Any Basis? Term Limits and Special Interests

[INRM]

I've heard an argument that term limits would make people more vulnerable to special interest groups. I personally think this is nonsensical, but what do others think?

 

[theprestige]

If a politician is prohibited from securing another term in office, then he has a powerful incentive to acquire as much bribery dollars as possible during his current term. Thus his greed makes him more vulnerable to special interests.

 

[The Don]

If a politician is prohibited from securing another term in office, then he has a powerful incentive to acquire as much bribery dollars as possible during his current term. Thus his greed makes him more vulnerable to special interests.

As opposed to gradual accumulation of bribes over a much longer time

At least term limits mean that the politician will become a lobbyist after a limited time and will be able to collect the big $$$$s

 

[JJM 777]

If a politician is prohibited from securing another term in office, then he has a powerful incentive to acquire as much bribery dollars as possible during his current term. Thus his greed makes him more vulnerable to special interests.

In a system where politicians have the power to do contrary to what they promised to voters under elections, bribery is an obvious temptation. The system is rotten no matter how you look at it.

 

[Ryokan]

In a system where politicians have the power to do contrary to what they promised to voters under elections, bribery is an obvious temptation. The system is rotten no matter how you look at it.

Indeed, democracy is the worst way to govern a country. Except for all the other ways..



Paraphrasing Churchill.

 

[Drachasor]

Indeed, democracy is the worst way to govern a country. Except for all the other ways..



Paraphrasing Churchill.

Some democracies are better than others.

In a system where politicians have the power to do contrary to what they promised to voters under elections, bribery is an obvious temptation. The system is rotten no matter how you look at it.

You can have laws against bribery.

However, when a politician needs to raise as much money as possible to run for election or re-election, and special interests, particularly big corporations, can do a lot to raise money, then bribery becomes institutionalized for everyone.

I don't really think a lack of term limits is a problem at all. If anything, term limits are a big problem inherently, since they removed people with a lot of experience from the field. They don't do anything to minimize corruption.

 

[JJM 777]

Bribery is so fully institutionalized that you can publish in newspapers stories of election candidates receiving bribes donations from billionaires, and neither of these is charged for what they are participating in.

And the IMF can march into any country and offer bribes economical incentives to assure the local politicians that certain new policies or economical laws are necessary.

 

[Mark6]

Bribery is so fully institutionalized that you can publish in newspapers stories of election candidates receiving bribes donations from billionaires, and neither of these is charged for what they are participating in.

However, that institutionalized/legal bribery is useless to a term-limited politician who cannot run for another term. The only bribes he can benefit from are those which can get him jailed. If he is really greedy he will still take them, but not all politicians are. (Actually I would say most politicians are greedy for power, not money.) So term limits make a politician less vulenrable to special interests, not more.

 

[Kestrel]

I've heard an argument that term limits would make people more vulnerable to special interest groups. I personally think this is nonsensical, but what do others think?

In almost every profession, we understand that expertise is developed over time. So why do we believe that anyone can walk off the street and craft legislation that will create effective public policy?

 

[Dancing David]

to the OP
The more time in office the more subtle bribes your can receive and the greater the amount, so no.

Now do special intrests influence elections, yes. Will this get worse, yes.

 

[Drachasor]

However, that institutionalized/legal bribery is useless to a term-limited politician who cannot run for another term. The only bribes he can benefit from are those which can get him jailed. If he is really greedy he will still take them, but not all politicians are. (Actually I would say most politicians are greedy for power, not money.) So term limits make a politician less vulenrable to special interests, not more.

Said person needs a JOB after their term limits come up. They can be bribed far more directly and more effectively by being offered a high-paying job after everything goes down. It makes them tremendously more susceptible to bribes since they MUST find a job whereas the career politician can take comfort in knowing he can just keep doing what he has been doing.

I am a little amused you think having lots of money is somehow not also having power.

 

[pipelineaudio]

In almost every profession, we understand that expertise is developed over time. So why do we believe that anyone can walk off the street and craft legislation that will create effective public policy?

Expertise at what though? And is that really the goal? I always thought the goal in the american system was to limit the power of government as much as possible while getting the basic jobs done. Experienced congressweasles do the opposite. They dont get anything important done, yet continue to limit our freedoms

 

[Drachasor]

Expertise at what though? And is that really the goal? I always thought the goal in the american system was to limit the power of government as much as possible while getting the basic jobs done. Experienced congressweasles do the opposite. They dont get anything important done, yet continue to limit our freedoms

Limitation of power is through checks and balances, not incompetence.

In general incompetence doesn't limit power, it just makes power get exercised in bad ways.

The problem with our current Congress has nothing to do with their experience, and everything to do with institutionalized bribery. This would not get any better with term limits, and would possibly get even worse.

 

[jayh]

In almost every profession, we understand that expertise is developed over time. So why do we believe that anyone can walk off the street and craft legislation that will create effective public policy?

One of the expertises that develops is milking the system. And the primary function starts to become keeping the gravy train rolling.

Expertise in dealing with law does not need to come from being in office for a long time, indeed, for a lawmaker, being open to consult people with expertise is probably a much more important skill.

Interestingly, the term limits on the president are largely accepted across the political spectrum as a good idea ... why should other elected positions be different?

 

[Drachasor]

One of the expertises that develops is milking the system. And the primary function starts to become keeping the gravy train rolling.

Expertise in dealing with law does not need to come from being in office for a long time, indeed, for a lawmaker, being open to consult people with expertise is probably a much more important skill.

Interestingly, the term limits on the president are largely accepted across the political spectrum as a good idea ... why should other elected positions be different?

Appeal to popularity. I don't buy that presidential term limits are a good idea.

The only reason term limits seem good right now is because our government is pretty corrupt and captured by special interests and particularly corporations. Term limits wouldn't fix that, and if anything would make reform harder by tying congressmen to corporations even more strongly. All you would get is more easily bribed and controlled men and women in office.

Also note: Plenty of governments do well without term limits.

 

[Chaos]

If a politician is prohibited from securing another term in office, then he has a powerful incentive to acquire as much bribery dollars as possible during his current term. Thus his greed makes him more vulnerable to special interests.

On the other hand, with term limits, offices change hands more often, meaning that more people need to be bought, meaning that bribery becomes more expensive.

 

[Drachasor]

On the other hand, with term limits, offices change hands more often, meaning that more people need to be bought, meaning that bribery becomes more expensive.

But they can be more thoroughly bought with the promise of a job after their term is up. Note people in charge of regulation who then go into the industry they were regulating after they retire from politics. Yeah, captured regulators in ACTION. Really, term limits just given corporations a lot more options in how to go about things and in how to make what they do look fine -- retirement is less suspicious if the person must retire from that office.

New people also know less about how bills work, and can be more easily tricked or convinced into passing a large complicated bill that's been written or adjusted by special interests. Heck, a lot of the stuff that gets passed now the actual men and women of congress don't have time to read fully (especially in the House).

In the end, all this really does is avoid fixing the actual problem which is best fixed by starting with removing special interest and corporate money from elections. That would produce a far more profound and significant change.

 

[INRM]

Drachasor

Could a law be passed that would prohibit a politician from joining a corporation or a lobby-group for say at least 5 years that would be considered constitutional?

 

[FattyCatty]

I'm one of those who abhors term-limits, including Presidential. A politician's term should be limited by the voters, if he deserves to be voted out of office. When legislated term limits come in, my right to vote for the representative of my choice goes out the window. Something else that this country mandates that I think is unconstitutional. And it really burns me.

I think that the advantages of bribery are greater for limited-term politicians than they are for politicians who can remain in office indefinitely (if they please their constituents and don't get caught committing a crime). Not only bribes in the present, but bribes for future employment.

For INRM, here is some information from Post-Employment, “Revolving Door,” Laws for Federal Personnel, a CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress:

<snip>

Legislative Branch

Changes in the rules of the House and Senate have been adopted in 2007 regarding negotiations for future private employment by Members and certain staff. In the Senate, the general rule is that Senators may not begin private employment negotiations, or have arrangements for subsequent private employment, until their successors have been elected.³⁶ In the House, the general rule is that Members may not begin private employment negotiations, or have arrangements for subsequent private employment, while still serving in the House.³⁷<snip>

Legislative Branch—Representational Activities

The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 added post-employment restrictions for Members and certain senior congressional staffers, effective January 1, 1991, and these have been amended by the lobbying and ethics reform legislation, titled the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.”⁴² Under the criminal provisions of this statutory law, individuals who were Members of the House are prohibited from “lobbying” or making advocacy communications on behalf of any other person to current Members of either House of Congress, or to any legislative branch employee, for one year after the individual leaves Congress. Members of the Senate are prohibited from similar post-employment advocacy, but for a period of two years after leaving the Senate.<snip>
________________________________
<snip>
³⁶ Senate Rule XXXVII, para. 12(a).
³⁷ House Rule XXVII, cl. 1 (P.L. 110-81, Sections 301 and 532), as amended by H.Res. 5, 111th Congress.
³⁸ Senate Rule XXXVII, para. 12(b). “Lobbying activities” referred to are those defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, and thus would include behind-the-scenes advice and assistance to support “lobbying contacts.” See 2 U.S.C. § 1602(7).
³⁹ House Rule XXVII, cl. 4.
⁴⁰ Senate Rule XXXVII, para. 12(a); House Rule XXVII, cl. 4.
⁴¹ Senate Rule XXXVII, para. 12(c); House Rule XXVII, cl. 2.
⁴² P.L. 110-81, September 14, 2007.
<snip>

 

[INRM]

FattyCatty

1.) If a Congressman and Senator cannot negotiate or make arrangements for subsequent private employment: Why does it still happen?

2.) What kind of post employment restrictions are there on Congressmen and Senators?