One of the politicians I feel like least represents me happens to be my own senator. Mike Lee has been a senator for fifteen years- nearly my entire living memory! I’ve endured his comments comparing Trump to Captain Moroni, insensitive comments after Melissa Hortman’s assassination, and watched him try to sell off public lands before a huge bipartisan backlash. Term limits would prevent Mike Lee from running for Senator again. As tempting as this sounds, term limits won’t solve the problems of representation. Rather, they would equip outsiders with unintended power, impede government efficiency, and increase the executive branch’s power. Term limits are wildly popular among the American public on both sides of the aisle. A staggering 87% of Americans think that there should be Congressional term limits [1]. I argue, however, that imposing Congressional term limits would cause more problems than it would solve.
Lobbyists now have minimal sway over legislative decisions, but term limits could give them unintended power. Many Americans view Washington and American politics in general as corrupted by lifetime politicians and lobbyists. Lobbying has a bad reputation in American politics, but this is often unjustified. One large-scale study found that the amount of money spent on lobbying had no effect on policy outcomes [2]. Many also argue that lobbying helps members of Congress be more effective, as they can write specialized legislation. Lobbying also has negative effects, as it can prop up well-funded groups and drown out grassroots movements. Term limits, however, would give lobbyists and other outsiders more power [3]. New members of Congress will be inexperienced and eager to use these groups that have extensive experience within the legislative system. Further, members of Congress with a clear end of their political career in sight may over-utilize lobbyists to line up their next job. While I don’t think the current presence of lobbying in Washington is overly concerning, imposing term limits could equip lobbying groups with unintended influence.
Lobbyists wouldn’t be the only people vying for increased legislative power. The President would be too. The legislative branch should be the most powerful of all the branches of government. The description of the legislative branch's roles is longer and more detailed in the Constitution compared to the other two branches. The Federalist papers move beyond an inference of intention when No. 51 says, “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates [4].” The power of the executive, however, has grown substantially since the founding. Experienced members of Congress are a check on the executive branch, and know, at least somewhat, how to legislate. If term limits are imposed, Congress would be less equipped to check the power of the executive. The power of the executive has largely grown at the permission of Congress through delegated powers. The temptation to hand off power to the president may become stronger if members of Congress are less experienced and more overwhelmed with learning the ropes. Expanded presidential power, combined with greater lobbyist influence, could significantly undermine the power of the legislative branch. In states with term limits on state legislatures, the reform “increase[d] the power of the executive branch (governors and the bureaucracy) over legislative outcomes.” As the informational advantage decreases for members of Congress, the President’s power over legislation increases [5].
Congress, and government generally, are slow-moving. This isn’t all bad. Slow change means that democracy can’t be dismantled overnight, and citizens don’t get whiplash every change of administration. The American government was intentionally structured this way by the founders. Government efficiency is still important, however. I certainly don’t think Congress does a great job currently at working on the important issues, but term limits would further impede government efficiency. It is difficult to learn the ropes of Congress, build relationships with other members, specialize in a committee, and write good legislation. Like any other profession, time and experience help members of Congress get better at their job. Our last congress was one of the most unproductive in history, but term limits won’t spur productivity. One reason for Congress 118’s limited efficiency was the polarization that existed among the parties in the House and Senate. This isn’t surprising. When bipartisanship is abandoned, fewer bills are passed. Term limits won’t solve this problem of polarization, and it might make it worse. One study found that term limits imposed within state legislatures resulted in higher levels of polarization, as measured by ideological gaps in the voting records of Republicans and Democrats [6]. Policymaking happens through negotiation, compromise, and coordination. Long-term relationships can help this process. Term limits demotivate elected officials from making concessions and building relationships for strategic, forward-looking connections with other members of Congress.
The 87% of Americans who want term limits, however, should not be ignored [1]. But this statistic is getting at something deeper than just term limits. It tells me that 87% of Americans are dissatisfied with how Congress currently works. I don’t totally blame them. Our current Congress is one of the least productive ones in American history. An almost identical statistic shows that 86% of Americans think that Congress is more focused on fighting each other, rather than solving problems. There are other policy alternatives that could constructively alter the status quo. While these also carry their own risks, more closed-door sessions could allow members of Congress to speak more freely and cooperate without the pressure of performing for tomorrow’s Tik Tok. Banning stock trading is another alternative that could create positive change in Congress. I agree that there are problems to be solved in Congress, but term limits won’t fix them. The problems with Congress we all loathe, however, could be exacerbated by the revolving door that term limits would create.
