Term Limits Reconsidered

Washington Post columnist Dana Millbank wrote a piece about disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's appearance before a group of campaign finance reform activists. Abramoff has now fashioned himself into a truth-telling reformer.

It's a good column. A sample:

Consider his argument for term limits, for example. “I was against that as a lobbyist,” he said. “Frankly, I was against it because once you buy a congressional office you don't want to have to repurchase that office a few years down the line.” And the longer lawmakers remain on the job, he argued, the more likely they are to have a price tag: “Most people start slipping into a corrupt - they fall into the miasma.”

I've been thinking about term limits lately. The Millbank column, and an exchange between frequent commenters Lori Morris and Todd Johnson under my post Monday about Gov. Branstad's potential to seek a sixth term reminded me of the issue again. And no, it's not  because I want to target any particular politician.

I was once strongly opposed to term limits, believing that it should be up to voters to decide who stays and goes. We don't need automatic mechanisms to improve democracy, we need engagement.

I still think that. But I've also started to wonder about the possible advantages of limiting terms.

There's the threat of corruption, as Abramoff outlines. He oughta know. Although I'm under no illusion that term limits would magically make politicians pure as the driven snow. Presidents are term limited, and I don't see much evidence that influence buyers have been deterred from pouring oceans of cash into presidential campaigns. President Obama is now going full super PAC.

Actually, my reconsideration of term limits mostly stems from watching political institutions that seem profoundly broken, especially at the federal level, and where very little of significance gets done. Maybe if politicians' time in office was shortened, they might feel more compelled to accomplish something, or at least less compelled to avoid doing something for fear of losing a sweet, sweet gig. Perhaps one answer to our perpetual election campaign is to make a political career only temporary.

I suppose that's naive. Lobbyists, after all, aren't subject to term limits. Neither are many bureaucrats. And perhaps short terms would make some politicians work even more feverishly to cash in before time's up. This sort of thing is like Whack-a-Mole. Whack one mole and another pops up.

I don't really have a specific proposal. But I think the concept is worth reconsidering. I'm interested what you think.