Is there anyone who does not support term limits?

I personally like the idea of term limits. I saw it mentioned somewhere one six year term for a senator and 3 terms for congress.

Yes sorry Superpacs. Right they are a symptom of a problem with campaign finance which stems from citizens united.

I do not support term limits.

This is my proposal:

Campaign finance reform as such:

Limit individual contributions to $500,000 per person per election cycle (1 million total allowed for primary and general election per person).

Candidates can only accept money from a living breathing united states citizen-- subject to above limit. Candidates that represent a district (state,local,federal office) can ONLY accept contributions from some on in that district. Senators can only accept contributions from citizens of that state.

Entity advertising (PAC’s, political parties, businesses, anything that is not a person) can spend whatever they want. However they may not use the name or likeness of ANY political candidate or person in office. They may do issue oriented advertising ONLY.

Remove political affiliation next to candadates on the ballot and no straight party voting.

Then you will find out if a politician has support of the people they are elected to represent.

Term limits are inherently anti-democratic. They are the easy way out for people who are disinclined to do the difficult work for themselves of voting career politicians out of office.

I see no reason why people should be proscribed from voting for their preferred candidate simple because he or she has too much experience.

While I agree with you in theory.

In practice a think that fails because most people don’t know or follow politics. I bet you if you poled people a huge majority couldn’t name thier own congressman and the two state senators.

If everyone was as active in politics as people from both sides on this board, then I don’t think term limits would be necessary.

Since we have never had term limits on members of Congress there is no frame of reference to compare things on.

I am not a proponent of term limits.

Should a president only be allowed to serve two terms? And regarding their so-called “experience”, how is it a person getting their ass-kissed by lobbyists and others for many years make them better at being a representative of their community?

Would you say that term limits are more popular with conservatives than liberals?

Because it allows them to actually get things done for their community.


PACS didn’t exist before the ruling?

I don’t know. Probably. I doubt they’re popular either party’s politicians.

So in theory then if you are correct, communities that have had long serving members of Congress are doing better than communities that have had more turnover. Got any statistics to support that?

This is the issue here.

Why are term limits “necessary” at all?

What goal are you seeking to implement that is “failing” because of the unwashed masses?

Not with the politicians, most want to stay in till they drop dead, I meant voters - the people.

:rofl: yes, they have become a class unto themselves.

Voters - the people - are the ones who keep re-electing their representatives.

Term limits are essentially a mechanism for denying the will of the people, because you think you know better.

If I were to implement term limits, it would be like this:

  1. Some term. (Not so important to me what the term is. Or whether it’s measured in years or terms.)
  2. If you are limited out of your seat, you must sit out for one full term.
    2a) You can run for any other office if you are limited out of a given position.
  3. You can run as the non-incumbent once your “time-out” is complete.
  4. If you win again, you can stay in again for the full term-limit time.

This removes the advantage of running as an incumbent perpetually. If people put you back in again, it’s a statement that they really want you there.

The term he should have used is “statesman”.