By David N. Bass on 3.11.10 @ 6:07AM
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.
topics:
Election 2010, Term Limits
