The Insight: Does Congress Need Term Limits?

The rest of the Insight is for Sustaining Members only.

Become a Sustaining Member

Already have a sustaining membership? Sign in

What are the pros and cons of term limits?

Left:

Center for American Progress: (Pro)

The lack of accountability for Justice Clarence Thomas’s corrupt behaviors due to the nature of a justice’s lifetime service highlights the need for term limits. But, this issue is systemic within the supreme court. The lifelong appointment to the court cultivates dishonesty and a gap between the American people and the justices. Their appointments don’t reflect the contemporary political trends, which is the voice of the public, because they were already appointed. More regular turnover, as a result of time limits, would allow for justices to have experiences and perspectives that align with the current American public. Additionally, instituting term limits could foster stricter compliance to higher honest and moral standards.

Brookings: (Cons)

Although term limits in congress are popular because they’re thought to break the impasse with new ideas and representatives, there remain issues with it. Firstly, at times term limits can prevent voters from choosing a representative they like because the representative might have served up to the limit already. Additionally, term limits might create a congress with inexperienced officials being elected because of the regular turnover. Effective policy requires diligent and experienced politicians, which could be at stake. The more someone does something, the better they become at it. Not allowing for capable and popular politicians to run simply because they maxed out on their time in congress is a disservice to the American people. Many term limit proponents wrongly argue that term limits prevent corruption, but a 2006 study shows that inexperienced lawmakers are more likely to rely on lobbyists and special interests to compensate for their inexperience. Finally, term limits would create a larger number of people that serve in congress, making it that there’s more former elected officials in lobbyist firms and other lucrative exit opportunities.

Right:

The Heritage Foundation: (Pro)

Most Americans support term limits as they ensure that elected officials address their constituents' top issues effectively. If not, they would lose their next election. The main opposers of term limits are incumbent politicians and their special interests. Politicians and corporate interests would rather not be held accountable, which term limits force them to do. In the 15 states that referendums were held, term limits were widely supported and voted for, gaining 66% of voters' support. 18 other states and hundreds of local governments have instituted term limits to hold their elected officials accountable. They also expand the perspectives in congress, perhaps helping create a more efficient and productive congress. Term limits in congress would prevent elected officials from being too intimate with Washington institutions and elites, closing the gap between politicians and their constituents. Finally, term limits would transform congress from a place of political elites to impermanent representatives.

American Enterprise Institute: (Cons)

People like the idea of term limits because Americans view congress in a negative light. Term limits give them hope that they can reelect different, perhaps better, people to represent them. People that support term limits think that they would help to bring new perspectives to congress, prevent the elitist career politicians, and reduce the effectiveness of lobbyist groups. However, term limits would make elected officials more reliant and susceptible to lobbyists and outside groups since they lack expertise and experience.

Do we risk making rookie lawmakers entirely dependent on seasoned lobbyists just to draft basic legislation?

Yes and no. Some research suggests term limits could increase lawmakers’ reliance on lobbyists and other outside experts to draft legislation, however supporters of term limits argue it’s an opportunity to bring in new perspectives and help offset an already existing dependence on model legislation.

Concerns over whether we risk losing industry knowledge and expertise aren’t entirely unfounded; a 12-year study of Michigan state found that term limits weakened institutional checks and balances and increased lobbyist influence. Similarly, Brookings Institute (Center) argued that term limits could hinder congressional capacity to draft legislation as it’s “a learned skill” where “experience matters.”

While industry knowledge matters, some reports raise the question of how much lawmakers already rely on outside expertise to help craft legislation – with or without term limits. In 2019, USA Today (Lean Left), The Arizona Republic (Center) and the Center for Public Integrity found that thousands of state bills were based on model legislation from outside organizations and corporations rather than being written from scratch. Former Texas representative Sherri Greenberg said this model legislation has “flourished” as Congressional gridlock forced special interest groups to look to states to get things done.

Proponents of term limits have argued that the learning curve for newer lawmakers may be mitigated by increased institutional support and stronger transparency measures. However, these lawmakers might not include ambiguous enough loopholes in legislation, which Brookings noted are often left behind by more experienced lawmakers.

Ultimately, the question of losing expertise comes down to how much of the policymaking work do existing congressional members already do? And is it better to have industry expertise in the legislation process or is the initial learning curve for newer lawmakers worth it to bring new perspectives and reduce long-held relationships between Congress and lobbyists?