public financing for campaigns is something I could support.

system that crooks cannot game.

Do they become unemployed and wait around for the next person to be term limited out? Move to a new district? Maybe open a flower shop while they wait or take up basketweaving? No, if they were good, they'll say screw it and we lose. If they were puppets, they'll become lobbyists and manipulate the next round of candidates.

they get their hand caught in the cookie jar.

they shouldn't have any trouble. Anyway that's their problem. they should plan for it going in.

By definition people and politicians are not equal. JFK and Quayle were each in the senate. If JFK had decided to stay there, is he worthy of only 2 or 3 terms maximum, same as Quayle?

Term limits are also a submission to fear. We ridicule those who vote for Bush due to pure fear so why are we championing a rule change based on fear?

internet or telephone or whatever. We can run our own country. We don't need these corporate lackys spending our money.

One comment was let them serve nine years then take out back an shot them. I don't believe that but some of the people serving their terms are crooks like Hastert Frist and others

substantive value to make American's lives better within a ten year frame, then fuck them. Get the hell out of D.C.

I think like a 2 - 6 year term (12 years). If they want to run again after the 12 years, they have to wait a full 6 year term before running again after their 12 years. If they really want to run, they can wait, and if people really want them the would vote for them.

actually does make Americans' lives better, don't we want them to stay and continue their good work?

I say 3 terms and you're out..

Look at Ted Stevens... the guys been in there for TOO long!

There is a difference in the bodies. The House would then have people who clearly reflect their state as they would have had a relatively short time in the House. The number of terms should be high enough that the most senior people would have learned what they need to know to be accomplished in their jobs and in their leadership roles. (Maybe 10 years)
The Senate was designed to be a more statesmanlike body and wisdom often comes from experience and dedication. (There are people like Norm Coleman and Jeff Sessions who will NEVER become statesman). There is a value to people like Byrd, who over the years has seen who the interpretation of the Constitution has changed.

I have watched Kerry more than any other Senator. The amount of knowledge he brings to the SFRC on foreign affairs is awesome. Obama, who is new on the committee is brilliant and eloquent, but he doesn't yet have that breath of knowledge. The same think can be seen on the Finance and Commerce committees. On the small business committee, he is the ranking member and is responsible for much that get proposed. I would think keeping this body with no term limits is best.

Thank you so much for your knowledge for I am very new to politics.

I guess term limits are a tricky subject. We must reduce the influence of lobbyst but we have to weed out those who only listen to special interest.

I love the fact that we all have different ways to see things but are able to work together. THANKS DU!!

They pledged to limit their committee chairmanships to just three terms. I don't know how well they followed thru on that in 2001 when the class of '95 chairmanships should have expired. I imagine at least a few hung onto their power any way. Certainly Hastert has presided over the House for more than six years now and no one is saying it's time for him to rotate in office. Of course Gingrich was careful never to include the speakership in the call for rotation of chairmanships.

Plain and simple- why punish effective legislators who get sent back to Washington year after year? They should be rewarded if their constituents keep sending them.

1) Less corporate media control. Almost everything we read, see, and hear is produced by 5 major media companies. Just 50 years ago, there were about 50 different companies. Also, we need to protect the Internet from a corporate takeover. (I think the Internet is helping with the problem of corporate media control.)

2) Public financing of elections, including the primary elections. Of course, billionaires could still out-spend, but if the public financing were sizeable enough, then elections would be fairer. Some people worry about the expense of public funding, but considering the huge waste in our government (i.e. 500 billion for crazy wars and out-dated military equipment that serves the military-industrial complex), I think public financing would be a net savings, if we could get better representation.

With these 2 improvements, then people will have better info and more candidates to choose from, which will hopefully result in constituents voting out incumbents who did NOT represent their interest / values.

For lack of money, there are many seats that go uncontested. Also, there are many primary elections in which there is no primary challenger for the incumbent. We need a system which encourages a lot more competition. That would be the "free market", right? And we're told the "free market" is always good, right?

www.StopGlobalism.com       www.VOIDnow.org

two terms. However, the elections would have to be federally funded with limits on what others can contribute.

Ideally, the first term they would serve as representatives of the will of the power and the second term (if won) they would serve as delegates of the people.

Term limits will not stop lobbyist from influencing legislators; in fact, it make their influence greater, since every few terms you would have a newbie in the Congress who doesn't know how to play the game and would be ripe for the pickings (Joe Schmoe Goes To Washington).

Also, it bleeds the Congress dry of experienced lawmakers, which I think would be a bad idea. Amatuer night at the Hill is not what we need.

If we want to stop lobbyist influence (i'm thinking in terms of contributions), there are ways to go about that. Start by reforming the tax code, so that businesses and other special interests cannot get tax breaks and other rewards through the tax code; make it simpler - I personally favor a graduated flat tax based on the five income quintiles (those in the lowest income quintile pay nothing and those in the highest income quintile pay the most).

Campaign finance reform is another step which must be included in any reforms. How to go about is something I'm not quite sure on yet.

The solution to the lobbyists is to remove the irrational, destructive concepts of "corporate person-hood" and money = speech.

It has been 230 years and we need to really be thinking about doing a constitutional convention to completely overhaul the bugs in Democracy v. 1.0, lets face it there are way too many problems right now and its left us with idiotic partisan bickering, which does not solve any problems.

I for example am starting to consider the idea of a modified parliamentary system. Rather then voting for a party (I would like us to do away with parties at some point) peoples votes would be the equivalent of a share of stock in the democratic republic, through a system of IRV the candidates in each race over x% of votes are all elected to office and their votes in congress = their total # of votes accumulated in an election.

This is just a quick summery of the concept, I have solutions to many of the problems people are probably thinking of right now. Its never been tried to my knowledge, but it would single handedly solve the spoiler problem, and the lack of representative democracy (these are really our two biggest problems in americas congress).

Also we should re-consider the existence of the executive branch.

if anything is to be carried out. How that executive is formed may be a matter of question, but it's existence should not be.