United States Congress M3D

The existence of professional politicians who serve many legislative terms has been challenged in the U.S. as contrary to representative democracy. During the 2016 presidential campaign, for example, Donald Trump called for term limits for Congress. Term limits was a widely discussed issue in the early 1990s, and support for term limits contributed to the end of the congressional career of Tom Foley, who was Speaker of the House at the time. Term limits, the argument goes, would disrupt the influence of special interests, since members of Congress often rely on and form relationships with of lobbyists who enjoy undue influence in the legislative process, and enable a wider variety of people to serve.

Others argue that expertise in Congress is important to local needs and governing. For example, as federal programs have grown, constituents – including voters, local businesses, advocacy groups, and educational institutions – look to their representatives and senators to assist them in navigating programs and services. At the same time, the election cycle and increasingly expensive campaigns contribute to “permanent campaigns,” with members always focusing on fund raising and maintaining relations with special interests.

Thinking about congressional service, consider the possible effect of term limits. For example, would members be better able to carry out their legislative duties if their time in office was limited? Would constituents be harmed or benefit from such a change? Would it reduce the influence of ‘big money’ in the election process? Would you favor “citizen legislators,” representatives who take time out from their regular employment to serve a limited number of terms in Congress? Why or why not?

Please post a response of at least 250-275 words, and a short response to one of your fellow students.

ANSWER

Term Limits on Congressional Service

Members of congress would carry out their legislative duties better if they had a limited time in office. Currently, members of congress know they have a lot of time in congress, which might make them relax on the job as they believe they can always run. However, if they have limited time, they have a few years to make an impact and, thus, have to utilize the time they have to ensure they leave a legacy that pleases them (Loomis & Schiller, 2018). Such a change would do more good than it would harm the constituents. Constituents would benefit from a time limit of congress members as they would be forced to focus on their duties which are serving the public within the short time provided to them.

Having a limited time in congress will also reduce the influence of big money in the election process. This is because if congress people have limited terms, big money will not continue using their money to keep the same congress people who serve their interests in congress. One of the major reasons that big money has so much influence in the election process is because they keep supporting the same candidates, especially those who serve in their best interest and not that of the citizens. I would favor citizen legislators who take them out of their regular employment and services for a limited number of terms in congress. This is because citizen legislators are in touch with the needs of the community. They know the problems that they face, and thus, within the limited terms, they would have a chance to make a difference. Congress needs more people who are in touch with reality, such as citizen legislators.

References

Loomis, B. A., & Schiller, W. J. (2018). The contemporary congress. Rowman & Littlefield.