Term limits' effects on congressional member behavior and corruption

¶ … Limits have on the Behavior of the Members of Congress?

Over the years, the issue of term limits (on the national level) has been increasingly brought to the forefront. This is because there is a commonly held belief that those individuals who are allowed to serve in office will become corrupted by the special interests. This is when they will use their seniority to enact pork barrel spending projects in their own districts. What makes this issue so challenging, is that many advocates of terms limits will point out: how the President of the United States and 15 states are subject to these kinds of restrictions.

Commenting about the impact of these limitations is the President of U.S. Term Limits (Phillip Blumenthal). They are the largest public watchdog on this issue. According to Blumenthal, there is a long-term positive effect of imposing term limits with him saying, "Term limits sever from time to time the natural comfortable tie between members and special interests in their district. They bring government closer to the people and improve citizen access to the process." This is illustrating how term limits will address many of the issues that are impacting Congress (i.e. The influences of the special interests). Once this takes place, is when the government is more responsive to the needs of the people.

However, despite the possible benefits many opponents will claim that imposing term limits will not have an effect on improving government. Instead, they believe that this will have a negative impact on the kinds of programs and services that are provided. A good example of this can be seen with observations from Norm Ornstein. He is a Congressional scholar and the author of the book the Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get it Back on Track. According to Ornstein, term limits will have little effect on reducing the influence of the special interests and making the government more responsive with him saying, "The experience in states, including California, has been negative: assembly members look to run for the state senate or Congress, Senators look for congressional seats, or lawmakers look out for cushy jobs in the private sector afterward, thus giving more power to the permanent staff. Bad idea."

This is illustrating how term limits may not have the positive benefits that many proponents are claiming. To fully understand both sides of the issue requires: comparing / contrasting states that have term limits, the pros / cons of implementing them and if they will be good for democracy on the national level. Together, these different elements will provide the greatest insights as to if the members of Congress will act differently (if they are imposed across the entire country).

Current States have Term Limits in Place

Like what was stated previously, there are currently 15 states that have implemented term limits on their Congressional officials. However, some have imposed term limits in regards to specific state offices such as: the Governor and the legislature. In this aspect, there are a total of 36 states that will utilize term limits on either: the state or national level. This is providing specific insights about how they are impacting the activities of elected officials.

The State of California is a blue print for term limits. This is because they were aggressively imposed during the 1990s, as a way to reduce the influence of the special interests during the political process. According to Basham (2001), the long-term effects of term limits have been positive for the state. What he found, after studying the impact on legislatures and councils, is that term limits created a number of changes inside the political establishment to include:

They stimulate electoral competition.

They allow non-traditional candidates the opportunity to run (i.e. women and minorities).

There is the elimination of the seniority system among elected officials.

They have weakened the influence of special interests and bureaucrats in the process.

There is an emphasis on implementing policies that will support limited amounts of government.

These factors are showing how term limits have changed the political culture inside California. As a result, many of the different elected officials are coming from non-traditional backgrounds.

A good example of this can be seen with Arnold Schwarzenegger running for two terms as the Governor. At the time, he was going up against the state's established candidates (who had years of experience working in government). Schwarzenegger made a commitment to taking a more balanced approach in addressing issues that are impacting the state (such as energy costs). When he was in office, many policies were enacted that took into account the views of environmentalists and specific industries inside the state. This led to the implementation of regulations to use alternate sources of energy in the future and reduce their dependency on fossil fuels. If there were not term limits in place, the special interests would have been able to push through programs that supported their agenda. The fact that they were imposed, meant that new candidates could emerge which had different ideas about government. This helped to create more balanced policies that addressed all of the different needs of stakeholders.

However, despite the positive benefits of term limits, California has seen its fair share of challenges. Most notably, the special interest groups have adapted to the new system and they are continuing to influence the actions of elected officials. Moreover, the legislature is having trouble creating a consensus among members about dealing with a host of issues. This is because there is no established leadership to help guide politicians (which will often result in limited policies that are not addressing the problems of citizens). When this happens, the government can become even more unresponsive to the needs of the people. The recent financial challenges facing the state with the budget, are illustrating how this lack of leadership is not addressing the most pressing problems.

Instead, the gridlock is causing the government's response to be less than expected. This places many communities and organizations that are dependent upon state funding in limbo every single year.

These factors are showing, how the issue of term limits has both positive and negative consequences on the states.

As a result, other states are reporting similar benefits and challenges associated with implementing term limits. A good example of this can be seen in the State of Arkansas. They have the strictest standards for elected officials in the nation. The long-term effect is that more African-Americans are serving in public office and in positions of power. This ensures that the interests of different stakeholders are taken into account.

However, a major challenge is that there is no effective leadership inside the legislature. This makes it difficult to create a consensus on bills and legislation. The reason why is because, politicians are often focused on working with representatives that share similar personal and professional interests. When incumbents are removed from the process, is the point that these relationships will be constantly changing. Over the course of time, this can lead to less amounts of legislation that will deal with important challenges that are impacting the state.

These elements are showing how across the country, there are both positive and negative effects from having term limits imposed.

Will Term Limits Benefit that Nation Over the Long-Term?

Term limits will address the current challenges that are impacting Congress most notably: the culture of entitlement and privilege that has been established. Over the short to medium term this will: reduce pork barrel spending, the size of the federal bureaucracy and it will improve the responsiveness of the government. The big challenge going forward, will be how Congress reacts once the special interest groups have adapted to these transformations. This is when they could begin influencing the process in a similar kind of manner as before. The only difference is they have adjusted their strategy to deal with these changes.

To prevent this, there needs to be some kind of stipulations that will limit the influence and access of special interest groups to elected officials. One possible strategy is to introduce term limits on a national level and then impose restricted amounts of contact with special interests for Congressional officials. If this kind of an approach is taken, it is will directly address the ability of these groups to adjust with these transformations. This will make it more difficult for them to gain any kind of benefits during the process.

When this takes place, it will ensure that term limits will break the culture of entitlement inside Congress. This will make elected officials more responsive to stakeholders and it is holding them accountable for their actions. It is at this point that there will be a transformation inside the political establishment. Therefore, term limits should be imposed on the national level with provisions that will restrict the influences of special interests during the process.