Campaign Crawlers
U.S. House Cleaning
Bonded term limits — a new way to throw the bums out.
As analysts continue to draw comparisons between the Republican Revolution in 1994 and brewing discontent with Democrats going into this year’s midterm elections, here’s another parallel to ponder: term limits.
Though seldom acknowledged by the Republican Party establishment, calls for term-limiting politicians have been a consistent undercurrent of the tea party movement. Activists are tired of professional politicians opening the barnyard door for special interests to feed at the stimulus trough — and equally tired of those incumbents spending half-a-century doing it. Short of voting the bums out, they see term limits as the next best option.
The same sentiment arose in 1994 when term limits became a core plank of the Contract With America. A year after re-taking Congress, Republicans tried to pass a constitutional amendment limiting lawmakers’ tenure in office to a 12-year maximum — six terms for representatives and two terms for senators. Aided by 40 Republicans who voted no, the amendment fell well short of the required two-thirds majority.
A few months later, the U.S. Supreme Court put an exclamation mark on the loss by ruling that states couldn’t impose term limits on federal officeholders. In the meantime, Republican enthusiasm sputtered as the GOP found itself the establishment party and tasted the sweetness of entrenched incumbency. For practical purposes, the movement died.
Could it make a comeback this year? It’s doubtful. Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, has introduced a constitutional amendment akin to the Republican Revolution version. It would limit representatives to three two-year terms and senators to three six-year terms. The proposal was relegated to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will die a quiet death with dignity.
Tea partiers gunning for a thorough congressional purge still have reason to hope — if not for mandatory term limits, at least the voluntary brand. Prompted by the wave of anti-establishment sentiment sweeping the nation, candidates are increasingly following in the footsteps of George Washington by self-limiting their tenure in office.
Bonded term limits are an innovative way of doing that. The Alliance for Bonded Term Limits, a national nonpartisan group based in North Carolina, is spearheading the effort. It encourages candidates vying for elected office to put their money where their mouth is by promising to stay in office a maximum of three terms or forfeit a hefty chunk of their net worth.
Five congressional candidates, all Republicans, have signed the pledge, and others are in the pipeline. “This is a politician’s word, integrity, and ethics on the line,” said alliance president John Skvarla.
The movement has the potential to pick up steam as November looms. Democrats’ fiasco-style government over the last two years, and Republicans’ disastrous years of governing leading up to 2006, inextricably link career politicians with a corruption that’s often blind to party and ideological identity. Vice tends to follow concentrated power more than anything else.
Not every long-time lawmaker is scandal-ridden, inept, or sleazy. But chances are higher they will be. Consider some of the longest serving: Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens, and Patrick Leahy. Need I write more?
Bonded term limits have the added benefit of cutting off any weasel room. Scores of Republicans have broken their term limit pledges over the years and paid no political price. Reneging on a pledge backed by hundreds of thousands of dollars would hurt far more.
The idea does have downsides. Principled statesmen would be limited in their impact and couldn’t stay in office as long as we’d like. Reforms would be needed to ensure lawmakers aren’t given cushy health-care plans and pensions after a short time in office.
Critics also see fundamental problems. Ambitious pols could just pony up the cash at the end of their three terms. In most cases, though, it’s doubtful they could be re-elected after reneging on such a monumental promise. At the very least, doing so would hand their opponents a ready-made attack ad.
Political dynamics in Washington make getting a term-limits constitutional amendment passed impossible. But if the movement can gain traction, bonded term limits would be a decent second-best option, and it might lead, one day, to more thorough reforms. Tea partiers should demand it.
About the Author
David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.
Deborah D | 3.11.10 @ 7:20AM
Very interesting, Mr. Bass. I plan to link to your article. I live in NC, and this would be good information to spread around. Bonded term limits sounds like an idea whose time has come.
Ken Benway | 3.18.10 @ 9:08PM
We at ABTL are pleased that you are interested in Bonded Term Limits. Please visit out website at bondedtermlimits.org , and join us on Twitter and Facebook, as well.
We are witnessing the equivalent of a Congressional coup d'état playing out in Washington, by Congressmen who have disengaged from the representative function, and from you and me.
Other commenters here express concern that bonded term limits may have limited impact. Certainly, this new concept of bonded term limits will reveal both strengths and pitfalls as it matures. But, it is a start, and a valid start by We The People at restoring citizen control of their legislature. In conjunction with other enabling concepts of self-governance, bonded term limits can play a central roll, while the long-term term limits amendment process unfolds ... and a long process that will be.
You all can help spread the ABTL word. Visit our site. Join us (no cost). Donate, if you see fit.
WalkingHorse| 3.11.10 @ 8:01AM
Bonded term limits appears on the surface a fine idea, provided enough candidates put themselves on the line. If only a small minority do so, it may well degenerate into a political suicide pact, leaving us with the bottom of an already rancid barrel.
John Navratil| 3.11.10 @ 3:31PM
That assumes the rancid would be re-elected. If the electorate develops a taste for this option, perpetual re-election would not be a foregone conclusion.
JimH| 3.11.10 @ 8:08AM
While I am sympathetic to term limits considering some of the entrenched montrosities now in office. There is a issue that needs to be considered. Have you ever seen the old British comedy show 'Yes Minister' ? It is about a well meaning, inexperienced elected government official who is largely led by the nose by a member of the permanent government. The danger is that if the term limits are too short the elected officials will be completely dependant upon the career government appointees. The best thing is to minimize governments intrusion into daily life.
Garyt| 3.11.10 @ 11:35AM
JimH, I agree with you when you say "The best thing is to minimize governments intrusion into daily life. " I'm guessing that you mean to restrict the amount of money that flows into Washington?
Errol Phillips| 3.12.10 @ 1:06AM
They don't make their killings through Salary. It's rewards after the fact for influence peddling during and after the Term.
Royl | 3.11.10 @ 8:37AM
Bonded term limits are a winner because they are voluntary. To make bonded limits even more appealing, why not the following?
1. Coherent with the constitutional article 2.1.7 concerning compensation of the POTUS, the salary of an elected representative (house or senate) shall never increase for an individual after s/he is first elected to that station in government.
2. If an elected representative attains a fourth term in that station, the total compensation shall be reduced to 50% of their original salary.
3. If an elected representative attains more than four terms in that station, the compensation shall be fixed at 20% of their original salary.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.11.10 @ 9:11AM
BULLCORN! (OR IN THE WORDS OF A FAMOUS CHINESE PHILOSOPHER, "That is the night-soil of a male oxx.")
Dammit! We the people have term limit authority right now. We just gotta' pay attention!
I AM NOW THIS MOMENT GOING TO MAKE A SINCERE REQUEST OF THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR EDITORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please set up a daily blog called "The American Scorekeeper".
1. That blog would have every elected congress critter's name and vote on anything coming across the floor of either House.
2. That blog would keep a running tally of those votes over the course of a critter's term.
The only thing that would need to be done then, is to force a recorded ballot on each vote in either House....make that a rule in both Houses. No more weasle voice votes.
We just gotta' pay attention, folks.
...Oh... let's force our critters to vote on reducing a percentage of permanent bureaucrats every year for five years.
Dan Hirsch| 3.11.10 @ 9:24AM
A candidate for office who voluntarily limits his time in office is probably one of the few we want in that office. One who won't may or may not be one we don't want in the office.
Big problem with any form of term limits, the other side, the lobbyist tenures are not limited. They'll know the ropes and levers of power far better than the office holders. The term limited incumbents will be perennially outfoxed by the lobbyists...Look at how school boards staffed with volunteers fare against the full-time professionals of the teachers' unions.
In God we trust,
Dan H.
Mason Bill| 3.11.10 @ 9:44AM
Here in Michigan we have had term limits on state lawmakers for a long time. Both the democrats and republicans {insert dime comments here} are banding together calling for an end to the practice. They claim that a lawmaker takes a few years to learn their job and then has to leave due to term limits. My answer to that has always been, "How long does it take to learn how to say NO!".
Albert Frevele| 3.11.10 @ 9:47AM
Term limits usually don't work. We have them in California and we still get the same old leftists. Indeed, the problem is arguably worse. There is a better way. Congress is composed of 435 Members of the House. Why? That's an average of almost 700,000 people per seat, assuming 300 million population. This is not representation. It is for all practical purposes a fiefdom. Instead of term limits, how about district size limits? The Constitution says districts can be no smaller than 30,000 people. Let's put an upper limit on them as well, at say 70,000. That would be almost 5000 members of the House. That would be true representation, not the garbage we have now. I am simply not represented in the House and never have been. Since I first voted in 1974, I have never voted for a successful House candidate. With smaller districts, campaign costs drop dramatically, and consequently so do divided loyalties, divided between the voters and big money sources for campaign funds. In a district of no more than 70,000 people, one could campaign literally door to door. No big money needed. And WE the People would actually have a voice, since our Rep would be beholden to US, not campaign donors. It is better that a Rep be a small fish in a large pool, than the big fish an a small pool that he is now. This would shift power away from government and back to the People. And, minority representation would increase simply from apportionment. No quotas needed. This would work, if only anyone would consider it. It is worth thinking about.
owyheewine| 3.11.10 @ 10:10AM
I recently read another device to reduce the number of lifers in congress. I would like to give credit to the originator, but I can't remember his name. His suggestion was even better. Don't impose term limits, but put a limit on pension accruals at 12 years. Since, in spite of pious words to the contrary, these guys are all about money, they will be forced into other lines of work. Granted a lot of them will be gunning for appointment plums, but at least they will be encouraged to park somewhere out of Congress.
chuck| 3.11.10 @ 10:49AM
We the people have the ability to term-limit any politician whenever we want. Did you elect a RINO? Then find a good conservative candidate to run against them in a primary. Is it easy? Hell no, but go to a National Cemetary and explain to those fine men there that you were too lazy to challenge an entrenched incumbent, so we pissed away their sacrifice.
We need to insist that our Representatives show basic respect for our founding documents.
1: Repel the 16th amendment, abolish the income tax and all existing taxes and institute the Fair Tax. The income tax is immoral, it basically enslaves you to the government. Do Feds own 40% of your life?
2: Repeal the 17th amendment. The Senate was set up as the state's representives to the federal government. The 17th amendment silenced the state's voices. Do you really think we would have all these unfunded mandates on the states if they still had a voice in the fed. gov.?
3: Force the federal government to divest itself of all land outside of Washington D.C. The feds should own no land in a sovereign state. That land belongs to the citizens out those states. Include all National Parks. The people of Arizona can run the Grand Canyon just fine.
4: Enforce the 10th amendment. 2/3 the federal spending is unconstitutional.
Enact those four measure, and we'll have our country back. It is up to the people to insist that our representives will listen and act.
Albert Frevele| 3.11.10 @ 10:52AM
Every point in this comment is dead on. Couldn't have said it better myself.
CHRIS PEDERSEN| 3.11.10 @ 8:51PM
HERE HERE ALONG WITH THE REPEAL OF THE 16TH AMENDMENT THE ABOLISHMENT OF THE I. R. S.
PASS THE FAIR TAX PLAN TRANSFERING THE MONATARY "POWER" BACK TO "WE THE PEOPLE"
Randall Pursley| 3.11.10 @ 12:26PM
My idea is not term limits as such, but instead, individuals are not allowed to hold consecutive terms of national office. If you are a member of Congress, you must sit out a term before you can run again for either the House or Senate. In addition, while holding office a member of Congress would be banned from getting any campaign contributions.
My final requirement would be that anyone running for Congress must have held a job in the state they want to represent for at least a year.
CHRIS PEDERSEN| 3.11.10 @ 8:56PM
To halt any monatary support would be a violation of the First Amendment
Citizens United vs. FEC
U. S. Supreme Court Ruling Febuary 2010
Randall Pursley| 3.12.10 @ 11:43AM
They wouldn't be running for the next term, so why would they need to get campaign contributions. Once out of office, then they can collect whatever they want for the next office they decide to run for.
jlrlee| 3.11.10 @ 12:33PM
Nineteen states have voted for a constituional convention. Two amendments are being considered. One is non-deficit spending by congress and one is term limits. That is the easiest way to get term limits enacted. There is actually a good chance it will happen.
saleboter| 3.11.10 @ 12:52PM
Term limits will just further empower the beaurocracy.
Pingback| 3.11.10 @ 1:00PM
Can my spouse buy a house if I’m undergoing foreclosure or short-sale on a property a links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bram| 3.11.10 @ 2:28PM
I think the bureaucrats will find a fresh crowd of regular folks far harder to lead around than the old political whores there now.
Congress might be a little more reasonable if the members knew that within a few years, they would be living and working with the taxes and rules they pass.
Pingback| 3.11.10 @ 2:30PM
The American Spectator : U.S. House Cleaning links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.11.10 @ 3:38PM
Senator Complains That Senator-Only Elevator Getting Too Many Non-Senators | SenatorW links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
JimE| 3.11.10 @ 6:13PM
Mandatory severe jail terms wth no statute of limitiatons for politcal corruption.
Jason | 3.11.10 @ 8:07PM
the real problem is the entrenched bureaucracy in Washington. Term limits for the life sucking workers in Washington would be the best way to keep the enemies of our republic at bay.
Lu Dumak| 3.12.10 @ 12:11AM
The problem is with unelected bureaucrats that have been allowed to make laws. Read article 1 section 1 of the Constitution. Even if we have term limits,we will still have the EPA,IRS,USDA and too many more bureaucrats making laws. We need to enforce States Rights under the amendments. No mandates, no subsidies and no grants for starters.
darcy| 3.12.10 @ 5:02AM
I think the critical thing here, under the topic of a popular drive to impose some kind of term limiting, is our need to go on OFFENSE.
Our current plight -- federal government's insatiable drive for control of everything and turning a once free people into a land of serfs -- is a direct result of two things: our being asleep at the switch, and thus the need to always be on the defense.
This has got to stop. It's time to start TELLING them what to do, and I mean personally. We have to start limiting their freedom, their salaries, their pensions -- we have to keep them busy fending us off rather than this despotic situation we have today where we don't have a moment's rest from the relentless assault these MASTERS of ours are wreaking on our liberty.
They are going to know they SERVE us or they will suffer the consequences. I like some of the ideas presented here, having to do with the 10th and 17th Amendments, for example.
But for starters, the despots in D.C. will feel our wrath in November. And what with the way the democrats in congress and the WH are poised to employ trickery and force to pass an UNWANTED bill, well, let me just say that hell hath no fury as a nation scorned!
Pingback| 3.12.10 @ 7:17AM
Why would any Republican want to attend Obama’s Health Care dog and pony show? | Dog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Darrel| 3.12.10 @ 12:19PM
Term limits would be great, but who would impose them? Congress is not true to any bond, so how could we expect them to be true to bonded term limits. They don't even honor their bond to uphold and defend the Constitution. This is all wishful thinking, plain and simple. It ain't gonna happen!
Pingback| 3.12.10 @ 2:24PM
Democratic candidates distance themselves from healthcare re | SenatorWatch.info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Rich Rostrom| 3.12.10 @ 10:03PM
To anyone who thinks term limits benefit lobbyists:
The stock in trade of a professional lobbyist is his knowledge of and influence on the members of the legislature. Lobbyists spend years cultivating friendly acquaintance with legislators, schmoozing, wining and dining, learning what buttons to push on each one. The longer the legislator is in office, the more thoroughly he is "domesticated".
Lobbyists hate having to deal with newcomers whose loyalty to their personal principles outweighs their interest in "fitting in" and "getting things done".
Oldefarte| 3.13.10 @ 3:17PM
Term limits [as declared] would be next to imossible to enact [and could THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER]; and the most viable solution is for American taxpayer-voters to remain engaged and simply accompolish selective term limitation by defeating liberals and electing conservatives that pledge to perform the peoples' business and to reduce governmental expenses!!!!
wyn| 3.13.10 @ 8:50PM
I would prefer that national representatives be paid out of state coffers rather than the federal treasury. When the rep starts talking down to constituents, said constituents can yank his chain.
idaho falls house cleaning | 4.26.10 @ 5:20AM
Where can I hire a good maid in Los Angeles? Please help me
watches | 4.28.10 @ 11:54PM
hublot
Sparkle Cleaning | 6.17.10 @ 4:53AM
Nice!
Cleaning service | 1.4.11 @ 7:25AM
“There is no Democratic or Republican way of cleaning the streets.” Fiorello LaGuardia
John | 3.20.12 @ 11:20AM
I agree that the best way to fix all of this is to educate the voting base on the issues. This is hard though because more people are interested in the Jersey Shore then in current events.
Idaho Falls Carpet Cleaning | 3.20.12 @ 11:22AM
It is a very rough situation. But that's politics for ya.
House GOP | 3.20.12 @ 11:34AM
The House has some stars today. Look at Paul Ryan's budget work. Great stuff.