As an avid supporter of term limits, I have addressed this subject in this column many times over the years and have received some valid and sensible opposition to my opinion.
The basic counter argument is that the bi-yearly or quad-yearly elections serve as term limits, as the voters have a chance to replace any candidate, but if they are doing a good job for their state, congressional district or whatever, why should they be removed from office just because they have served a prescribed amount of terms?
Well, one rebuttal is fairly obvious and the other more obscure. We will explore both.
The obvious one is, at least in my view, the system was not designed for career politicians who become so entrenched, so jaded and so out of touch with their constituency, so influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups, that they develop a serious case of self-serving tunnel vision. Many times they are in lock step with their party to the detriment of those they’re elected by, who would be so much better served to remove that person and replace them with somebody fresh out of society who is actually in touch with what is happening at the street level now, not twenty years ago.
The only time most of these old mossbacks go back home is at election time or to participate in some media heavy event, or attend the funeral of a prominent person.
Before we take away the option of supporting someone I’d rather try other things to improve the situation.
Personally I’d like to see legislation that mandates that within 6 months after the conclusion of an election ALL unused campaign contributions be returned to those who made the donation based upon a percentage of the total or handed over to their state treasury. This should eliminate much of the outright bribery that goes on between politicians.